75mm PaK, what to do?

[Erik Springelkamp]

I have played a couple of quick battles (1942 Russia, 1944 Italy) as German Infantry defender, where I buy a few 75mm PaK in a trench.

They are commonly available (even -5% rarity in 1944 Italy) but incredibly powerfull.

Just yesterday I played a game against New Zealand Infantry with Shermans, and the if the Shermans show themselves they are dead.

Yet, in a trench, the guns are really hard to beat. Mortars have a hard time to kill them.

How would a New Zealand (or other western Ally) handle a defence with a few of those entrenched guns in order to use their tanks? How did they do it historically?

[Sergei]

Any well prepared defence position can be overcome by a well prepared attack. But don't expect to be seeing anything historical in a quick battle...

[Erik Springelkamp]

This last battle was with a map that was a cut from the beautifull KingFish Tuscany Villas map, because we wanted to get a feeling of the forces and terrain before investing in this very large scenario.

Small Villas of Tuscany

It was between two humans, 800 pts, I choose only regular available stuf (a regular infantry company with 2 HMG's, 3 onboard 81mm mortars, 1 StuGIII, 2 75mm PaK, 4 trenches, a panzershreck and a LMG as listening post).

I hope that is not an unreal force, but something to be expected there and then.

My opponent could buy from the New Zealand Infantry pool and had to attack the villa.

I just wonder how you can bring in Shermans into this scenario. What support weapon would you use to deal with the entrenched guns?

[Other Means]

3 inch mortars do the trick quite nicely, then a Vickers firing on the trench to maintain pin. Even a Sherman firing close from out of LOS, although it's tricky to find the right place.

But the best thing for units in trenches is VT arty. Expensive - but worth it.

[Erik Springelkamp]

So the drill is would be: loose a Sherman to spot the gun - or use a lighter tank for this purpose, destroy it with artillery (onboard or offboard), untill the guns are done with, then advance with the remaining armour as support for your infantery?

Is 30 turns too tight for this scenario to work this out? What would be a better length?

[Other Means]

You want to have your overwatch in LOS of wherever the guns will be so they can open up within the same minute as the gun is seen. That way you hopefully don't lose a tank.

I'd say give it 50 turns or more, it looks a big map.

[Erik Springelkamp]

The map is tiny compared to the original

It's 800 meter from the allied setup to the Villa, but I think indeed 30+ turns was too tight.

(Although yesterday's game was over in 12 turns, for lack of attackers)

[birdstrike]

I guess, mortars would do the trick for me. Even the US 60mm are VERY effective vs. entrenched guns and they come in devcent numbers with every company. IMHO artillery is too slow and way too expensive for the allies to be used solely to knock out guns. The only problem is that the 2in are lacking ammo, so I second the suggestion to use 1-2 3in mortars (maybe in combination with a universal carrier).

For spotting AT guns, scouting with infantry is probably best, but you'd need definitely around 50 turns. Otherwise I'd use disposable scout-cars or maybe a Churchill - front armor could well survive a hit from a 75mm.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Seems I offered my opponent a too hard task to perform. There are no good overwatch positions from the start-area, so the heavy weapons have to walk forward first.

After the scouting infantery.

And then they have to hope that they are not spotted on the move and be bombed in their deployment place by the German mortars that are lurking somewhere. Like I was able to do as German just when the NZ-ers started launching their attack.

My opponent is getting frustrated. Does anybody have a suggestion for a scenario where an inexperienced attacker has a decent chance against a little bit less inexperienced defender?

A small to medium one?

[Other Means]

A really fun scenario for the British player is Argenta Gap. Be aware - that page has a review by me which contains spoilers.

It's small to medium in map size, but large in unit count. It's also action from turn 1, more or less.

I played as British and would have had a hard time losing. It also has all the nice units you want to use as a CW player - I won't spoil it for you.

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by Other Means:

But the best thing for units in trenches is VT arty. Expensive - but worth it.

intresting thread,

was just wondering though, what does VT stand for?

[Sergei]

Variable timer, or sumfink. Gives airbursts.

[JasonC]

3 inch mortars are the main weapon against defending PAK.

Artillery can also be used in desert. It isn't all that effective directly but the dust will obliterate LOS. Historically, direct fire from tanks (once they had models with HE i.e. better than 2 pdrs) supplimented the blinding effect of indirect artillery.

Another trick in CM is to blind the PAK temporarily with smoke from the little 2 inch mortars, while bringing up an observor for the better 3 inches. Carriers are the perfect means of repositioning the 3 inch mortars themselves, staying in dead ground wherever possible and moving fast between. The nearest HQ crawls to LOS with the PAK while the 3 inch sets up in dead ground behind it, as soon as the carrier arrives.

MGs can maintain pins achieved by the mortars. But 3 inch have very deep ammo loads as well.

As for finding them initially, infantry should scout ahead, to deal with things like schrecks, less than full PAK, and to spot bunkers and defending AFVs. They can threaten guns deployed too far forward, as well. But guns strong enough to kill at long range can take "back" positions, so infantry is unlikely to force them to fire prematurely, out of fear of overrun. (That works for schrecks and 50mm PAK, though).

To deal with AT mines, you can send a single light armor vehicle ahead of real tanks if you like. But the enemy is unlikely to show a full PAK for one. It can still force him to shorten arcs to avoid doing so, which reduces his firing options against the real tanks following.

Tanks that can withstand 75mm fire from the front do exist. The Churchill does it easily, and the US Jumbo. The W armor Shermans are vulnerable to turret hits, but the hull will bounce 75mm rounds beyond about 800m. On most CM maps that is still quite far.

The PAK face a trade off over the width of their LOS. If they set up in locations that can see much of the map, they are pretty much guaranteed a tank to shoot at, and will usually get a kill. But they will be in LOS of replying mortars quickly, so the first minute of fire is generally all they will get. Tanks will scoot out of LOS afterward, mortars will set up, and the PAK will be taken out in turn.

If on the other hand PAK set up in positions hard for overwatch weapons to see, that also means there are regions of dead ground through which attacking tanks (and mortar-loaded carriers) can advance safely. From some of which they will get LOS to infantry defenders, able to deliver effective fire without showing themselves to the PAK. A given PAK may never get a target, or only get one late after much of its ammo is expended or the rest of the fight largely resolved.

PAK that do get shots from restricted LOS are much harder to kill, because it is more difficult to reposition mortars to take them out. The areas they cover may be covered by other weapons as well, or otherwise hard to reach for infantry (open ground on a rise e.g.). But they can frequently be avoided instead.

To attack with tanks against an enemy with good positions for hidden PAK, you have to use LOS-blocking cover for the tanks, and look for locations that can shoot at the foremost enemy units without giving LOS to the whole depth of the enemy position. Peaking out from behind buildings, gradually circling a hill while remaining below its crest-line, or peaking out diagonally between two bodies of woods, are common uses of cover by armor.

If instead you advance boldly in the open, you are almost certain to lose a tank for every PAK you find, at a minimum. Even if you have 3 inch mortars available and use them properly to remove the PAK once seen.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Other Means:

But the best thing for units in trenches is VT arty. Expensive - but worth it.

intresting thread,

was just wondering though, what does VT stand for? </font>

[Erik Springelkamp]

Well, I fought this scenario again, this time with the New Zealanders against the AI, buying the OOB for the AI, but lengthened it to 50 turns.

I only managed a minor victory in turn 49, but the AI wasted it's AT-guns and mortars in the backyard, and they never fired a shot. Why would it do such a stupid thing?

The StuGIII was beaten by the three Shermans together at long range, at the price of one Sherman.

Still, the threat of the AT-guns kept me holding my tanks back until my heavy weapons had walked for over half of the scenario time - should have bought a carrier there(?), so I probably would have won easier forgetting about the armour at all. (although the StuGIII would have caused trouble, but with a company of extra soldiers??)

Well, that's the scissor, paper, stone dilemma when buying your own troops I guess.

[JasonC]

US 60mm mortars are medium speed and easily keep up with advancing infantry. No problem.

Russian 50mm mortars don't really hit hard enough individually, but pairs of them firing at the same target can pin a gun (though they will rarely break the crew or force abandonment). They also have medium speed and keep up easily. They can also fit on the back of tanks, being transport class 2.

German 81mm and Russian 82mm mortars hit hard enough to break guns, needing only a minute typically or sometimes 2 minutes for targets in trenches. They have slow speed on foot, which means about 50m per minute. This is somewhat slower than is desirable, but is liveable for groups maneuvering in dead ground and only needing LOS, not close range. Halftracks can help reposition these more rapidly, particularly the German ones (the Russians have a 7th man which makes them full squads from transport purposes).

British 2 inch are fast speed but do not hit hard enough to KO guns, though they can help blind them temporarily with their smoke rounds.

The British 3 inch, on the other hand, is very slow speed, like a towed gun rather than an infantry heavy weapons team. This largely reflects the huge ammo load rather than the mortar itself, which was an maneuverable as the German or Russian 81-82s. In CM, this makes them far too slow to support an advance in which they need to pass the start line to get LOS, unless they have transport. Their low crew size and reasonable transport class let them fit in the universal carrier. That is the SOP way to use them.

One carrier can help reposition 2 mortars in sequence, in a pinch. But better is to take a carrier per mortar, and use the ones not currently repositioning mortars to drive other useful teams around - foot MMGs, radio FOs, PIATs or FTs brought close to the point they will be used from via the backside of cover, etc.

So, in the terrain you had, the right thing would be to have 2 universal carriers and 2 3 inch mortars, or 3 and 3 even. If you get one less Sherman as a result, so be it. The others will live longer and accomplish more. And the mortars will help break MG positions and the like, in addition to PAK. The carriers will help key teams reposition. Etc.

[Kingfish]

Hey, that's one gorgeous looking map

Almost looks like the one I'm working on now, only it's a little more towards the NE.

BTW, I noticed in your screenshot that you have the olive grove to the left of Villa Bonazza well defended. In my own playtest that became a hornet's nest, requiring two companies of Kiwis and 5 tanks to root out the Fallschirmjagers in there. Mucho fun!

[JasonC]

That map has an obvious route of approach incidentally. As shown, up the left edge. Get into that tree line one field away from the large area of full woods. Arty on them, then advance echeloned from the left right into them. Then a left face as you clear them. Come at the central villa up the continuous tree axis of the orchard to its left, using the cleared full forest as your base of operations and of fire.

The point being, the big patch of woods will prevent other defenders from helping the immediate defenders of the woods themselves. Those can be overpowered by simple firepower, driven into the depths. Then enough infantry enters to overwhelm anybody there, on equal terms. Once in it, you have all the cover you'll need, nice routes with cover, options to extend deeper, etc.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Erik Springelkamp:

...I choose only regular available stuf (a regular infantry company with 2 HMG's, 3 onboard 81mm mortars, 1 StuGIII, 2 75mm PaK, 4 trenches, a panzershreck and a LMG as listening post).

I hope that is not an unreal force, but something to be expected there and then.

I admit that it still bothers me a bit when people purchase single armored units for battles. Not that it never happened in the real thing, but not as commonly as gamers seem do it. Armor commanders realized that single vehicles were usually dead before they could effect the battle. It was the massed fires of tanks, etc that gave them their great power.

A single AT gun against a single tank will usually win the duel (if it has the necessary penetration power) because it usually gets the first shot and can silence the tank before the latter is able to respond effectively. But a single AT gun against 4 or 5 tanks is another story. It might get one or two, but unless the tanks are incompetent, after the first one or two, it's living on borrowed time.

Michael

[John Kettler]

VT stands for variable time, and it was a cover name intended to make people who encountered it

think that it merely referred to some sort of improved mechanical time (MT) or clockwork fuze, rather than the revolutionary radar proximity fuze which airburst the shell or rocket warhead over the ground after first sensing it via a miniaturized active radar in the nose.

Mortars are definitely the way to go in battling both IGs and ATGs, and while I have killed the odd gun with the British 2 inch, the U.S. 60mm mortar

is downright deadly, and not just to guns, either. Woe betide the open top vehicle which comes under accurate fire. Two or more 60s make for a serious threat to all sorts of targets, and in the Pacific in deep jungle where conditions were terrible for conventional artillery, massed 60s under FO control did what conventional artillery couldn't and with phenomenal response times. Have scarcely used the German and Russian 50s, so won't comment on them.

Dueling theory shows that the first firer generally wins, on top of which the ATG generally has a rate of fire advantage, thanks to less cramped conditions in which to work the gun, against an AFV with a gun of equivalent caliber.

And that's not all, for the game treats the ATG or IG as being camouflaged until it fires, and its profile, particularly when dug in or entrenched, is very small, making it hard to spot. The major exception to this is the huge sIG 33 15cm howitzer. And to all this an HQ's Stealth bonus can be applied, if available. Of course, once the ATG or IG fires (and German smokeless, flashless propellant's not modeled) the dread Borg spotting kicks in.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Erik Springelkamp at work]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Erik Springelkamp:

...I choose only regular available stuf (a regular infantry company with 2 HMG's, 3 onboard 81mm mortars, 1 StuGIII, 2 75mm PaK, 4 trenches, a panzershreck and a LMG as listening post).

I hope that is not an unreal force, but something to be expected there and then.

I admit that it still bothers me a bit when people purchase single armored units for battles.

Michael </font>

[Erik Springelkamp]

Originally posted by JasonC:

That map has an obvious route of approach incidentally. As shown, up the left edge. Get into that tree line one field away from the large area of full woods. Arty on them, then advance echeloned from the left right into them.

That was more or less the approach my opponent took, but when he assembled in the treeline, my 3 81mm mortars took out a lot of the attackers immediately.

And there was still some flanking fire from my center HMG and PaK.

After that the attack should have been executed more carefully then it was, and in the end my platoon in the woods defeated the remainder of the attacking company.

However, if he would have used artillery on the wood, he would have succeeded.

In this approach there isn't much use for tanks I think. Better to use an extra company of infantery.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Erik Springelkamp at work:

...I thought the StuG was especially designed for infantry support...

Originally it was. Originally it was equiped with the L/24 gun. Later on, it got the longer, higher-velocity gun and began to see use as a tank destroyer as well.

...and was mostly used in individual support roles. That's why I choose a single StuG (and that's why they are cheaply available in Infantry OOB I guess)

Well, they were organized in six vehicle batteries and were supposed to be committed as such. Naturally, doctrine goes out the door when casualties and/or the tactical situation compel. That's why I acknowledged that sometimes single machines were sometimes seen. But the preference would have been to try to keep them grouped in at least pairs or larger.

And if they are so cheap, why not buy more?

Michael

[JasonC]

For most of the war you would see StuGs in 2s and 3s, not alone. 3 vehicles standard, one of them occasionally a StuH. But not all running all the time.

On the route I proposed, a full company shouldn't worry about 3 81mm mortars on map. Just ride it out and wait for rally. Yes you can break a platoon or so that way, but only for about 5 minutes.

As for flanking fire from MGs and PAK in the center, the angle around the woods is so narrow from the forward center positions, a little smoke at the time of the attack can easily cut off the left side wood from any remaining help from the center. Just aim a little shy of the nearest part of the woods, extending the LOS block 60-80m or so out into the open field.

On the force actually sent into the woods, it should be an infantry company as a matter of course. A company is the smallest infantry formation capable of real offensive moves. It is resilent enough and has the heavy weapons support resources etc. Lone platoons are only for defense or scouting.

And of course they should enter a large body of cover like that, after a barrage, not untouched. The precise move order would be (1) barrage, (2) first platoon enters the woods staying at the edge while the rest overwatch, (3) remainder of the company crosses while the first moves forward only enough to make room for them, then (4) all advance through the wood together.