Anti tank Guns.Why bother?

[Boff]

Mark Twain had it covered; quite witty for a colonial..

A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

[roqf77]

ah ha mrpwase, it was originaly posted by me! not flaming knives. get it right!

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by mrpwase:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:

"you ingrates!"

Tut tut. 'Ungrates', not ingrates. Ingrateful is not a word. </font>

[Soddball]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mrpwase:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:

"you ingrates!"

Tut tut. 'Ungrates', not ingrates. Ingrateful is not a word. </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Soddball:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by juan_gigante:

But Michael, Stonehenge wouldn't be nearly as cool if it were spelled Stounehenge.

I think everyone needs to realize that Esperanto is the language of the future. Rokenrolo!

Bonvulu aslendi la pordiston? Estis rano en mia bideo. </font>

[flamingknives]

The wonders of a German-English dictionary.

"My inflatable boat is full of eels"?

Keep your spare-time antics to yourself Mr. Biermann.

[throwdjohn]

Back to the topic of AT guns, I recently played a little QB in NA, July 42, I'm the limeys, AI is the snausage eaters, I'm infantry only, AI, is armor. I went to view level 1 to place my 2 pdrs, 2 in a position, and put them hull down. Well at least it seems like its hull down, just with no hull. Anyways, I lost 2 2 pdrs out of 6, and 0 6 pdrs out of 2. I almost shat myself, I'd never had guns last for more than a turn before, and here most of mine lasted 25. So try going hull down on your guns, with a sort of berm or rise right in front of the gun. Works wonders. And we all know Americans invented English....at least that's what they told me in my education system, ranked 47th in the US....god it's pathetic

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by throwdjohn:

AI is the snausage eaters...

Is that some breed of dog? I knew the Germans committed atrocities, but eating dogs is just over the top!

Michael

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The wonders of a German-English dictionary.

"My inflatable boat is full of eels"?

Sounds good to me. Who's got the bottle of balsamic vinegar and the poster of the young Drew Barrymore?

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by throwdjohn:

And we all know Americans invented English....at least that's what they told me in my education system, ranked 47th in the US....god it's pathetic

In the 1920s, while barring the teaching of foreign languages, Texas governor Miriam "Ma" Ferguson picked up a Bible and famously declared, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for Texas."

I could go on about 'the blood', but I won't...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The wonders of a German-English dictionary.

"My inflatable boat is full of eels"?

Keep your spare-time antics to yourself Mr. Biermann.

Hovercraft - I'd toss that dictionary if I were you. But you are an engineer, so no need for language beyond a few grunts anyway.

I like AT guns. Have good success with them too. Ask Mattias.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by throwdjohn:

Back to the topic of AT guns, I recently played a little QB in NA, July 42, I'm the limeys, AI is the snausage eaters, I'm infantry only, AI, is armor. I went to view level 1 to place my 2 pdrs, 2 in a position, and put them hull down. Well at least it seems like its hull down, just with no hull. Anyways, I lost 2 2 pdrs out of 6, and 0 6 pdrs out of 2. I almost shat myself, I'd never had guns last for more than a turn before, and here most of mine lasted 25. So try going hull down on your guns, with a sort of berm or rise right in front of the gun. Works wonders.

Yeah I believe it, ATGs against AI tank forces are bloody devestaiting, the AI is no good at dealing with hiden ATGs. I find it easy to ambush with them. The AI has a tendancy to advance tanks forwards on their own without support or cover and lacks an effective technique of using combined arms or rational reasoning for that matter! IMO hiding ATGs positioned in cover or concealed on the creast line (hull down) give you the destinct advantage over AFVs. In my experience they KO the armour mostly without giving them enough time to effectively fire HE back at them. That I put down to the spotting prolems armour have against such deployments of ATGs. The only trick to it is to have enough guns properly positioned so as to dominate the AT fire fight with co-ordinated crossfire/combined arks of fire from several guns. Consentraition of fire is the key, while waiting for the armour to approach to within good range is the pre-requisite, then just let lose with AP. I have found it is not uncommon to have all ATGs servive after taking out dozens of AFVs so much so that I give them extra HE rounds when I edit because that way they are able to contribute against enemy Infantry, as apposed to just sitting their like a lame duck doing nothing while over stocked with unneeded AP rounds. After playing CM I respect ATGs and their RL crews as much as some Panzer Aces said they did! For sure quite the unexpexted shock. :eek:

[ August 02, 2005, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:

The wonders of a German-English dictionary.

"My inflatable boat is full of eels"?

Keep your spare-time antics to yourself Mr. Biermann.

Hovercraft - I'd toss that dictionary if I were you. But you are an engineer, so no need for language beyond a few grunts anyway.

</font>

[roqf77]

yeah. even late war the 6 pdr is a good one to use. small and easy to hide. knocked out pleny of tigers n panther with flank shots

[flamingknives]

Ah yes. Back on topic, the 6pdr is a fantastic infantry anti-tank gun. Cheap enough to take the heavies from the side and powerful enough to scrag mediums at long range if the enemy tries to swamp you. APDS means that even Tigers and Panthers are vulnerable from the front at close range.

Coupled with their small size and carriers, they are very mobile for an ATG.

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I like AT guns. Have good success with them too. Ask Mattias.

Funny you should say that. I was just going to write:

I like AT guns. Have good success with them too. Ask Andreas

Cheers;)

M.

[Andreas]

I'll try to forget all about that. So please don't remind me. But I think yours are toast now.

[juan_gigante]

I'd like to think about this from the other direction. Let's say that ATGs are holding uo my advance, I don't have any arty spotters or on-board mortars nearby, and the guns are supported by nearby enemy infantry. I've got a few tanks around. What would be the best way to take them out? HE from the tanks from just out of LOS? Pin the guns with long-range MG fire, then Shoot-And-Scoot with tanks?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

HE from the tanks from just out of LOS?

Yes, if you can work it. Trouble is, a cagey opponent (and the AI is surprisingly good at this too) will place his guns with interlocking fields of fire so that this is hard to do. Sometimes it's better just to call it a day and wait until you can get some arty.

If you are stuck in a real do-or-die situation, you can go after each gun with HE and eat the losses. But if you decide to do that, you ought to have at least three tanks shooting at each gun. More if they have small caliber guns.

Michael

[roqf77]

unless your goin at 75mm or 50 mm with uparmoured churchills. in one game one knocked out 3 75mm in one turn. although they did track it

[gautrek]

Well i must admit that some of what you guys have said has sunk in.

I am using a couple of 75 mm AT guns in my latest PBEM game.I had started aimlessly driving them about at the start while trying to decide where to stick them.But i decided to stick one behind a small rise to deny the area to my mate.It was a bit touch and go as to if his sudden mad tank rush would get it before it deployed.

(He is playing the Russians and he has much tank mounted infantry so his tactics makes sense.)

But no i have managed to deploy it and set up a cover arc as well.God i'm getting better at this game.I also have a few MG42's dotted about to provide support(this is more down the halftracks getting killed than my good placing),

The best bit is that a couple of T34's have just driven over the rise and i think i have managed to snot one of them,and the other one looks like it could be next.

So yes AT guns on attack can be good.

[gautrek]

Well after trying some of the things pointed out to me and my total lack of skill in using AT guns on the attack.

I present a screenie which i am slightly chuffed about.

This AT gun was placed slightly behind a hill as an area denial weapon.(The fact that i was rushed into putting it there due to my mates tank rush on the right hand side of the map doesn't come into it.)And he caught me halfway to where i was planning to place it.But it all worked out swimingly for me.Note the kills dotted on the hillside.

It did help that i had also placed 2 MG42's in close proximity to cover the hill side as well.So the combined MG and AT force worked out well.Note the evidence of a hard fought battle.

So take back all i said about AT guns.They are Brilliant on attack.

[Bigduke6]

I just had a funny AT gun incident. I spotted what is either an 88 or a 75 on a bald ridge about 1200 meters away, shortly after it smashed a Valentine. (I'm playing Soviets. Surprised?)

Ok, I order the Valentines to back the heck out of there, but this is going to take a little time, and the scenario gave me no mortars. So what to do about the bout the gun? Well, as it happened I had a couple of 57mm guns in wood patches, and one could bear on the 88, so I ordered it to fire on the 88.

The idea was I would supress the 88 or attract its attention, and so hopefully buy some time for my Valentines to get under cover. Better to lose a 57mm than a Valentine, was my logic.

What happens? The regular 57mm fires a short shot, a long shot, and then knocks out the 88, WHAM! cloud of smoke, and there's the crew running. The 88 never fired back, in spite of infantry and panzers closer set to nail me with borg spotting.

My reaction: "Well, that was easy."

I think the lesson here is that AT guns are darn difficult to pinpoint if they're in some kind of cover, and if they're out in the bald-faced open, they're going to get hurt.

And now off-topic, in Russian, it sounds like this: "Moya nadutaya lodka polna ugrov".

The traditional Russian fisherman response being, of course: Good for you, but do you have any vodka aboard? (Molodets, a vodka est'?)

[Zalgiris 1410]

gautrek that is a very nice screenshot in your post how did you do that? I've been trying to post screenshots for months but I still can't do it! O'h good result for your PAK 40 ATG, like the 'fire' evidence of a hard fought battle, very cool. :cool:

OTOH I'd like to offer you some advice though. Try not to rush your ATGs so far forwards, check out their fire penetration range abilities against likely enemy tanks and think about deploying them in a good firing position accordingly and purhaps try getting your guns in cover. In your screenshot your PAK 40 has only got concealment in the wheat field its only 'protection' must have been being on the reverse slope with MG escorts.

Bigduke6 I suspect that your 57mm ATG just had such a higher rate of fire that it could bag the 88mm before it managed to retarget reload and fire. I estimate that in the game an 88mm can fire 5 rounds a minute max, not totally sure about a 6 pdr / 57mm ATG but I guesstimate about 10-12 rounds per minute purhaps. I think that the figures could work out fine in your case. I'm assuming this is even without your 57mm over and under shells landing close enough to the 88mm to have had any supression effects on its crew.

[gautrek]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

gautrek that is a very nice screenshot in your post how did you do that? I've been trying to post screenshots for months but I still can't do it! O'h good result for your PAK 40 ATG, like the 'fire' evidence of a hard fought battle, very cool. :cool:

You need to post the image on a website and then remote link to it using the image button in the reply form.

I was actualy trying to set my AT gun up on the ridge shown in the screenshot but my mates tank rush stopped me bringing my cunning plan into action.

image hosting

Try here for a free image hosting site that others use on this forum

[ October 14, 2005, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: gautrek ]