The archer, is it useful?

[JonS]

The Archer replaced (some) towed 17-pr in Div A-Tk regts. SP >> Towed. It served on until the 1950s, but not - AFAICT - in the Med.

[MikeyD]

One problem with Archer was that is wasn't as nimble in practice as in theory. Having to back into position was a real pain and limited deployment options, and the driver having to exit the vehicle and go hide somewhere was a MAJOR flaw. Imagine if that was modeled in the game!

We may have dueling references on the Archer. But I do recall reading somewhere - a looong time ago - about Archers being pulled from at least some units in N.W. Europe after a very brief inglorious career in favor of towed guns, to the great relief of the users. The towed 17 pdr was much much MUCH preferable.

[Hans]

Archers

The Egyptians used them and I knew an Egyptian who was a crewman on one in the 1956 Arab-Israeli war. His experience is part of the scenario, Small Battles, Block at El-Arish 1956.

[Philippe]

For some reason I'm not surprised that the CMBO Archer is too easy to use. Is the CMAK Archer more cumbersome? Sounds like there should be an extra time delay to go from firing mode to moving mode while the driver clambers back into the vehicle -- and finds his seat clouded with cordite fumes.

[dieseltaylor]

Archer tanks pics and details and opinion : )

[dieseltaylor]

You can re-read some of the opinions, and an entire thread here Battlefront CMBO

[junk2drive]

"The Egyptians used them and I knew an Egyptian who was a crewman on one in the 1956 Arab-Israeli war. His experience is part of the scenario, Small Battles, Block at El-Arish 1956. "

Play it as Axis and see what the AI does with them.

[...................................]

Speaking of duelling references MikeyD, Ian Hogg also has different opinions in 'Tank Hunters'. He describes them as reliable, manoeuverable, easy to hide, and as doing just as must execution as M10s and M36s.

One anti-tank officer said 'We were given the Archer before D-Day...the idea was that 6-pounders and Archers formed the front line anti-tank defence, and the 17-pounders, which took half a day to dig into a good defensive position, acted as the backstop for anything that got past the front line...the Archer was nippy and easy to hide...one shot generally did the business, two if need be and then it was time to get out of it...'

[Andreas]

I refuse to believe for a second that a towed gun is preferable to any version of that same gun on a motorised and armoured SP mount.

The Germans mounted the Pak 40 on the unarmoured RSO. If the Archer is considered bad, imagine what the unarmoured and open-decked RSO was like. Then imagine the comments on that one if it was in CMBB... They also had the 88mm on 18t FAMO HTs in 1940 and 1941, and they did good business. What about the Marder variants? Or the PAK 40 on HT mount? Or whatever weird and wonderful contraption they did come up with...

Remember that in Real Life™, the German opponents of the Archer did not have Borg Spotting. Backing into any position with a vehicle is not a problem, given sufficient training.

I find the comments in Hogg quite believable.

[flamingknives]

Don't forget the CW ATGs en portee.

[Andreas]

[shudder]quite[/shudder]

Haven't played in ages, and a benevolent mind made me forget all about them...

[junk2drive]

http://www.chars-francais.net/

Lorraine with 47mm ATG, no armour for the gun crew that I can see.

[...................................]

Mainly posting because I think that model is too damn cute.

Googling a few websites leaves an overwhelmingly favourable impression of the Archer. Even the Egyptians and Jordanians who used it against Israel in 1956 liked it.

All say the same, that the low silhouette was a major asset. Unfortunately we don't get to see this aspect in CM, hiding AFVs is a lost cause.

Because it served on for so long after the war my guess FWIW is that it was probably a decent piece of kit.

PS. That's an impressive 47mm gun J2D

[Buq-Buq]

I have enjoyed the comments about the Archer in this thread, especially with regard to the Egyptian use of the vehicle in the '56 War. As I recall, the Israelis regarded the Archers as the most threatening piece of equipment that the Egyptians fielded at Abu Ageila.

JonS:

I saw your incredulous response to the realization that there were Archers in CMAK -- and of course, I decided that your next thought was "Damn! I'd best check to see if they made the same mistake with Challengers, too!" Alas, if there are Challengers, I haven't found them.

I DID, however, remember seeing an article on SP, 17-pdr,, M10 (aka Achilles IIC) vehicles in the M.T.O. that mentioned Archers. I dug through some old copies of AFV News, and sure enough, in an article by Dick Harley (Vol. 28, No. 1: Jan-Apr. 1993) Archers do crop up. In speaking about the 105th Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery (a British Corps-level anti-tank regiment, assigned to 13 Corps in Italy), Mr. Harley states:

"The 105th received its first SP 17-pdrs in October 1944, but these were Valentine Archers, 5 of them, which replaced 4 of the M10s . . . By December it had 4 towed 6-pdr, 8 x towed 17-pdrs, 24 x 3" M10s, 12 Archers, 9 x Stuarts and 8 x portees to carry the 6-pdrs."

In the notes for the table (TABLE 5: M10 equipped British & Allied Anti-Tank Regiments in Italy), Mr. Harley comments about Archers as well:

"For the record, Archers were issued to the 93rd, 105th, and 7th Polish Anti-Tank Regiments, but as far as I know none were issued to the other units [listed on the Table] during 1944 at least. Further information on the use of Archers in Italy would be welcome. In spite of an exhaustive search, I could find no IWM [imperial War Museum] photos of Archers during the Italian Campaign."

It is interesting that even a researcher of Mr. Harley's caliber is hard-pressed to find information on Archers in the M.T.O.

As for whether the troops liked them or not, only this was mentioned, regarding their use by the 93rd Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery (again a Corps-level anti-tank regiment, assigned to 5 Corps):

"The first SP 17-pdrs received by the 93rd were a number of Archers. On 2nd Sept. 1944 the diarist recorded that 151 Battery was to have 4 Valentine 17-pdrs . . . which were issued to H Troop . . . The Archers do not seem to have been a success, for on Sept. 22 the CCRA (Commander, Corps Royal Artillery) informed the 93rd's CO that his Regiment would be getting eight '17-pdr Shermans' to replace four 'Valentines' and 'four captured Mark IV Specials*'"

I have played with Archers in CMAK a couple times, and I would agree that they do take some getting used to. Overall, I would agree with the assessments that place the Archer into the 'deadly if used properly' category. Most Allied armor in 1944-45 isn't going to be able to stand up to a Panther's 75mm (or even a 75mm L/48 on a PzKpfw IV or a StuG IIIG, for that matter) -- so the question of armor thickness is relatively moot. Most of the Western tank destroyers had no overhead protection, so the Archer doesn't suffer any more than the M10 in this respect, either. It has no secondary armament, but then again, neither does a 17-pdr AT Gun (or an SU-100 for that matter). Mobility? Well, it certainly is not a Hellcat, but in most situations it is probably easier to more around the battlefield than a towed 17-pdr. Now, that backwards-facing gun is a pain, but perhaps this isn't such a bad thing, if you change the way that you look at things:

". . . it had the advantage that the vehicle was pointed in the right direction for a quick getaway if anything went wrong. It also had the advantage that the crew were not tempted to pretend that they were a tank and try their luck in a moving battle, a temptation which was the downfall of many of the more conventional-looking tank destroyers." ("Armor in Conflict", by Ian V. Hogg)

I kind of like that last sentence; I think that it could account for the experiences that we see surfacing in this thread. Perhaps those with sour memories of Archers in action could benefit from this sage advice?

What we really need is a scenario or two using the Archer, so that we can all get into practice. I remember a scenario that I traded out some turreted TDs for Archers -- CMF The Cats, I think it was, and I had great fun trying to learn how to use them. I lost a couple Archers, but they gave more than they got.

Mark

* In an interesting comment on the use of unauthorized material, Mr. Harley goes on about the Mark IV Specials mentioned above:

"Strangely I could find no earlier reference to these captured PzKpfw IV tanks during the first half of 1944, but they are a perfect example of what some units would do to boost their firepower. Of course, captured tanks were not meant to be on the order of battle of a Corps anti-tank regiment, but this was Italy and all sorts of liberties were taken in the M.T.O., which would seldom have been allowed in 21st Army Group. For example, a battery of five 20mm Flakvierling 38s towed by Quads was not a normal thing for an armoured car regiment to have - but the King's Dragoon Guards did!"

[Guest Mike]

The Archers do not seem to have been a success, for on Sept. 22 the CCRA (Commander, Corps Royal Artillery) informed the 93rd's CO that his Regiment would be getting eight '17-pdr Shermans' to replace four 'Valentines' and 'four captured Mark IV Specials*'"

I don't see that this is a measure of lack of success of hte Archer - a Firefly (17 pdr Sherman) is certainly a better piece of equipment for most purposes, and it doesn't really say anythign about the Archer that the unit was upgraded IMO.

[JonS]

Thanks for that Mark, interesting information. All I can say is that BFCs choice of units to include and exclude in CMAK is ... quirky. For example:

Archer - yes

105mm Priest - no

Nope, can't see the logic there, sorry.

Regards

JonS

[Buq-Buq]

JonS:

CMAKdb shows M7 Priest (105mm) available as of July 1942 (??? huh? I thought they were first used at 2nd Alamein). I'm not looking at the game. I imagine that they were withdrawn from British use in 1944 -- at least they were in NWE -- and replaced by Sextons. Perhaps that is not the case in the MTO.

Mark

[JonS]

Ahahahaha - it's quirkier than I thought then. The M7 105mm is indeed available as 'armor' from July '42 until June '44. But it is never (AFAICT) available as an FO. Anyone care to rationalise that gem?

Tru Fax: used in NWE during June and July '44 (which is admittedly irrelevant to CMAK). In the MTO it was used continuously from Sept/Oct '42 through till April '45.

BTW - and Buq-Buq gets this - I'm talking about UK usage, following on from the discussion of the Archer. Not US.

[Andreas]

Great post buq-buq.

[CombinedArms]

Renaud's post on a recent thread about "How to use the Marder" is pretty apt for the Archer as well. For most of these suggestions, just substitute "Archer" where it readers "marder."

1. Never move the marder into view of enemy units.

2. Move the marder into a hidden stationary position and engage enemy units as they move into view. This is typically behind a building or on one side of and slightly behind a hill. Set a armor cover arc so you will stay pointed the correct direction.

3. Cause the enemy vehicles to button before they move into view of the marder (typically with a sprinking of arty or long range MG fire). This will allow you to get 1 or 2 shots in before they spot you, assuming no other units have already spotted your marder.

4. Pin down infantry units so they won't move up and spot your marder. You want his buttoned armor to stumble into your line of fire first.

5. Post plenty of concealed infantry with good FOV so they can ID enemy units long before they move into view of your marder.

6. Keep the marder away from trees as this will allow even light mortars to knock out the open-topped vehicle with tree bursts.

7. Do not allow small arms fire to come from above, like a nearby tall hill or 2-storey building. This can knock out the marder due to the open top. Avoid getting within handgrenade range of any infantry.

8. Marders and other light tank hunters will often back away from superior vehicles. Make sure you position your marder so that the tacAI logic will not back you onto the top of a hill or other suicidal position. This requires experience with the way tacAI behaves.

I think if any thing the Archer is a somewhat superior vehicle to the Marder--it does have a more effective gun than the Marder, and the 17pounder's killing power is in shorter supply for the Allies than the Marder's 75mm is for the Axis.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Buq-Buq:

Most Allied armor in 1944-45 isn't going to be able to stand up to a Panther's 75mm (or even a 75mm L/48 on a PzKpfw IV or a StuG IIIG, for that matter) -- so the question of armor thickness is relatively moot.

Not true. A M10 in HD pos will bounce 75L48 shots from around 600-700 m. As the 75L48 cannon (in form of the Stug) is the most numerous armoured enemy you will find, I think its safe to say its not a "relativly moot" point.

[Buq-Buq]

Panzer 76:

Whoa! I almost choked on my morning muffin when I read your post. Perhaps I've been playing with the wrong vehicles, and need to use M10s WAY more often!

When I did the math, it didn't work that way for me. Maybe I've got this wrong, so follow along and correct me where I falter:

M10 GMC turret front (Mantlet): 2.25 inches @ 45 degrees (from Hunnicutt's "Sherman")

2.25 inches x 25.4mm/inch = about 57mm

58mm @ 45 degrees = about 81mm (57mm divided by inverse cosine of 45 degrees or .7071)

So, at 0 degrees obliquity, the M10 GMC has about 81mm of armor protection on its turret front. CMAK gives a penetration of 116mm @ 0 degrees obliquity at 1000 meters for the German 75mm L/48 gun. That's a considerable overmatch. I understand that individual results may vary, but I still don't have the same confidence that you do in the M10.

Have I missed something? What am I not seeing?

Mark

[Seanachai]

Bugger! He used the words 'cosign', and 'obliquity' in a post!

Some one hold my coat! I'm gonna give him a good kicking!

Ohmigod! His profile says he's from Minneapolis! I'm gonna gather up Lars and Dalem, and we're going to find the bugger, and give him a seeing to!

I can't be having with this Rexfording! If we let this go on, where will it end?!

Next, it'll be 'mantlet armour' and 'bren tripods'!

Is that the sort of site we want?!

[Buq-Buq]

Oh bloody hell!

I've been outed!

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Buq-Buq:

Oh bloody hell!

I've been outed!

You can run, but you can't hide, Grog Boy!