How about your favorite gun for Allied forces?

[CombinedArms]

I'm thinking of any gun used for direct fire in the CM context: tank guns, AT guns and howitzers.

I'll rattle off my favorites in order, with brief explanations where needed.

1. British 17-pounder (tank and AT). A killer.

2. British 95mm tank howitzer. Great HE. Hollow charge is a very effective tank killer.

3. US 90mm. An excellent gun. Wish it were more widely available.

4. British 6 pounder. Cheap and effective when supplied with tungsten).

Disappointing but better than nothing is the:

6. US 76 mm (tank and AT). Better with tungsten. But you're often dead before the t round fires.

7. US 105mm (great for HE. Hollow charge no rival to the Brit 95 and the tanks that have them rarely seem to fire 'em.)

One problem that the Allies have is that their best guns rarely appear on tanks or TDs with good protection, with the exception of the rare and expensive Pershing (90mm) and the rare and not so expensive Churchill VIII (95mm)

[Redwolf]

Agreement to your descriptions. Keep in mind that the 17pdr does not have HE shells up to September.

I have to express my sore disappointment about the US 76mm which is a really crappy gun. It is not up to the tasks it was meant for. And that applies to both real world and CMBO. The US 75mm is a fine piece, relative to its purpose, one of my favourite guns.

And the 76mm would be even crappier if CMBO has the slope modifiers Rexford recommends for its tungsteen (HVAP, not discarding round). Also, am I jumping the gun here (hehe) or does the towed 76mm die more easily than other guns?

[gredeker]

While I'm a big fan of the HE abilities of the U.S. 75 and 105, I have a special place in my heart for the little 37mm on the Greyhound. Not only can you buy one relatively cheaply with non-armor points and get a vehicle which is MG-proof (and therefore excellent for taking out isolated MG bunkers), but it can also take out any light vehicle and many of the larger vehicles with a lucky shot - I recently had one take out a Tiger with a side shot. It also has a very high muzzle velocity (and therefore accuracy) and rate of fire.

[Slappy]

I have to second the Greyhound 37mm comment. By far the best bang for the buck. I have also found that the Daimler gun is in the same league. It is far less flexible due to a miserable HE loadout, but the AP will kill in the same general range.

[Bruce Robert]

I third the 37mm, especially on the M5A1(personal favorite for no particular reason). It's gun has a huge amount of ammo, fires quickly and accurately, and can be very useful if maneuvered carefully.

[Warmaker]

British 17-pdr. Not the measley US 76mm. The 17-pdr was good for infantry targets with a respectable blast value also. Plus, you find the 17-pdr on more unit types than the US 90mm. Even without the tungsten its penetration is still comparable to the Tiger I's. And that's a good thing for an Allied player. Also, my Cats seem to have a higher chance to ricochet a 76mm's tungsten shot also.

The 95mm is just not accurate enough (and this is talking from playing on the receiving end of these weapons) and you don't have enough hollow charged rounds for a big fight. Lower velocity to me = more misses. Add in fewer "c" rounds to the equation and you've got problems. Against infantry, good. For the long haul (always prepare for the worst!) in an armor slugfest, you're still better off with 76mm/17-pdrs <--esp. this one!

The US 90mm is just too rare and too late. Again, 17-pdr can be accessed much more easily and sooner.

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Warmaker ]</p>

[CombinedArms]

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

The US 75mm is a fine piece, relative to its purpose, one of my favourite guns.

<hr></blockquote>

How can one avoid ambivalence about the good old Sherman 75. It really is a good gun "relative to it's purpose"--The HE blast is very effective against infantry, it has virtually limitless ammo, and a high rate of fire for its size, so it can take soft targets apart in pretty short order. And its AP is effective against AFVs as long as their armor isn't too thick. Ah, there's the rub, of course. The Allied armored thinkers thought this was fine in 1942, but it sure was a problem throughout 1944-45.

BTW, can anyone explain why there's such a difference between the Sherman 75's blast effect of 39 (or the 17-pounder's 40) and the blast effect of 34 shared by the US 76 and the long German 75s found on the Panther, PzIV, Stug III, etc? Those five points between 39 and 34 don't look like they should make that much of a difference, but all the 34-blast guns seem to take a lot more time to do real damage to infantry.

BTW, I've been having considerable success recently with the 95mm as an anti-tank weapon. You don't always get enough c rounds, but when you do, watch out. I've found through tests posted on another thread that the most effective range vs. a Panther with a Churchill VIII is 600-800 meters. The Panther can't consistently penetrate the Churchill's 152mm front at that range and the Churchill has time to zero in with a killing shot. Also, the Brit 95 gunners seem to have no qualms about firing their c rounds. They will blast away until they run out, then instantly pop smoke and back off.

But once it gets HE in September the British 17-pounder is the best all around gun the Allies have. One could argue that it was the best gun on either side in the war. Also, as noted above, its readily available on a variety of platforms and, its worth noting that these platforms are often comparatively inexpensive. BTS's pricing structure seems to me to treat the British 17-pounder and US 76 as if they were equivalent, which is clearly not the case.

For example, in November '44 (the prices vary slightly by month) the cheapest Sherm76 (the M4A1 76W) costs 166 points, whereas the Firefly with 17-pounder costs 164. The Firefly has a lower psi (14.1 to 15.1), has that better HE (40-34 blast), and seems to carry more tungsten (which it usually doesn't need.) The Sherman does have one more crew member, carries smoke rounds (which I like), and has an extra MG, but I would call the Sherm 76 a significantly inferior tank and it makes no sense to have it cost more. It's too late for BTS to do somefink, but it does make me never want to play the US in a QB when armor purchases are unrestricted.

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]</p>

[edgars]

I like the 57mm/6pdr AT guns very much. (Brit version has tungsten rounds, so it cost 2-3 points more the US version)

Harder to spot than other AT guns (especially under commander with Stealth bonus).

With ordinary AP often takes out Tigers from side (hi, Mr.Johnson), and if close enough (100m or less), can get through the 100mm front hull, even better with Tungsten.

One of the most accurate Allied guns - muzzle velocity = 823m/sec (second best in Allied arsenal IIRC, losing only to 17pdr).

EDIT: Have to fix my mistake here - the nasty little 37mm has the same velocity than 17pdr - 884m/sec.

HE blast factor is three times better that 37mm's - 19 vs 6.

Another important thing is they can be transported quickly by jeeps, which is nice.

One of the weapons i like most in CM. Doesn't have the fame or gloss but does it's job.

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: ciks ]</p>

[edgars]

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

I have also found that the Daimler gun is in the same league. It is far less flexible due to a miserable HE loadout, but the AP will kill in the same general range.<hr></blockquote>

I'm sorry, but Daimler 40mm gun does not have any HE at all. But the AP capabilty is good, i agree.

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: ciks ]</p>

[Compassion]

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

I like the 57mm/6pdr AT guns very much. <hr></blockquote>

Seconded in spades... The combination of accuracy, ROF, penetrating power and survivability (read stealthiness) is unmatched.

[Max Power]

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

I like the 57mm/6pdr AT guns very much. (Brit version has tungsten rounds, so it cost 2-3 points more the US version)

]<hr></blockquote>

I third this opinion. The 57 is definitely the way to go for ambushes. During Gordon's Rumble II battle I controlled a 57mm that took out a King Tiger with a flank shot before a 76mm could fire near me. Then a Panther fast moved down the road and the 76 couldn't acquire a shot fast enough because of its slower manuevering.

I've also managed to take out a JadgTiger from the flank with a 57 during a scenario. Now that was a huge bonus.

[The ol one eye.]

The 57 is the best, for all the reasons stated, and I think Ive killed more with that lil' peeshooter than with the 17pdr or the US76.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Max Power:

During Gordon's Rumble II battle I controlled a 57mm that took out a King Tiger with a flank shot before a 76mm could fire near me. Then a Panther fast moved down the road and the 76 couldn't acquire a shot fast enough because of its slower manuevering.

<hr></blockquote>

And guess who took it out with a first shot kill from his Stug... yours truly.

Fun campaign by the way, but we was robbed with all the bleedin' wire & mines we had to battle through... it was worse than the Somme!

Regards

Jim R.

[Max Power]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

And guess who took it out with a first shot kill from his Stug... yours truly.

Fun campaign by the way, but we was robbed with all the bleedin' wire & mines we had to battle through... it was worse than the Somme!

Regards

Jim R.<hr></blockquote>

Lucky shot! I was hoping to get that Panther too but I can't complain, I'll sacrifice a 57 for a KT any day

We won but a few more turns and you guys probably would have taken the main VL since we only had 75mm Shermans there. And I did nominate the daisy chains mines as our MVP on our message board. Though the mud totally killed our tank reserves. Even if we fast moved our last reserves as soon as we got them they would not have made it to the road in time. A larger opening at that choke point and less mud would have made it a better battle but all in all it came out pretty darn even.

[Soddball]

My favourite is the 6pdr AT gun. One of its big bonuses is that it can be attached to a jeep, and rushed forward or backward as necessary. I've used them on a number of occasions, and in one PBEM game my 6 pdr won the game within the first 3 turns, by breaking a flank assault by two platoons of infantry, supported by a PSW 234/1 and a StuH42. It took 2 shots at 300m to take out the PSW and the third shot knocked out the StuH, before they could respond. The gun then survived a hail of mortar attacks and forced my opponent to attack through the centre of the map, where I wanted him. Poor Mannheim Tanker

[offtaskagain]

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

BTW, can anyone explain why there's such a difference between the Sherman 75's blast effect of 39 (or the 17-pounder's 40) and the blast effect of 34 shared by the US 76 and the long German 75s found on the Panther, PzIV, Stug III, etc? Those five points between 39 and 34 don't look like they should make that much of a difference, but all the 34-blast guns seem to take a lot more time to do real damage to infantry.

<hr></blockquote>

Since the Sherman had a lower MV the shell walls could be thinner since they didn't take so much stress from firing. This allowed more space for HE filler. It's also possible the shell was longer which would allow even more space for the bursting charge.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

Since the Sherman had a lower MV the shell walls could be thinner since they didn't take so much stress from firing. This allowed more space for HE filler. It's also possible the shell was longer which would allow even more space for the bursting charge.<hr></blockquote>

Not only has the Shermans round more HE value, but CMBO does have a more complex HE explosion model than the single value implies. Please see the parallel Axis gun thread for a posting of mine.

If you want to know you real HE capability, you better test-play a lot, the effects for dring people out of foxholes and knockout down buildings may vary greatly, for the same "blast value" summary value.

BTW, the 57mm guns are a little too well-loved here for my taste. Besides the undoubted mobility advantage, I think most of the love comes from the CMBO price, which is a very subjective and random thing with regards to reality. In real life a lot of people died because of inadaequate AT capablities of infantry divisions, to a point where it is not funnay anymore. And as said, it is sad that the US, after kinda correcting the 6 pdr error by using the semi-long 75mm which could at least do some substancial damage to soft and thin hard targets, immedeately went on repeating the British error on the next level for their tank hunter gun.

[Berlichtingen]

US 37cm and the US 75mm

[Chad Harrison]

Gun on a tank? The good old sherman75. It takes a lot of finess, but you can take on a panther one-one with the sherman 75, you just have to get the first shots from the side. That gun also has great HE capabilities and I dont think I have ever run out of HE shells.

AT/INF gun? The 57mm AT gun. Cheap, accurate, fast firing. A veteran crew doesnt cost that much more either. And they can take out any german tank (less the King) from the flank.

[edgars]

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

US 37cm and the US 75mm<hr></blockquote>

37cm? That is one NASTY piece of gun, slightly bigger than naval 14 inch .

[Specterx]

I'd have to say my favorite is the Britsh 17pdr. That's the great equalizer that allows the Allies to go head to head with the more expensive German heavies.

[John D Salt]

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

Not only has the Shermans round more HE value, but CMBO does have a more complex HE explosion model than the single value implies. Please see the parallel Axis gun thread for a posting of mine.

If you want to know you real HE capability, you better test-play a lot, the effects for dring people out of foxholes and knockout down buildings may vary greatly, for the same "blast value" summary value.

BTW, the 57mm guns are a little too well-loved here for my taste. Besides the undoubted mobility advantage, I think most of the love comes from the CMBO price, which is a very subjective and random thing with regards to reality. In real life a lot of people died because of inadaequate AT capablities of infantry divisions, to a point where it is not funnay anymore. And as said, it is sad that the US, after kinda correcting the 6 pdr error by using the semi-long 75mm which could at least do some substancial damage to soft and thin hard targets, immedeately went on repeating the British error on the next level for their tank hunter gun.<hr></blockquote>

I hardly think the 6-pounder can be classed as an "error". If CM:BO shows it as a very good lightweight tank-killer, that seems a pretty good representation of the gun to me. Apart from anything else, an infantry anti-tank gun has to be light enough to manhandle; I really wouldn't fancy digging a gun pit for a 17-pounder.

The big difference between the reputation the gun earned in US service ("impuissant" is one description I've heard) and British is, obviously, the issue of APDS. In British service this was standard from D-Day on, and it makes the little gun a cat-killer. The USA, on the other hand, (I believe this is mentioned in Vannoy & Karameles' "Against the Panzers) made a one-time issue of ten rounds per gun, making it scarcer that rocking-horse dung.

Now, a toy I'd like to see in CM:BO would be a Churchill IX -- a Churchill IV re-armoured to VII standards, but keeping the original 6-pounder. With sabot rounds, that should be able to slug it out with Panthers or Tigers on even terms.

All the best,

John.

[Brian]

Originally posted by ciks:

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

I have also found that the Daimler gun is in the same league. It is far less flexible due to a miserable HE loadout, but the AP will kill in the same general range.

I'm sorry, but Daimler 40mm gun does not have any HE at all. But the AP capabilty is good, i agree.</font>

[Redwolf]

Lets not forget that the lack of a HE shell for the Daimler AC hurts much more in CMBO than in reality, because of the missing effect of the machine gun.

For a recon vehicle, it is entirely sufficient to have a light gun to kill light vehicles and a machine gun to take on easy-target personnel walking around. Such a vehicle has no business taking on foxholes or decent cover. But with CMBO machineguns we cannot even engage lightly covered infantry targets.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

The big difference between the reputation the gun earned in US service ("impuissant" is one description I've heard) and British is, obviously, the issue of APDS. In British service this was standard from D-Day on, and it makes the little gun a cat-killer. The USA, on the other hand, (I believe this is mentioned in Vannoy & Karameles' "Against the Panzers) made a one-time issue of ten rounds per gun, making it scarcer that rocking-horse dung.

[/QB]

In support of this, I've read in Charles MacDonald's "A Time for Trumpets" that in the Battle of the Bulge, some American 57mm gunners managed to get ahold of some APDS rounds and suddenly found their AT guns to be very effective.