Placing your AT teams and ATG

[Sargon]

Lets discuss placing of AT teams and AT guns within the CM Game mechanic..are ATG;s always hulldown??

[Jack Trap]

What hull????

I like to place the AT guns in positions of a very narrow field of view and in the best coverage avaiable because they are so prone to being out gunned or hit with mortars and artillery. I also like having a 1/2 track (or the like) to get them out of position quickly. If you've made your gun's position know and your opponent is NOT approaching it, then expect the tnt to start to fall with a couple of minutes.

I don't think I handle AT teams well, so I too would love to hear some pointers.

[Pak40]

Hull down??? They have no hull!

But I think I see what you're trying to ask: Are AT guns harder to hit & kill? The answer is definitely YES. A regular tank will usually hit a non-moving tank in 2-3 shots at 500-700 meters. But it will usually take a regular tank between 3-10 shots to kill an AT gun in a foxhole. However, regular AT crews can get rattled, making them ineffective for a period of time.

[Brian]

Its struck me fairly forcibly over the last few battles that I've fought that the TacAI has IMO a much too easy a time of sighting both AT guns and infantry AT teams.

Examples

A platoon of infanty cross an open area, overlooked by a hill. The enemy has an tank on the hill. It will automatically zero in on the Infantry AT team within the platoon. It will ignore the other ~30 men who could well be in much plainer view and easier to hit in preference for identifying at even over 500 metres range the bloke carrying the AT weapon. From my own experience, at beyond 500 metres, its hard to pick out from a mass of men whose carrying what weapons.

A 6 Pdr AT gun advances to a position behind a house, on a hill, over 750 metres from a Hetzer, through a covered approach utilising forests and dead ground. The moment that gun puts its muzzle around the corner of the house and despite it being to its flank, while its engaging another three tanks to its front, it will almost automatically detect it and rotate to face. Again, from my experience, its hard to pick something the size of a 6 Pdr AT gun shield, half obscured by a house (~1 metre square) at over 750 metres, unless it fires on you, particularly when your attention is preoccupied to an immediate threat to your front.

I think the sighting rules need some revision. They prevent the correct use of AT weapons and they make it very likely that they will be destroyed much too easily IMO.

[Sir Uber General]

When using ATG's I like to

a) put them in deep positions that cover your infantry

put smaller ATG's in positions that will offer flank shots

c) if possible, put them in C&C of an officer, they dont break nearly as quick when they are

d) let your opponent think the way is clear so he brings more assets into your kill zone, wait as long as you dare before opening fire with your ATG's. Use inf / light armour as bait to draw out his heavy armour into your kill zones.

When using AT inf, I like to

a) keep them in cover as long as possible - as stated above the tacai is very good at spotting your AT gear

keep your zook/piat/shreck in C&C so he may respond rapidly to new threats

c) keep your AT asset as close as possible to your front without exposing them so enemy armour is in range

d) do your best to keep them alive at all times

e) try and attack armour with multiple AT inf when they do engage - this increases the chance of the target being king hit without ever knowing where you shot from.

[Pud]

Originally posted by Brian:

Its struck me fairly forcibly over the last few battles that I've fought that the TacAI has IMO a much too easy a time of sighting both AT guns and infantry AT teams.

This is the reason I dont bother placing my ATG in narrow fields of fire etc, all you seem to be doing is restricting its ability to actually do anything, and then be forced to kill something because its "all I got to see"

I place my ATG's in woods/trees that allow for maximum field of fire. Trick is dont use them! Wait for turn 20-30 (mainly when all FO's are empty) and every man and his dog has traversed infront of your guns FOF. This way your opponent will assume its safe ground and present side & rear shots etc of all his armour, especially his key armour pieces. Also once you get the reputation of having guns hiding until very late in the game, the other players will assume you have all sorts of things hidden around and be over cautious, even across "known" territory, whether you actually have any guns or not

[edit - PS this doesnt work on small maps but I like large maps that allow ALOT of manoeuvring]

[ April 04, 2002, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Pud ]

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Brian:

Its struck me fairly forcibly over the last few battles that I've fought that the TacAI has IMO a much too easy a time of sighting both AT guns and infantry AT teams.

Examples

A 6 Pdr AT gun advances to a position behind a house, on a hill, over 750 metres from a Hetzer, through a covered approach utilising forests and dead ground. The moment that gun puts its muzzle around the corner of the house and despite it being to its flank, while its engaging another three tanks to its front, it will almost automatically detect it and rotate to face. Again, from my experience, its hard to pick something the size of a 6 Pdr AT gun shield, half obscured by a house (~1 metre square) at over 750 metres, unless it fires on you, particularly when your attention is preoccupied to an immediate threat to your front.

I think the sighting rules need some revision. They prevent the correct use of AT weapons and they make it very likely that they will be destroyed much too easily IMO.

I agree. This will become particularly important in any CMBB battles, particularly around Kursk. The Soviets made extremely good use of AT guns, but the current sighting system will negate that due to the ease of spotting.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Pud:

So do I.

However, while your tactic might work, it rather negates the purpose of the AT guns, which is to protect your infantry and force the enemy's tanks to stand off. Nor does it help infantry who might want to stalk a tank.

In a recent QB against the TacAI, I was faced with two Panzer IV's which could dominate and did, a large slice of the battlefield on top of a prominent feature. As all my tanks were engaged on the other flank or the centre, all I had left were some 6 Pdrs and a couple of PIATs. In the end, because they destroyed each 6 Pdr, bar the last, two PIATs were sent forward and stalked them. At one point, one ran up the hill and threw himself into the first patch of woods only to find himself sitting next to an enemy FO. A quick bit of hand-to-hand he killed him. Next, a mortar in the next patch tried to interfer but was chased off by the last 6 Pdr who was covering him. So, between the two of them, the PIATs basically cleared the hill and then took out one Panzer, the other was forced off the hill, finally into the field of view of the 6 Pdr which caught it in the flank. It was touch and go, purely because everytime they moved, every German unit within sight zeroed in on them. While such an action was unusual it wasn't unknown in real life.

[Jack Trap]

The above points about AT guns means patience, and lots of it. If you are willing to wait 20 turns to unleash them- good for you (hopefully the area of conflict is still be active after such time has passed).

I do not have the wait-and-see patience. To me these guns are best used soon and forsaken. With so many of these battles pivoting on early armor dominance, I find the wait-and-see tactic scary.

The one point I do think needs to be made is that any gun, no matter its use will last MUCH longer when dug into a foxhole. Advancing guns to open (not dug-in) positions are vulnerable. Thats been my experience.

The last point I have to make about concealing gun or AT team positions is that they will need protection from advancing enemy units of any sort. Recon works against you in that regard. That may mean diverting forces to protect them.

[Mattias]

Always, always, always strive to use the terrain to your advantage by placing the gun so that near misses hit well forward of it or fly past harmlessly. In my experience this increases survivability greatly since almost only a direct hit will kill the gun.

Think of it as hull down without a hull, place the gun behind the ridges or elevations in the terrain. No matter how small they will help.

The perfect position for me is a reclining patch of trees (woods or tall pines) with usable (i.e. not "too" good) FOW towards the enemy and, as I said, a good "edge" to hide behind.

The same goes for infantry really when facing enemy direct fire HE.

--

M.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

I guess part of the problem is the borg spotting. Once spot, everyone in the area who is able to target will target the AT-team/gun.

[gatpr]

Won't this become even more of a concern in CMBB's first couple of years. Working out good techniques for using ATRs will be interesting. I think flank shots will be even more important especially in 1942 scenarios.

[jgdpzr]

Mattias hit on one of my central considerations when considering where to place guns. Just barely on the reverse slope of a hillcrest makes a good placement. Situate it so that only the top of the gun sits above the hill, thereby reducing it's sillhouette while still maintaining LOS to the points it wants to command. The enemy's direct HE will then usually sail over your head or land short. Scattered trees are good for providing a little extra concealment, but I have found I actually prefer wheatfields for two reasons: 1.)no treebursts to lend lethality to enemy arty that will surely fall once the gun has been spotted 2.)it is a little quicker and easier to get the tractor, halftrack, etc. in position to get the gun outta there.

Another piece of advice is that ATGs should ideally never be positioned alone. Either pair them with other guns of similar capability so that you increase your immediate firepower, or support them with additional anti-tank/anti-personnel weapons. In other words, just don't stick a gun out all by itself. Instead, use it as only one of the combined arms targetting the kill sack.

I would also like to echo that guns are at their most effective when they can fire into the flanks of advancing tanks.

Finally, you have to decide to what lengths you will go to help your guns survive. I have seen opponents simply try to overwhelm you with as many ATGs as they can afford, with little consideration to trying to keep them alive. This player views them as disposable assets that he will gladly sacrifice to win the point battle by trading them for as many tanks as possible. Other players will spend some resources in an effort to keep them alive. Usually this requires transport and some sort of smoke generating asset, either arty-based or direct smoke fired from tanks. I guess you could use another gun to provide smoke for the one you want to withdraw but that would likely just sacrifice the gun providing the cover.

Regarding infantry AT weapons, here again there may be divergent philosophies of their use. Some players will use them soley as close tactical support for their vulnerable units, usually infantry. Others may use them more offensively, using tank-hunting tactics. If you choose the latter, I would suggest using vehicles to provide some quick transport. Personally, I have to be pretty desperate to try to "hunt" enemy tanks with infantry AT weapons. I find they are much more valuable in the ambush role, myself.

Hope this helps a little. Guns, and infantry AT weapons, certainly draw fire quickly and the universal spotting definitely reduces the likelihood of their survival in many situations.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Brian:

I think the sighting rules need some revision. They prevent the correct use of AT weapons and they make it very likely that they will be destroyed much too easily IMO.

I think the moral of this story is not that CM makes AT assets too easy to spot, but that AT assets should always remain in cover. ATGs or zooks hiding in cover are virtually never spotted, in my experience, by anything but infantry that is right on top of them. The only time they become spotted is when they unhide and fire. This is as it should be, IMHO.

If you need to move AT assets forward, they should move through cover. Zooks should sneak through woods or approach by sneak through buildings. Guns should be rolled through woods until they just attain LOS with the outside world, then hide. If you're unlimbering a gun from a vehicle, do it behind a stand of trees and roll it slowly forward. Otherwise death will be quick and certain.

The TAC AI is right to target AT assets preferentially. They're very dangerous to the health of all armored units and are rightly attacked when rashly exposed to view.

[Brian]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

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

I think the sighting rules need some revision. They prevent the correct use of AT weapons and they make it very likely that they will be destroyed much too easily IMO.

I think the moral of this story is not that CM makes AT assets too easy to spot, but that AT assets should always remain in cover. ATGs or zooks hiding in cover are virtually never spotted, in my experience, by anything but infantry that is right on top of them. The only time they become spotted is when they unhide and fire. This is as it should be, IMHO.

If you need to move AT assets forward, they should move through cover. Zooks should sneak through woods or approach by sneak through buildings. Guns should be rolled through woods until they just attain LOS with the outside world, then hide. If you're unlimbering a gun from a vehicle, do it behind a stand of trees and roll it slowly forward. Otherwise death will be quick and certain.

The TAC AI is right to target AT assets preferentially. They're very dangerous to the health of all armored units and are rightly attacked when rashly exposed to view.</font>

[gatpr]

One of my observations is that both German and Soviet ATG doctrine was to sight as many guns as possible on the same target, and to make the battery commanders concentrate on the likeliest kill. Pakfronts were very effective at times as at Kursk and Belgorod.

[Phorncastle]

Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

I guess part of the problem is the borg spotting. Once spot, everyone in the area who is able to target will target the AT-team/gun.

Totally agree with this point mate. I dont quite understand how in the heat and confusion of battle everyone can somehow immediately identify where a ATG is after 1 shot. Even allowing for tracer etc it would take far longer for a commander to pin point where the fire is aimed at and to pick it out yourself than is modelled.

My only theory is that all the tank commanders are women, as it is the only explanation for how word travels so quickly.

"Ooooo youll never guess what? Just heard what looks like a Pak50 over in those woods"

"oh really, well i never wait till Sgt Mandy hears this!"