Psyched Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 I'm playing a scenario in which I am the Germans playing the Americans. My opponent brought up a Sherman pretty close to the front line to destroy a halftrack. In doing so, he came within 100 meters of two HMG's, both of which had side armor LOS. I specifically targeted the Sherman with both HMG's, not necessarily trying to knock it out(German HMG's don't have much penetration ability), but trying to get a lucky shot to immobilize it. Much to my dismay, my targeting order lasted for about 5 seconds during the action phase, after which time the HMG's stopped firing even though neither they nor the Sherman moved one inch. What gives on that? They had plenty of ammo, clear LOS, and no other targets could be seen. Any insight would be apprciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoot Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 They probably viewed the order as both ammo-depleting and virtually pointless. In their little digital brains, they weighed the damage they could do to the tank vs. the damage the tank would do to them once it discovered where they were firing from. And it would have if they had kept firing. just my .02 Clubfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psyched Posted February 18, 2001 Author Share Posted February 18, 2001 Thanks, Clubfoot. That certainly makes sense. Unfortunately, it's costing me dearly in this battle. But I suppose it's realistic, because a WWII commander can give all the orders he wants, but his men will ultimately make their own decisions how(or if) they carry them out. Originally posted by Clubfoot: They probably viewed the order as both ammo-depleting and virtually pointless. In their little digital brains, they weighed the damage they could do to the tank vs. the damage the tank would do to them once it discovered where they were firing from. And it would have if they had kept firing. just my .02 Clubfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Question: Was the tank buttoned up? If not, the MGs should have fired on the chance of hitting a crewman. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psyched Posted February 21, 2001 Author Share Posted February 21, 2001 Originally posted by Michael emrys: Question: Was the tank buttoned up? If not, the MGs should have fired on the chance of hitting a crewman. Michael Yes, he was buttoned up. That fact further supports Clubfoot's theory of why the HMG's disengaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abuassad Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 that reminds me....i use a piat against a gun at about 110 metres; 2 shots was all it took. but the same piat team simply refused to shoot at a hmg just 65 metres dead ahead (both were on top levels, btw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Star Posted March 1, 2001 Share Posted March 1, 2001 Using the Piat against infantry or MG's has worked well for me - when they obey. It suppresses the target and can cause casualties. Sometimes as the Brits you have too many of these buggers so you have expend the ammo somehow. ------------------ "Act after having made assessments. The one who first knows the measures of far and near wins - this the rule of armed struggle." Sun Tzu - The Art of War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts