Attacking with towed Guns ?

[Rodimzew]

Has anybody an idea how to use towed guns for an attack ? I towed them behind my main attack group in order to support the frontline troops from behind, but it took it's time until they got ready to fire. Until then the fight was going on elsewhere.

Next time i put them on overwatch at positions where they could cover my advance, but they were taken out with mortars or artillery after few salvoes.

I haven't found a strategy or doctrine for using them in attacks. Are they worthless for attackers?

[Michael Emrys]

I've had modest luck with them. The problem, as you noted, is that they have trouble keeping up with the action, which is why more and more of them appeared on SP carriages as the war progressed. My best use of them so far is to use them to shoot up buildings where infantry is holed up or to send them around in flanking maneuvers to set up for shots on enemy units trying to escape off the map. But guard them carefully! They can be easy meat for any infantry that get within range of them. As you notice, if you site them in exposed positions where they can get spotted easily, they draw artillery like flies to a rotting carcass. Start them off in some trees and give them a hide command until you are ready to use them.

Michael

[Moriarty]

The biggest problem I have run into with them is not giving sufficient time (or having sufficient foresight) to get them into position and unlimbered from the vehicles -- anywhere from 2 to 4 minutes depending on the size of the gun.

Meanwhile, my opponent is wondering what that HT or truck is doing over there and proceeds to lay in mortar, arty or MG fire and ruin my grand plan.

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]</p>

[Monty's Double]

Well in real life they weren't much use on the attack, so in that sense they are modelled correctly. I've tried some games against the AI using British paras on the attack, and towed guns is all you have. The last game I played I had 2 6 pounders and a 75mm howitzer, all of which started on my backline attached to jeeps (trying to the the historical thing). One 6 pounder was taken out sharpish by arty, but the other took out three halftracks and finished off its ammo on infantry targets, repositioning twice during the game. The 75mm howitzer survived the game also, and managed to fire off its entire load, much to the chagrin of the defending Germans. I used Veteran crews, and although both took casualties during the game, they literally stuck to their guns well. I kept a couple of 3 inch mortars (with HQ spotters) at the back just to help cover them with smoke as they moved.

Light guns with high qulity crews can get into action pretty quick. I found that driving up behind trees and disembarking so that the crew push the gun forwards into LOS works quite well, even though it takes a minute or two longer. Against the AI, you can usually tempt it to dump its mortars and arty on your recon screen, but a human opponent wouldn't fall for that as easy.

Well, just some thoughts, hope they help.

[Rodimzew]

Thanks a lot so far to all these Tips....I think i just wasn't careful enough...but with this understanding i'm going to improve my tactics...

[Ex Bellator]

I quite like buying a gun or two. Usually you can get some kind of field of fire on one of the objectives in your setup phase. If not then I'm quite happy to sit quiet for a few turns to let them get it set up, by unloading behind terrain and pushing it forward if required.

Also if it's a relatively cheap gun I don't overly mind if it gets nuked by expensive artillery, it's a fair exchange and I'd much rather keep my infantry intact.

Just my 2p.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Rex_Bellator ]</p>

[Soddball]

I would agree with Rex - towed guns have their place. My personal favourite is the 6pdr AT gun, towed by a jeep. It's a bargain, very fast, hard-hitting (through the front of a StuG at 300m) and easily concealable, along with its quick prep time. Take one or two 6pdrs along, attached to jeeps, and see how it goes.

[Louie the Toad]

My two thoughts worth:

Thought One:

I have read that Rommel and most likely other German commanders used anti tank guns on the attack along with tanks. I have never been able to replicate this to my own satisfaction (success) in any game, miniatures, board game etc. Has anyone had any good reference as to how exactly it was done. Maybe in CM I need to try more guns and more tanks mixed together so the AT guns don't get singled out I am also guessing that this kind of attack where units are leap frogging is best done against a pure tank force. Otherwise small arms will tear up the AT guns and any tows they use.

Thought Two:

Can a jeep really tow a 6 pdr or is that a quirk in the game?

Leap frogging Toad

[tabpub]

Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

[qb]My two thoughts worth:

Thought One:

I have read that Rommel and most likely other German commanders used anti tank guns on the attack along with tanks. I have never been able to replicate this to my own satisfaction (success) in any game, miniatures, board game etc. Has anyone had any good reference as to how exactly it was done. Maybe in CM I need to try more guns and more tanks mixed together so the AT guns don't get singled out I am also guessing that this kind of attack where units are leap frogging is best done against a pure tank force. Otherwise small arms will tear up the AT guns and any tows they use.

I believe that the common technique used to deploy AT guns on the "attack" was to have the AT guns traveling near the front of the spearhead so that if the spearhead hit trouble, the AT guns could deploy as a screen for the lead element to retire behind and then operate against the enemies flanks. This is one of the areas where better German communication in the early war served them well.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: tabpub ]

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: tabpub ]</p>

[Splash]

Well I was working through this with A Crack in the Line -- you have those 2 howie's with trucks (sigh -- sooo slow off road!)

Often when the scenario is designed the land layout is a clue to what the programmer wants to prevent you from doing. For instance placing a forest at the map edge (just so!) (maybe it helps to have an artistic background) thereby making any vehicles skirt to the exposed outside. You just know it's a trap. But you can drag a gun thru! -- a perfect place to employ a gun -- an instance where it is more protected than a tank.

I worked hard to think of that! In the above scenario I dragged that gun right down the map in front of the tanks often!

[Moriarty]

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

Thanks a lot so far to all these Tips....I think i just wasn't careful enough...but with this understanding i'm going to improve my tactics...<hr></blockquote>

One last (very important) tip to remember: Make sure the vehicle you purchase to tow the guns will actually do it. I suggest doing a test with each nationality putting a range of guns and vehicles on a map and see what will embark and what won't. I did this once, but lost the notes and paid for it in spades.

I found out too late that the HTs I thought would tow the 88mm (25pdr) guns wouldn't, I spent three-quarters of the game having the crew push them into position only to lose them rather quickly without any payoff for the experience.

Feel free to learn from my mistakes. I hope I did.

[Olle Petersson]

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

I believe that the common technique used to deploy AT guns on the "attack" was to have the AT guns traveling near the front of the spearhead so that if the spearhead hit trouble, the AT guns could deploy as a screen for the lead element to retire behind and then operate against the enemies flanks.<hr></blockquote>From what I've understood they were a little more devious than this.

First they set up, dug in and camouflaged the ATGs (that were of comparatively larger calibre than the tank guns) on a line behind, but near, the front.

Then the tanks moved forward, seeking out the enemy armour and drawing fire.

As the battle begun, the German tanks fell back towards the ATG line, luring the British armour to follow.

Then they passed through the ATG line and out of sight as the ATGs opened up frontally on the Brits.

The German tanks now turned to attack the British tanks from the flank.

It worked just too well. One can wonder why the Brits never seemed to learn not to follow too far.

Cheers

Olle

[Stalin's Organ]

They did eventualy, and used the same tactic vs teh Germans.

IIRC it was only ever executed "perfectly" a couple of times during "Crusader" and batles shortly afterwards (but I'm prepared to be corrected) - spectacularly vs Matilda's at Halafaya pass when they weer clobbered by 88's.

I think the tactic was called "Pak-front".

[Sergei]

Using that "lure to PAK front" tactic in CM is quite difficult to actualize, I think.

I usually use them to guard areas where my enemy might advance but where I'm not going to send my tanks (I tend to concentrate them). For instance, in one PBEM ME there was rain, so I didn't want to risk bogging my valuable tanks (eh, Pz-IV and two Marders...) so I kept them on road. To the flanks I placed a PaK40 towed by 251/1 and a light IG towed by Kübelwagen. They were to support my infantry advance. The PaK didn't get any work to do, but my infantry gun not only helped in kicking back an infantry assault, it also killed M7B Priest. Well worth the points, I'd say.

[Louie the Toad]

Dear Sergei,

I tend to agree with you that at first glance using a Pak Front tactic in CM could be very difficult to carry out. But this just hopped out of my head. A judicious use of smoke may be a key element: Race up with armor, have towed AT guns following. Lay smoke in between. Unlimber the AT guns under smoke concealment. Move the armor back thru the smoke or off to the flank. When the smoke clears, you have a Pak Front with an armor strike force. Some complications of course, like what happens when the smoke dissipates unevenly and lets the enemy gang up on each gun individually as it appears.

But on the other hand if the armor strike force was on the flank I think you would get a lot of flank shots targets. I think torpedo bombers in the pacific called this the "hammer and anvil" approach.

Probably much better deployed in the desert or on the steppes.

Daydreaming Toad

[Moriarty]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

Dear Sergei,

I tend to agree with you that at first glance using a Pak Front tactic in CM could be very difficult to carry out. But this just hopped out of my head. A judicious use of smoke may be a key element: Race up with armor, have towed AT guns following. Lay smoke in between. Unlimber the AT guns under smoke concealment. Move the armor back thru the smoke or off to the flank. When the smoke clears, you have a Pak Front with an armor strike force. Some complications of course, like what happens when the smoke dissipates unevenly and lets the enemy gang up on each gun individually as it appears.

But on the other hand if the armor strike force was on the flank I think you would get a lot of flank shots targets. I think torpedo bombers in the pacific called this the "hammer and anvil" approach.

Probably much better deployed in the desert or on the steppes.

Daydreaming Toad<hr></blockquote>

Interesting concept. It would bear some experimentation before use in a game. I think you're going to need about 4 turns of smoke for a gun of any size. As I recall, that might use up an entire allotment for an 81mm FO dumping it in as fast as it can.

[Louie the Toad]

Yes, definitely problems laying the smoke. Maybe that is where those nearly worthless mortars mounted on APCs would have a niche. But they probably dont carry enough.

If the germans were so good at this and used it a lot, there must be a detailed explanation somewhere.

Smoky Toad

[Olle Petersson]

The PaK front concept doesn't work in CM beacause;

a) it's too well known for the opponent to fall for it. (Perhaps it could be used against the AI, but I doubt it. No same player would have his tanks follow a retreating enemy force at full speed.

the maps in CM are typically too small.

1) Move up your tanks to make contact.

2) Then fall back about 3,000m to a position some 1,000m behind your ATG line. (Make sure the enemy is at your tail.)

3) Make a 90 degree turn and move 1,500m at full speed.

4) Turn another 90 degrees toard the enemy and move up some 2,000m.

5) Reengage the enemy.

How big map would this require?

At least 4 km deep and 3 km wide, with troops deployed at some 1 km frontage (or less).

Cheers

Olle

[Louie the Toad]

Olle,

I have always maintained that the maps were too small for effective tank maneuvers.Essentially one must be able to move out of sight or out of range. And, if you play on a large CM map there are problems at long ranges with the LOS and the actual physical viewing of the map from the computer screen.

But there may still be a modified CM version of the Pak Front tactic. It will be interesting to hear about it if someone invents one.

There must be a more aggressive offensive roll for AT and field guns.

Toad Gun

[Kallimakhos]

A RL example from the übertroops: in the early days of continuation war Finns had no armor to speak of, so they advanced with their AT in the following manner: a gun or two moves or rather runs to the next bend of the road, using the cover of the shield, and then suppresses the enemy so that infantry can attack.

One could try to simulate this by using fast moving guns as 75 infantry or six pounder, with crack or elite crews of course, in heavy woods. Haven't tried this, might work even with the current engine.

[Louie the Toad]

The AT guns the Finns used were probably 37mm . These could be manhandled a lot easier than the guns in CM.

I tested to see how fast 75 mm AT guns could be manhandled. Very very slow.

Toadhandled

[Patgod]

there was a scene in BoB showing a pak38(i think this is what it was. looked like a 50mm gun to me) and with full crew they could get it going really fast. BUT i'm sure it took them a bit to get up to speed and it was on a road.