Anti Tank Guns does anyone use them on the attack?

[Louie the Toad]

In theory tanks are to attack infantry and anti tank guns are to attack tanks. One reads about how the german forces made great use of anti tank guns by moving them forward. Rommel's forces were especially skilled at this.

I have yet to see a wargame that accurately models this tactic because:

1) AT guns move too slowly

2) they are easy prey for HE

Or I just haven't been able to translate the tactic from the written page to a game.

I wonder if it was particular to the Western Desert theatre, the lack of HE for the Britsh 2pdr gun and the desert terrain that led to the success of the german agressive AT tactics.

I realize the years I am talking about precede CMBO.

But has anyone else thought about this?

Curious ... Toad

[Gen-x87H]

Since the maps are usually small you can typically place AT guns overlooking terrain that tanks would probably cross. That is about the best way I can see using AT guns on the offensive in this game.

I suppose if you happened to get a really huge map you could try to move the guns into position. But dont do it with an 88 since they are stationary. Chances are you will drop the sucker in the wrong spot wasting it.

Gen

[Louie the Toad]

Dear GenX-87 your description supports my point.

[Cameroon]

Well, its either this forum or the Tips forum, but there have been previous discussions about using towed guns on the attack. A number of people report success with the tactic. Personally I'd be wary, but maybe some time I'll try it.

[Silvio Manuel]

I tried this once- 2000pts. attack (all greens). I was US and parked a 57mm ATG on my right flank w/ decent LOS. After I cleared the ridge ahead, I moved my Jeep over and towed it up to the ridge, then parked it. We actually had to cancel the game before it was a factor, but it seemed to be of questionable value, esp. if you'll be towing it around...it takes to long, and ties up points, you might as well buy a Greyhound and try for flank armor shots.

As for a big map w/ long LOS, maybe then it would be of greater value.

[NightGaunt]

on an normal CM map no.

on a 2km x 2km cmmc map, yes.

Also, only the smaller guns are effective on the attack, it is quite true the bigger guns are simply too slow to setup.

I have had good use on the attack with smaller guns on the attack, 6lbs especially.

You can usually drop them off on the back end of a forested area and then walk them thru the forest to the shooting side, you just have to be extremely carefull that you leave them deep enough in the forest that they don't get seen during their movement. When your on a large map, this isn't a big problem.

[Cameroon]

Actually, I just realized that I played a scenario where the Germans are issued a PaK40 and must secure an area. I guess it'd be a meeting engagement because both sides are "attacking".

I was glad to have it. It worried the AI, kept some forces tied up, scored a kill or two (can't remember how many) and survived the battle (the AI was busy using its arty as smoke to stop some incessant shelling). Oh, and it freed some tanks I would have otherwise had to deploy there.

On the other hand, they are a PITA to move around and conditions must be favorable to their use.

So, what conclusion have I come to with all that? Heh, none

[Andreas]

A CMBO battle is averaging at 30mins. The type of battles you talk about took longer, and there was more time to bring up the guns and emplace them. Particularly in the desert, the Germans also used a screen of AT guns behind their tanks combined with the British cavalry idiocy to kill them a lot, IIRC. The German tanks would attack, withdraw, and then be pursued by British tanks. These would then run into a screen of AT guns and die. For a CMBO battle, you would have to assume that this set-up has happened. You also have to find someone very stupid to play against.

One feature CMBO does not model is that the 88 could be fired while still on wheels (lots of dramatic shots of that around). There are desert pictures where the gunner stayed seated on the gun instead of in the prime mover, presumably to be able to engage a target immediately when the combination stopped. ISTR that the reason for not modelling this ability is because it would be used all the time, and not just in exceptional situations. It is also doubtful how appropriate this tactic would be for CMBO.

[Hans]

Always difficult

They are an excellent economy of force element, yet their vulnerability makes them difficult to use-which is one of the reasons few military forces still use them today.

At scenario depot I have a scenario especially built for using guns aggressively. It is called

Guns into the Breach or Into the Breach. Fustrating but you might find it useful.

Hans

[Radar]

AT weapons are only half as deadly IMHO in CMBO because they don't have the ability to reverse out of danger. A gun will have to turn around (at increadibly slow rates for this action) before they can go backwards, and repeat to go forwards. This means you can get your nose out but once your gun is discovered (the bigger guns especially) there is no defensive action the guns can realistically take.

[Doug Beman]

True, I've read in several sources that in most engagements, ATguns accounted for the most tank kills, followed by tank/SPGuns.

Things that impact AT gun effectiveness in CMBO:

*virtually every tank and SP gun on the battlefield has a respectable HE capability. When tanks like the Grant/Lee tank, German tanks carrying 75mm, T34, and British Comet came into widespread use (ie, long before CMBO starts) AT guns became extremely vulnerable. In early war years, especially in the desert, they could stand off at 1500m range with little fear of return HE fire.

*increasing power and flexibility of artillery which could enable suppressing fire to be called onto ATgun positions very quickly.

*the dead-horse-beaten issues of borg-spotting and Godlike C&C mean that, if an ATgun takes tanks under fire and even ONE enemy unit spots the ATgun, every other unit's fire can be directed on the gun's position, quickly killing it. In authentic conditions, it might take quite a while for the ATgun's position to be targeted by sufficient weaponry to suppress/kill it. During that interim, the ATgun could bang away merrily.

I suspect that, in the early years of CMBB and (especially) after the rewrite, ATguns will claim a larger % of kills than they do now.

DjB

[ April 25, 2002, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Doug Beman ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

Well, its either this forum or the Tips forum, but there have been previous discussions about using towed guns on the attack. A number of people report success with the tactic. Personally I'd be wary, but maybe some time I'll try it.

It was on the tips forum, but it was about heavy HE guns, not AT guns. A 150mm infantry or a 105mm howitzer make nice in the attack. The difference is that the AT target -or tank- can shoot back very effectivly. if you want to shoot up an infantry strongpoints, things are difference when your gun is deployed far away.

[Redwolf]

I think the missing link between use in reality and CMBO is, besides the very good point about the timeframe, "Panzerjaeger" thinking.

If you ever played a good operation WW2 game, you will see that the towed AT gun units, as slow as they are, are fast enough to be put into a position where you know your opponent will come through as a reaction to your move. If the defender has tanks, he will try to strike your attacking forces from the flanks, that certainly beats a head-on battle with numerically superiour attacking tanks. That is where you should have moved your towed tank hunters. The defender may anticipiate that you do that, but his choices are limited. If you block the best routes and force him to use a worse route of couterattack, it is still your gain.

I don't think that Rommel used the towed guns to shoot up tanks in the enemy defending lines, because almost nobody did parcel out tanks to infantry lines, except late-war thick-plate German Jagdpanzers. The towed guns are used to create a dilemma for the defender: make ineffective use of your tanks, or risk running into the tank hunters. Thus, they are an important part of offensive tank action.

Having said all that, there are plenty of stories by tanker shot shot up AT guns which were being pushed into position right under their nose (in supposely concealment). But again, while the tanks are standing here and the guns are "attacking", these are still situations where the tanks were the ones on an offensive mission and meet the tank hunters who are supposed to block them, but are simply late.

If CMBO would allow guns to move quickly for -say- 5 meters or so, and forwards and backwards that is, things would be a lot easier and IMHO realistic.

[xerxes]

I've had good experience towing the light AT guns near the position I want and pushing them in. The guns can get in position without being spotted if there isn't enemy infantry nearby. The brit 6 pdrs are great for this.

-marc s

[Doug Beman]

In early war years all combatants except the Germans did parcel out tanks among the infantry, rather than concentrating them for striking power. After the counterattack at Arras, for example, French high command ordered the disbanding of their equivalent of an armored division, and the dispersal of the remaining vehicles as "hedgehogs" or "savage rabbits" among infantry strongpoints. The Russians were notoriously slow in learning this; not until early 1943 did Fyedorenko (sp?) direct, in concrete terminology, that tanks would be kept together and used for strategic breakthrough, response to critical situations, or exploitation purposes. They would no longer be sprinkled along the infantry lines. At Kursk, it was Soviet guns that absorbed the brunt of the German assault, while the tanks waited for the Germans to lose steam before whomping them soundly.

In the desert, the British initially frittered away their tanks, but quickly learned the folly and began keeping tanks together for strategic purposes. Unfortunately, they kept making the mistake that redwolf outlined; they would react to a German attack by runhing unsupported tanks at the Germans and fall into ATgun ambushes.

DjB

[Louie the Toad]

So what it appears to be is a fortunate (for the Germans) convergence of circumstances:

Remember this is 1939 to 43

1. Effective German tank/AT doctrine.

2. Ineffective Allied tank doctrine

3. Allied difficulty in putting HE on the target

4. Low profile and more manhandable AT guns

5 Thinner skinned AFVs more susceptible to the AT guns of the time.

6. There are exceptions to each of 1 to 5.

Considering 1 to 5 plus the addition of Borg spotting seems to me to make the tactic of pushing AT guns forward obsolete in CMBO. What are the years covered in CMBB ?

Thanks for the replys..... Toad

[Affentitten]

Originally posted by Andreas:

A CMBO battle is averaging at 30mins. The type of battles you talk about took longer, and there was more time to bring up the guns and emplace them.

Very true. The only times I've had success with moving AT guns forward was on long battles (like 60 turns or something). But even then, it was more in defence to plug a hole or exploit a weakness than in a truly offensive advance.

[flamingknives]

Bigger maps help too.

in a recent assault vs. the AI (and we all know how the AI hates AT guns) I was commanding a British Inf. battalion (with the 6 pdrs and carriers) and some Comets. I had a commanding ridge down the left flank, which I used to cover a company of Inf. and an AT gun or two, while the main attack went in in the centre. At the end of the battle, the 6pdrs had scored most of the armour kills. The AT gun that was moved onto the ridge had a perfect defilade down onto the enemy reverse slope defence.

6pdrs and carriers are excellent if you have a covered path to a good firing position.

[Doug Beman]

CMBB covers it all, so there will be quite a longish period in which ATguns can show their stuff.

DjB