Spotting enemy AT Guns

[Guest Pillar]

It's not easy.

Does anyone have any advice for identifying enemy AT gun positions when on the attack?

A good defender will have a well dug in infantry screen and support weapons well ahead of his hidden AT gun positions. This means, for you to get your infantry towards where the enemy AT is hidden you MUST commit tanks or heavy artillery (which isn't always enough). When you commit your tanks early, you'll get nailed by his hidden AT assets.

Interested in hearing how others go about their attacks.

[Thermopylae]

Scout Cars, or an unlucky infanty squad that attracts its fire.

[Guest Pillar]

Well, a good player won't reveal his AT guns for Infantry.

Scout Cars may work, but I think a good player still wouldn't be phased by their appearance.

[The Commissar]

Pillar,

I have played several battles the likes you describe, and actually in the middle of one as we speak by PBEM.

What I do is select an unlucky (and low quality - I buy it just for this purpose) platoon and have most if not all of its squads divide into half teams. Sometimes, when the map is large, you will need to devote more then one platoon to this suicidal task.

After this, you need to quite literlaly creep along. Remember to explore every patch of forest, every nook and cranny of the map which you might suspect holds that deadly AT Gun emplacement. The half squads should be in view of your infantry, but NOT your tanks! If your tanks can see the Half squad's enemy, the enemy can see the tank. In the case of dug in guns, this is not a good thing.

Thus, I keep my armor behind the lines, and advance with infantry. As you have said, a good opponent will keep a screen of infantry in front of his guns to prevent a "grunt rush". This leaves the infantry exposed, since terrain usually blocks the sigh of guns and you need to be very lucky with your terrain allocation to get the guns to cover your infantry shield.

In most cases, the guns can only see behind the infantry shield, and the defender must fall back into his guns for them to be effective.

In my current game, this holds true. It is a "Probe" game, and so far I am encountering mild resistance from his infantry screen. After a platoon full of half squad scouts (all conscripts) discovered the enemy the hard way, my main fighting platoons have moved into action. Most of the half teams survived, although a few were not so lucky.

Now, with his forward elements exposed, I busily destroyed one of his heavy machine guns by moving several platoons into a town, and a nearby forest. He is now attempting to fall back so my tanks would be exposed.

I plan to do what I always do - pursue with infantry until he is forced to expose his guns to aid his outnumbered and outgunned infantry.

Once exposed, a gun must be ganged up on by as many thing as you have in an area, be it mortars, tanks of all forms shapes and sizes, and infantry. Take the bastards out one at a time and keep them suppressed so they can't get in a shot at your tanks.

Thats all the advice I can give you, really. Arty is key, and best used when concentrated on a single gun, as previously mentioned.

Kill 'em good!

Cheers!

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[This message has been edited by The Commissar (edited 12-17-2000).]

[The Commissar]

In addition to previous post...

Watch out for obvious terrain.

In one of my games where I was a defender, I placed AT guns on a reverse slope of a large hill. As the opponent rolled his tank collumns over the crest, my guns destroyed every single one of his AFV's without suffering a single casualty.

Thus, avoid such obvious terrain advantages with your tanks when in advance.

[Guest Pillar]

Good points. I think what you might find (and I have) is that the enemy will commit SPA or some sort of tank support to reinforce any gains your infantry might be making. Further, they will have artillery coming down on your moving/advancing/non-dugin troops.

Depending on the doctrine you are following, you will either:

A) Commit your tanks

Abandon the approach and try elsewhere

If you commit your tanks, you will run into his AT guns and loose them.

Thus, I prefer to take option B:

I abandon the attack in that sector and try elsewhere. When my infantry do finally locate the weaker point in his defence they can break through and recon the potential AT gun positions in that sector, making Tank Commitment safe.

Then you can flank attack the rest of his forces, or even better, get them in the rear. His infantry will have to meet you in order to stop this flanking action or face defeat. When they show up, you'll be in a meeting engagement where your numbers will count towards an advantage, since his troops will not be dug in.

Once those infantry have been destroyed, presumably, you can reconnoiter his rear and find the remaining guns.

However, the problem is not entirely solved. Assuming your abandoned approaches cannot pin his own support while your main thrust takes place, he will shift that support (Including SPA) and require your flanking element to INCLUDE your armour. See what I'm getting at?

In the end I highly doubt there is any perfect solution. AT Guns are a fact of the battle that are to be highly reckoned with.

However, we can (and have) point out ways to MINIMIZE this risk or turn the AT Gun approach in our favour.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 12-17-2000).]

[The Commissar]

You are correct, Pillar. It all depends on your opponent, however.

Artillery can indeed have a large part in halting an infantry attack in its steps. The trick is to present an artillery target and have him expend his ammunition on it.

For example, in my current game, my opponent is wasting valuable mortar rounds on an empty space, because I made him think I moved several open-top tanks and vehicles into the area.

In reality, I moved the open topped AFV's to another direction once out of his LOS.

Also, if he does recognize your assault, keep moving and make your lines of advance flexible. Seek out the best hiding spots for artillery. Remember - He will more likely then not have no more then 2-3 spotters of medium arty. 88Mmm and 105mm mortars can be safely waited out in heavy buldings. Spread out your men to avoid the fire, but not too much to present a chance for his infantry. Make him always want to shift his arty to adjust to ther situation - this wastest valuable time as his spotters adjust the fire.

Cheers!

[Clubfoot]

Pillar,

Lucky for you, the skill level of your human opponent makes no difference if the little AI doughboy manning the AT gun decides HE wants to shoot at the scout car.

Clubfoot.

[Guest ciks]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that with beta patch it is very much harder to spot AT guns. In a quick battle my Reg Churchill took 6 or 7 frontal hits from 50mm AT gun without locating the sucker.

And in the same battle Sherman took many many hits for several minutes from 20mm Flak some 400m away in scattered trees and sherman failed to identify location of the gun. I found out that it was Flak only in the After Battle map.

Is this realistic?

[Samhain]

As a side note, why on earth does the TacAI insist on firing light AA guns and such at medium or heavy tanks without cease? You'd think they'd know that they have a minimal chance if any at penetrating the tanks' armor and are just drawing undue attention to themselves.

------------------

Hope you got your things together,

Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ciks:

Is this realistic?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After reading about operation GOODWOOD, I would say definitely yes. If there was a tweak, it has made the game more realistic. Spotting AT guns was extremely difficult.

Samhain - in a QB against the AI last night, a 20mm AA gun with it's first burst disabled the gun on my only 17pdr tank, leaving me very much stricken. It also achieved a weak spot penetration on a Cromwell with a side hull hit. Effectively two tanks disabled in three turns by a puny gun. 37mm AA guns easily achieve side and relatively easily lower hull penetrations against Shermans. I never spotted the gun, but I knew it had to be in a small patch of woods, so I brought up a 95mm Cromwell VIII and just nuked the woods. After two turns of that it was disabled.

[stic.man]

in a recent qb, i received 8 20mm flak guns, wierd dont you think?

but anways

i had a 20mm flak gun open fire at a stuart 400m out....my gun fired at that stuart for at least 4 turns. he got all kinds of hits, tracks, gun hits, penetrations (but no ko)and finally immoblize it but finally he managed to find it and take it out.

also, how come a 105 Howitzer sucks so much?

i had one in a game recently and it do anything, i had flank shots on a tiger, nothiing, not even a hit, this was a vet mind you. i had shots on another enemy gun, nothing, not even close. enlighten me.

[Guest wwb_99]

The best defense against ATGs is Artillery. The main disadvantage of ATGs is their nearly complete immobility, making it real easy to punish them with fire from the sky. Usually after one or two turns of 81mm morar fire, all but hte most fanatical SS Ubermenchen abandon their weapons.

WWB

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Samhain]

Points taken about the AA guns. I've also taken out Shermans with them on one or two occasions. And they're certainly effective against HT's, armored cars, and light tanks. But, you have to admit that againt medium/heavy tanks facing head on, AA guns don't generally do much if anything, barring a lucky gun-disabling shot

------------------

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[Guest ciks]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After reading about operation GOODWOOD, I would say definitely yes. If there was a tweak, it has made the game more realistic. Spotting AT guns was extremely difficult.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, if AT gun destroys tank with first or second shot, tank doesn't have a time to look for it. But in my case it was 6 or 7 frontal armor hits, btw. there were no enemy unit in LOS to distract Churchils attention. After all, there is a bang, fire and smoke when AT gun fires, isn't it?

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ciks:

OK, if AT gun destroys tank with first or second shot, tank doesn't have a time to look for it. But in my case it was 6 or 7 frontal armor hits, btw. there were no enemy unit in LOS to distract Churchils attention. After all, there is a bang, fire and smoke when AT gun fires, isn't it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you are on a battlefield, so there are a lot of bangs, arty, your engine roaring. Makes it a bit difficult to use sound spotting. German guns used flashless powder, so there was very little to go by in terms of sight. Good gunners would spray water in front of their gun's muzzle, to avoid dust being kicked up. Oh, you are also slightly panicky, because someone with the ability to turn you into a burning corpse has obviously sighted you. Not having been there (fortunately) I would surmise it is extremely difficult. These guns were also VERY small. I have stood next to a 50mm Pak 38 and a 75mm Pak 40 and they have a very low profile, and are not wide at all. You can easily hide them behind a small bush. The 88mm is different, of course.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-18-2000).]

[Guest ciks]

Thanks Germanboy. Interesting information.

[Guest Germanboy]

Ciks, you are welcome, glad I could help. You can also have a look here: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/011426.html and here http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/012030.html for some real-life size comparisons of guns/tanks to people. I am about 6 ft tall, just so that you know. Peter is a bit smaller, and Mathias a bit taller.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-19-2000).]

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ciks:

OK, if AT gun destroys tank with first or second shot, tank doesn't have a time to look for it. But in my case it was 6 or 7 frontal armor hits, btw. there were no enemy unit in LOS to distract Churchils attention. After all, there is a bang, fire and smoke when AT gun fires, isn't it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what makes the 6pdr so good. It has great killing power (particularly with tungsten), but a small blast. If you have a 6pdr hidden in woods on reverse slope, and back a bit into the woods so the LOS line extending out of it is dark blue rather than light blue; and if the gun is a good distance away from its targets; and (perhaps most importantly) if it's under control of an HQ unit who has good stealth abilities (a question mark with a box around it), then that gun will never be found.

Perhaps you can tell I like AT guns, particularly the 6pdr?

The only comparable gun may be the PAW600. The 50mm PaK38 has trouble penetrating Sherman frontal armor. And the PaK40 and PaK43 make a bit too much noise when firing (tending to draw unwanted attention). While the US 57mm, sadly, doesn't have tungsten.

As for defeating them? I dunno. I just hope I don't lose too many vehicles before I spot the SOB. Then I shell him into oblivion.

- Chris

[Grobdeutschland]

Good links & I love the pics!

------------------

"Far better it is

To dare mighty things...

Then to take rank with

Those poor, timid spirits

Who know neither

Victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt 1899

[Guest ciks]

Yeee, pics ar great!!!

[coe]

Lets say you are the attacker and your tanks

have longer range guns that the AT weapons.

Conceivably they could stand off at a farther

distance and chew up the infantry screen

while risking less damage. I suppose this

is only easily done once the infantry screen

has been spotted.

C.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

I am about 6 ft tall, just so that you know. Peter is a bit smaller, and Mathias a bit taller.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-19-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, fine, don't even mention me...

Punk...

------------------

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Yeah, fine, don't even mention me...

Punk...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because you are about the same height as me, and were always very whingy about appearing in pictures. BTW - if Jon is about 6ft, how high do you think that makes the Matilda I? Exactly. Now go back to arguing with Apoc, Jon, I saw you made a new friend there

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lets say you are the attacker and your tanks have longer range guns that the AT weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that AT guns necessarily have less range than tank guns. The only one I can think of off hand is the Puppchen. Which isn't really a gun. Even the recoilless rifles can fire out to 2000m+.

Although being far away from the gun itself will certainly induce a lot of misses. So if you're playing -say- Germans on the attack, you might consider putting a StuH42 in a reverse-slope hulldown overwatch position near the back of your setup zone (assuming the terrain allows it). These puppies are hard to hit, and can withstand hits from 6pdr AT shells (though not tungsten); particularly if they're obliqued WRT the gun. This may induce the 6pdr to open up; hopefully long enough for your infantry to spot the gun. The StuH is cheap and is a real threat if you start pounding suspected tree lines with the 105mm gun just 'feeling' around for enemy infantry near important objectives. That StuH could turn itself into a real pest.

BTW, don't sharpshooters have better spotting abilities than other units? If so, then they would make good lookouts. Use the StuH as bait with an overwatching sharpshooter spotting the offending AT guns. It might work. But then again, you might just end up sacrificing a perfectly good tank.

Incidentally, I've used AT guns in meeting engagement successfully before. They're not just good for defense. The only thing I don't like about them is you can't move them backwards. If you're going to pull back from a position, they have to turn around and move.

- Chris