Interesting ATGM observations vs BLUEFOR tanks

[Apache]

Interesting, thanks. I suspect, using as an example the German mission no. 1 in the campaign, deployment of foot based Milans would be an appropriate option, equally, like you say, you have to go with what you get and this case there are none, just the Marder Milans and given Leo fragility I will not be putting one of those in a firing position!!! With respect to the first part of the response, in game terms that's the point I am getting at really. If shelling the blazes out of everywhere would not be considered viable and commanders in this case would need to come up with a 'Somme fee' alternative I would normally rather try that alternative than 'gamier' options.

I'm happy with the game/sim balance overall but will be happier when Normandy arrives as it's weapon lethality that causes many problems for this setting IMO, and the complete push over for forces without them. So, where the right assest is not available, and other tactics do not seem best placed, the "recon by arty" may be the best, if somewhat gamey, approach

[gibsonm]

I'm happy with the game/sim balance overall but will be happier when Normandy arrives as it's weapon lethality that causes many problems for this setting IMO, and the complete push over for forces without them. So, where the right assest is not available, and other tactics do not seem best placed, the "recon by arty" may be the best, if somewhat gamey, approach

Sure but a previously unseen Panzerfaust firing through a bocage hedge at 20m is still going to convert a Sherman into a Ronson / Tommy Cooker.

In that case the lethality is still there but at 75m instead of 2500m.

No doubt similar issues will be raised by 88mm ATGs that are able to dominate a map or the "lone Tiger on the hill" or the "How do I assualt across 100m of open ground to get that MG42?" type situation.

[Apache]

Well personally I see a WORLD of difference between weapons then and now. Sure there are similarities but that is about it IMO. The setting also affects things (e.g. Normandy v desert and open, barren terrain). There is a lot to get concerned about threat wise on a WWII battlefield but chalk and cheese compared to this.

In any event, personally I prefer WWII, it's weapons and the Western theatre and no manner of comparisons will affect that I'm afraid.

Off to the CM:BN board Nice talking.

[gibsonm]

No doubt I'll see you there ("we" now have three boards to monitor as opposed to two).

Merry Christmas to you and yours (and hopefully the snows not too deep).

[Apache]

You too!! Snow not too bad but freezing temps a PITA, especially after 2.5 years of working in the UAE where it's about 27 now. That's about all it had going for it mind -D Merry Xmas!!

[Hairy Pie]

Just going back to the original posts about tank armour - I was playing the Marines Bad Moon Rising scenario, and one of the M1A2's must have taken over 30 hits from main gun and missile rounds and the crew were untouched! The tank wasn't really a tank anymore, just a metal box, but the T-90's were still pounding away at it when the scenario timed out.

Also on one of the Brit scenarios, I lost three Chally2's from first time hits from T72 TURMS(?), who were shooting from about 2000 meters!

[gibsonm]

Also on one of the Brit scenarios, I lost three Chally2's from first time hits from T72 TURMS(?), who were shooting from about 2000 meters!

To what though, barrel launched ATGM fire or Sabot?

Some details would be nice if you have them.

It also depends a lot on how you employed them (there's a bunch of tips in earlier posts in this thread and elsewhere).

[Damian90]

Ekhm, Marines never used M1A2's, only M1A1HC (but yeah, in terms of armor protection, M1A1HC and M1A2 are the same tank), or M1A1FEP.

As for Challenger 2, remember, that any tank hit in even side turret armor at angle near 90 degrees from it's center line will be disabled or destroyed if hitted by something "big", also remember about big weak spot of CR2 over lower front hull, only CR2 enhanced have there good protection.

So best way is to face You tanks frontal armor to enemy, use hull down positions, and play slowly so You won't loose tanks in any stupid way... I actually play such way that in any scenario I don't loose any tank, I try also avoid casualties in IFV's and APC's and any other vehicles.

[Hairy Pie]

To what though, barrel launched ATGM fire or Sabot?

Some details would be nice if you have them.

It also depends a lot on how you employed them (there's a bunch of tips in earlier posts in this thread and elsewhere).

Sorry, don't have that info. I play RT so couldn't rewind to see exactly what killed them.

As for how I emply them, I had them in a position that I thought was hull down to where the T-72's appeared, on the back side of a hill with line of sight right across the map.

This leads me on to another question: I've read about that being a bad idea and that you should move your tanks through the hills and not over them, but doesn't that negate the advantage of the 2000+ meter range? Am I completely wrong in thinking that tank warfare should be done at maximum ranges?

[gibsonm]

As for how I emply them, I had them in a position that I thought was hull down to where the T-72's appeared, on the back side of a hill with line of sight right across the map.

This leads me on to another question: I've read about that being a bad idea and that you should move your tanks through the hills and not over them, but doesn't that negate the advantage of the 2000+ meter range? Am I completely wrong in thinking that tank warfare should be done at maximum ranges?

Well can I direct you to post #5 in this thread which in turn will direct you to another thread where this has already been covered in detail?

Basically (and this is a summary, for detail read the post and link ).

Tanks should.

1. Avoid being static and engaging in "duels" with opposing anti armour weapons.

2. Be used in pairs at least. One vehicle (or better yet, group of vehicles) provides supporting fire (in CM:SF terms targeting or covered arcs) whilst another vehicle (or group) moves. The group that moved then supports the one that was supporting so it can move.

This approach is limited though by the "small" (in anti armour weapon ranges) maps that CM:SF can produce and hence generate limited opportunities for manoeuvre.

Read the other thread for a more detailed (description with videos, etc.)

[Hairy Pie]

Thanks gibsonm

I'll do just that. I'm at work and its New Years Eve and have nothing better to do.

[gibsonm]

Well it's 2048 here and I've pulled the duty roster too.