Moving AT Guns: An exercise in frustration.

[wolf66]

RKT Otto Riehs described, that he couldn't make a Stellungswechsel (change of position) with his PaK40 during the soviet attack, because they were entrenched on a forward slope and the RSO was too far away on the reverse slope.

This seemingly realistic and effective tactic (reverse slope placement and quick move backwards after firing to get out of LOS before contact from tanks can be made) is not possible with these deploying and packing times in the game ........this and the almost instant detection of ambushing ATGS from enemy troops makes ATGs next to useless in game .....

[Gazmaps]

I think this a problem with realism vs fun vs abstraction. At the moment I think Battlefront have hit at the levels of max detail and had to abstractly model the behaviour of the AT guns.

They either cant or havent rated it higher priority to allow more detailed use of AT guns as desricribed in the above threads ie emergency 10m moves etc...

In my opinion though the abstraction is to constained, meaning the pack up times reduce the flexibility, survivability and "fun" of using AT guns. I would rather the abstraction is less constrained ie shorter pack up times.

I admit this would be unrealistic as well but would add more "fun" and tactical flexibility to the use of AT (and Inf Guns). This would be "my" preferred option untill they have time to better model more realistic and less abstracted use of AT guns.

I think the movemnt speed of AT guns is slow enough to limit there use in a realistic way. You cant move them that far at short notice. However shorter packup times would allow tactical movment and add to the realism of a quick displacement using a prime mover.

As it is now once they are exposed its fight to the death. The long pack up times mean even if you have smoke or covering fire they are unlikely to be able to complete their packup let alone move before been destroyed by Artillery fire or succesfully winning the engagement.

Playing devils advocate though, from a current PBEM game it is teaching me that a defence based purely on AT guns is not a good idea against a skilled opponent and that really a mix of AT guns and mobile tank destroyers or tanks is the better way forward - thus the limitations in the current abstraction, force (or reward) a more balanced play style using combined arms. However I dont find this as much "fun".

Personnely I feel a 1-2min pack up time (1min for small 36 - 50mm guns, 2 for anything bigger) would allow for more creative use and tactical flexibility. I think the the current 4-6mon pack up times for the larger guns should be reserved for the 88mm and bigger variety. I think this would move the abstaction closer towards real life use of towed guns. Keep the current non-prime mover movement speeds the same.

Cheers

[Cymru]

The sequence I was talking about is where they unlimber the gun from the horses.

.

<

may be apocryphal:

Sometime in the 50s the British did an efficiency study of getting artillery into action. Watching film, they noticed two men who stood at attention throughout the entire procedure. Eventually the found an old-timer who realized that they were the men who used to hold the horses and had never been reassigned.

[hoolaman]

It is not an insurmountable problem in game mechanic terms and its not an unreasonable concept.

I think a large part of the packing and unpacking time delay should be pushed onto the act of actually embarking the gun up on a truck rather than the bit where you roll the gun a couple of metres over to the truck. Everything I've seen leads me to believe that a gun should be on the move in less than 60 seconds if the manpower is there.

[Michael Emrys]

Everything I've seen leads me to believe that a gun should be on the move in less than 60 seconds if the manpower is there.

I suppose that is true, more or less. But we need to remember that some of these guns were very heavy. Take a look at the list:

• US 3" 2632.5 kg
  
• UK 17 pdr 2923 kg
  
• German 7.5 cm PaK 40 1500 kg (a lightweight for its class)
  
• German 8.8 cm PaK 43 5000 kg
  

These are real monsters. Yes, they can be moved, but on muddy or uneven ground, it would not be anything like a snap. Their smaller cousins had already pretty much reached the limit of what could be considered reasonably portable by their crews.

• German 5 cm PaK 38 986 kg
  
• US 57 mm/UK 6 pdr 1215 kg/1112 kg
  

It's little wonder that the concept of the towed ATG was pretty much abandoned at the end of the war. The size and weight of a weapon powerful enough to defeat modern armor pretty much dictated that it be mounted on a vehicle. And since they had become so big, one of their main selling points—ease of concealment—no longer applied. These factors, combined with cheap man-portable AT weapons spelled then end of the ATG.

Michael