[mooxe]

Realistic? Or unrealistic?

I say more unrealistic than anything.

The facts...

- For a gun to be put inside a building you need a wall to be torn down in one way or another. Most of the time, this is not how it works in CC.

- For a gun to operate in a building it needs something to brace itself on. You cannot dig in your gun to a wooden or tile floor. Once the gun is fired it will fly backwards.

- Guns definetly cannot be put above the 1st floor of a building. To get them to the 2nd+ floor they would need to be taken apart and lugged up, then put back together. The weight of the gun, the ammo, the sandbags to brace for recoil and the crew would be to much weight on the floor. Combine that with the fire an AT gun will draw and you have a highly unrealistic situation. (someone told me tho that a gun's LOS thats put on an elevated floor is taken from the 1st floor..?? is it true?)

- If a gun were to be put in a building and sufficiently sandbagged in, the contsant recoil would shake the house badly enough to damage it structure and cause a risk for the crew.

I think guns should be able to go into blown up buildings, there would be enough rubble laying around to provide a brace for the recoil, plus the walls will probably be knocked down. It would be a severe pain in the ass to get them in there though.


Yes I am sure someone can dig up screenshots of guns in houses, however these would be the exception to something thats most likely not taught or practiced.

So why do we put up with this in most mods when we all (or most) play this game for its detailed realism?

[platoon_michael]

Interesting subject Mooxe

I know in VETBoB their are only a few guns that fit in houses (most of the smaller ones)
My only geuss would be to help aid them in there defense because so many of them are weak from cover.
Seems one would come up of a way to keep rifle frie from keeping the crews down and mortors from being so deadly to them.

Also cant fire schrecks from inside a house,but thats another topic.

[mooxe]

Ah yes... the backblast.... Same with bazookas... You could fire them in a house of the room is big enough but that cant be modelled in game unfortunately.

[GS_v_Witzleben]

[RedScorpion]

the guns are never put on any floor apart from ground floor, nevermind the
actual floors of the house. its always on the bottom. i think its the same for all other cc's where guns may fit in buildings

you sure even a 5cm pak would damage the house from where it was fired?

[blacksad]

[ronson]

I think you are right about this Mooxe, the only buildings that guns should be able to enter should be bunkers and the custom built bunkers that were disguised as houses.

As you rightly say to get a gun into a house would be a feat in itself, ok you can take down a wall, but if you take the wrong wall of a house down (a structural wall) you stand a considerable risk of the whole structure collapsing around your ears, ask any building surveyor.

Also once you have the wall down to get it inside, you then need another hole to fire out of, which needs to be big enough to allow the gun reasonable traverse, more building work, which will leave you with a house with 2 large holes in it.

Look at the size of any AT gun, even the smaller versions have a wheel width of a small car and imagine trying to fit something like that into your own home, even the internal walls will pose a problem.

With rocket powered weapons like the Shreck and Bazooka the problem comes with the backblast on firing, this in a confined space would cause considerable discomfort to the crew and anyone else around, to say the least.

This would not apply to the PIAT which as everyone knows was powered by a large spring,and consequently had no backblast.

So I would tend to agree with you no AT guns in domestic housing, but yes to bunkers, rubble and also large buildings such as barns, supermarkets, factories etc.

[platoon_michael]

One thing I never liked about CC was those bunkers for AT guns or the trenchs for soldiers for that.
Once the game starts thats the first thing I look for because I know your there.

I wish each side had it's own terrain file so maybe you couldnt see this as soon as the game starts.

Sure one could edit the graphic so that it wasnt as visable but you wouldnt be able to totaly hide them,because the graphic you create wouldnt always line up with the terrain a person places it.
Unless ofcourse it was clear.

[Dima]

[bkp_mik]

when comes to the floors - yes, the gun is always on the ground one, and has no los.
look here, though forum is in polish, the photos are clear to prove that.

http://www.jagdtiger.mm.pl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2358&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

guns on higher floors - it is possible and it used to happen. polish troops in berlin in april 1945 in a few cases pulled guns on high floors, i.e. to fire at the Berlin Technic School building. I've read of a case where gun was pulled to 8 floor and fired from position in there. however it took soldiers a lot of time and effort to pull parts of the gun up and then set the gun back.

but coming to the point - distances in cc are close. mortars are deadly. guns dont have cover enough to fire from long distance and not be spoted or hurt by mortar fire. also guns in houses are less vulnerable to tank fire at close distance than guns outside, which is fair i fell.
nevertheless what is really unreal is the scope, where a gun can fire. the gun in cc can have 360 degrees scope of fire, if not limited by another building or hedge or something alike. but every house, even the one standing alone, has windows. No matter how many of them there are, never will a gun be able to fire in absolutely all directions.

[Dima]

[AT_Stalky]

Well, when it comes to second floor, iv never seen a gun in CC there at second floor, BUT, some maps with strange LOS, can sometime give a LOS line based on second floor, over a hedge for example. But when put the DOT on the tank to fire, even though its green its say "BLUTT" refuses to fire, i m not sure, but maybe its a crew man on second floor that los line first calculated from?? but again, the gun cant fire over the hedge as example, it just goes "BLUTT".

When it comes to realism of put a gun in a house, that's not a problem for a gun, of reasonable size, as a example a Pak38 i put image as they say more than 1000 words, numbers of boards or bricks to be removed are no pile...

Its been some years I been in service as a AT gunner, and if im not wrong, (memory)... The recoil of a Pak38 fire a AP round, will be equivalent to some 2180x823x823/2000 = 738.288j then add the the propellant (weight?) in totale some = 1.080.000j, this with a weight of gun (that's the key) at 1062Kg produces a recoil, and that's not that much 549j, it don't take much to stop that, as recoil most will be lifting muzzle, there by lift the whole gun with those long legs (witch gives huge lever action, releasing a huge amount of energy), and in that way, reliving its recoil energy. Those 549j to be put into a 1062Kg is thing with huge lever action, would be "no biggi" only some 0,51 j/Kg. (a rifle is maybe 15-20j = 3.75-5 j/Kg, or so as, weight maby 4Kg). The general ide is the weight of gun / the energy of the recoil, have to meet within a reasonable range, as a example if guns weight is reduced by removing armoure plates and such and redusing the weight much (though shields on a Pak38 is say 1.5?? m2, its weight is just 100kg with brackest), and some guns (MIGHT) have to reduce either the projectile weight, velocity or its propellant or the gun recoil would go out of control, (maby depending). With the Pak40, the weight is somewhat low compared to projectile velocity, weight & propellant its then necessary to get another method, this was the muzzle brake, witch worked as a counter force.
With a SABOT its far less recoil,

I have seen a 5cm AT gun fire at flat asphalt without "telt pins" been applied, it went maybe 50cm to 80 cm backwards, that's all, still lifting the muzzle.

AT_Stalky

[pzjager]

Hi everybody,

I agree with you all. It is ridiculous to see AT guns on a 3rd floor of a buiding... BUT:

Isn't it as ridiculous to see all the AT's and open tanks like SdKfz's, Marders and the like be destroyed in standart CC -and in the vast majority oif mods- with asimple mortar attack,after 10 seconds of play???

What I did in my two mods is to add in the vehicles file a medium top armour toall AT guns and open vehicles. I am quite happy with the result: now, no way to destroy these units so easily with a mortar. And they can be deadfull...as they were in reality.

Cheers
Panzerjäger

[ZAPPI4]

[RedScorpion]

the problem is that the mortars are too accurate. look at an AB mort who can surely destroy a ht on 400-500m w/o LOS... just too accurate

[Mr_Nuke]

I agree with Red Scorpion about mortars, and add one question, maybe a bit oof topic but still about AT guns.

Why can't we use again the same gun pit when you're defending a map for a second time? I don't speak of gun pits coded in maps but of those created when you're dug in? That's a real problem when you're finding a good position for your gun in the first battle and then you'll have to move the gun on the second battle. It seems that the same problem occurs with infantry (but is less annoying IMO). Is it map coded or game coded?

[pzjager]

Well it's maybe better for your game play, but it'snt not really realistic, cos those tank was very fragile against Top attack ... one mortar shoot some meters around those units was enought to see their crew leaving the vehicles, then what about a shoot right on the vehicles... between, those vehcile under attack from up position ( like on second floor) with normal weapon( fusil, Mg, ... ) was enought to kill their crew fastly and easily then to disable one of this vehcile... then now if you adding it a top medium armor that began a normal tank and not an open top vehicle...[/quote]


Hi,

I never said that I transformed all AT guns and open vehicles in close tanks!
I just added a few extra armor to these units in order to have them less vulnerable to mortars. And I still believe that the result is OK.
When you say that these open vehicles were easily destroyed by infantry, I believe you don't take into consideration that most of them like Marders or Nashorn were mounted with powerful guns and were not used on the front line but 1 kilometer behind...where they could shoot almost every AFV without any ennemy soldier around.

Cheers
Panzerjäger

[Dima]

Well armor itself does not affect small arms fire in CC

[Steelgunner]

Hey I would blow down a back wall any day to set up a gun in a building. plus the Germans in Itlay would blow a back wall and insert a tank. I see nothing wrong with putting guns in buildings. But i never but them in a 2 story buildings... seems the LOS will get them even no they are on the first floor. The game has its limits regarding real life fighting... but I do think this is as close as it gets compared with other games out there.

Click on below link to see a gun inside a building. (2nd Last row, 5 picture over.)

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_001/page_10.htm

[Pzt_Wruff]

About AT guns in 2+ story buildings.
Unless the gun has been spotted 2 story buildings can actually be an advantage to the gun. Unless the gun has been spotted then the best that enemy's indirect targeting fire can really do is suppress the gun. In a 1 story building indirect targeting fire will easily destroy a gun though you don't see the target (get the target circle).

You can pound away at 2/3 story buildings where you know there's an AT gun and barely suppress it. The gun won't be directly hit in a 2+ story building unless it's spotted (targetable) due to the fact that it's on the first floor and indirect targeting fire on any building in CC always targets the top floor.