Still I wonder about the vulnerability of ATGs, maybe they didn´t received much attention of the modders as did the tanks? Just a question.
What do you mean?
[...]
Well, I think that ATGs are too easily spotted when deployed in the relative open and a bit too vulnerable to gun fire. Not only unmodded morters hit them easily but also tanks take them out usually with the first shot.
I have to say that I only know the receiving (german) end of Anit-ATG fire in H2H. Ronson seems to have problems to locate my guns when properly put in bushes or aoruns building corners, so my that´s only my impression. But when he detects them they are done for. That happend in the same way in most vanilla CC versions.
Only chance to keep them alive during a battle is to place them in a suitable building. A PAK38 can be but in, but not a PAK 40. Understandable a PAK 43 "Scheunentor" does fit only into large bunkers. But a little IG18, which is smaller in length then a PAK 38 does not fit in the same building as the PAK does. Furthermore it is sometimes very difficult to place them properly in arty-bunkers. Placing of ATG into houses seems to be also a matter of discussion. Was it done or not in reality? At least I heard of a Flak 36 but into a church building.
My modding times are long ago and last time I worked with CC3, but IMO it was possible to edit the "vehicular size" and "object size" of the gun in the vehicle.txt. Also the the Integrity can be edited to make them last a bit longer. Exploding guns are a bit unusual, I guess.
To answer Dima´s question: Yes, I think they are too vulnerable and maybe too easily spotted. Their size should be worth a look into the coding. I might be wrong with that and leave that to discussion.
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:34 am Post subject: Re: ATG survivability in GT2.0
Thanks for your comments diggin.robat
Although I wanted reduced mortar accuracy in GT 2.0 ... I was still concerned about its effect on ATG's and them dominating more of the battlefield, due to their greater survivability against mortars
From what I've seen so far in game play ... I feel that the ATG data works very well with the mortar and tank data
ATG's, when hidden in hedges have a better chance of success against a tank, but they don't last long in open areas or in "head on" line of sight duels ... although I've lost several duels against an ATG hidden in a building (Sherman and FF's)
Placing ATG's is crossing fields of fire ... where tanks are lead into an ambush is very effective
I'm very cautious of bringing tanks into an area where I know there's an ATG. I've lost tanks to ATG fire and even a couple/few to 5cm ATG
That's just my opinion though ... thanks for sharing yours
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:42 am Post subject: Re: ATG survivability in GT2.0
Quote:
Placing of ATG into houses seems to be also a matter of discussion. Was it done or not in reality? At least I heard of a Flak 36 but into a church building.
no, it wasn't common practice for medium/heavy ATGs and needed some preparations to do that so IMO med/hvy ATGs should not be able to fit houses/bunkers in CC.
Quote:
My modding times are long ago and last time I worked with CC3, but IMO it was possible to edit the "vehicular size" and "object size" of the gun in the vehicle.txt. Also the the Integrity can be edited to make them last a bit longer. Exploding guns are a bit unusual, I guess.
in CC3 guns could hide really well - tanx could circle around them w/o spotting .
anyway, it is possible to make tanx firing HE shells at ATGs instead of AP thus making ATGs much harder to kill for AVFs, but that has it's own drawbacks...
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:49 am Post subject: Re: ATG survivability in GT2.0
The view from the 'other side of the hill' ......
Quote:
Well, I think that ATGs are too easily spotted when deployed in the relative open and a bit too vulnerable to gun fire. Not only unmodded morters hit them easily but also tanks take them out usually with the first shot.
I have to say that I only know the receiving (german) end of Anit-ATG fire in H2H. Ronson seems to have problems to locate my guns when properly put in bushes or aoruns building corners, so my that´s only my impression. But when he detects them they are done for. That happend in the same way in most vanilla CC versions.
With the GT mortars things are a lot harder, the fire on guns seems to affect their accuracy instead of destroying them in a spectacular explosion, which to me from a reality point of view is excellent.
Yes, Robats guns are difficult to locate when they are well hidden and at long ranges, as he says when they are in the more exposed positions they are easier to spot, especially with infantry. Buildings, Bunkers and thick hedge cover do make them hard to see, generally with these I tend to try to spot the flash, then saturate the area preferably with a Naval barrage which seems to me the only almost 100% solution. Again I think this reasonable as a broadside of 8" or 15" guns would inflict terrible damage at the recieving end, just check for yourself the weight and 'kill zone' of the Naval shell as opposed to the standard 3"/81mm mortar bomb.
Taking out the ATG with Shermans is a bit more dicey, true it has to be done on occasions and the only way I find to have a good chance of success is to pile on the supressive fire with mortars, MGs, Infantry, smoke....well just throw everything you can at it, then move your tanks up and try to attack from 2 different sides......you will lose a lot of infantry and don't blame me if you end up with smoking Shermies too , but it can work.
In actual fact I took out one of Robats guns recently with a combined assault on a bunker at one of the Omaha maps, first hitting it with everything, then I moved the Sherman to fire through the slot, although the tank fired several times, it was in fact the Rifle team that took out the gun with their grenades. This attack took the bunker which looked to be staffed with the Pak plus 2 other teams. The cost to me was my 3 assault teams plus a MMG, which was giving suppressive fire and a command team who were 'encouraging' the attack. Quite a high cost, but the fact the gun is now destroyed and bunker taken now opens things up on that beach allowing in future turns the Shremans to roam relatively freely.
Guns in buildings is probably something that is discussed slighty less that Life after Death ... or maybe even more!!
I think it far more likely that a gun would be positioned in rubble than inside a normal house. Don't forget that in Normandy the Todt constructed bunkers that were disguised as 'houses', I wonder if sometimes the reports of guns in houses were in fact these specially constructed bunkers?
I suppose in a defensive position that had been constructed by Engineer troops it would be possible, as these men would have the skills to enable them to remove walls, so that the gun would go in, and more importantly to shore up the remaining structure, so that that it didn't fall down on top of the gun when it fired due to the shock waves of the concussion!
Not something the AT officer would want to report to his colonel....." We hid the guns superbly in those old houses, as soon as the enemy tanks appeared we opened fire, striking one or two hits......unfortunately then the roof fell in on us!"
It also 'fixes' your guns into a rigid position, I don't know how other forces operated but in the British army, the tendancy was for various gun pits to be dug or positions selected along the Battalion frontage, but for the ATG themselves to be kept back in reserve only being sent forwards when the threat showed itself. This also saved the guns from being targetted prior to the attack, however when reading this it should be borne in mind that the '44 British army was very well mechanised, with even the Infantry battalion ATG being equipped with all terriain protected towing vehicles. Far different I guess to the situation that faced to Rumanians on the Don front during operation Uranus.
Hope this view from the other side is of interest, we shall have to see what effect the standard Artillery barrages have on these ATG, when I finally get off those blood soaked beaches:)......an excellent GC with over 40 games played so far with no crashes Thx Robat
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm Post subject: Re: ATG survivability in GT2.0
Quote:
Hope this view from the other side is of interest, we shall have to see what effect the standard Artillery barrages have on these ATG, when I finally get off those blood soaked beaches:)......
[...]
In actual fact I took out one of Robats guns recently with a combined assault on a bunker at one of the Omaha maps, first hitting it with everything, then I moved the Sherman to fire through the slot, although the tank fired several times, it was in fact the Rifle team that took out the gun with their grenades. This attack took the bunker which looked to be staffed with the Pak plus 2 other teams. The cost to me was my 3 assault teams plus a MMG, which was giving suppressive fire and a command team who were 'encouraging' the attack. Quite a high cost, but the fact the gun is now destroyed and bunker taken now opens things up on that beach allowing in future turns the Shremans to roam relatively freely.
Oh, yes! That was the meat grinder bunker. In fact I only had the PAK38 in that and rushed a single grenadier group in through the back door. Sadly a higher positioned MG at your flank was fooling around in their bunker so you were lucky to move your attack relatively unharmed towards the bunker.
It was better then in the movies to watch it.
The Navy barrages were usually taking out openly deployed ATGs, which is no question. Do not remember if Ronson directed them on big bunkers with ATG in, but in that case I would expect them to have a better chance of survival.
Good points, mates. I see, reading Ronsons experiences and careful approach, that the ATG really do their job by even posing a threat to any tank manover. I understand, that preparing a house for med to hvy ATG is more exception then the rule.
At the TLD beaches everything is decided by the lasting of the german ATGs and Royal/US Navy´s big guns. Losing proper cover for PAK40 and PAK43 is usual leading to a german desaster.
Another thing is that in CC big ATGs are to be placed relatively close to the front. I would expect for instance a PAK 43 to be positioned at greater distance to benefit from it´s longer range/AP-capability. But that would be well beyond the scope of CC mapsize/BGsize - proportion, I suppose.
I would suggest some test with the ATG´s integrity to prevent them to merely pop up like a tank but to be put out of action by being damaged or by crew loss. I agree with the med and hvy ATG´s size to prevent them to be put into houses, but in that case I would also suggest to edit IG18´s size (and any other similar sized guns) to be be able to put into appropiate cover like the PAK38.
Something to do with a german unit´s AT capabilities and a bit OT: Would it be a good idea to code Panzerfaust 30 as a crewed weapon like an LMG? Since grenadier and some other units only have one to their disposal, their loss when taking causalties can be severe, when it is the only AT weapon left on the field.
Ronson, after finishing our GC, we should start another and wap sides.
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:10 pm Post subject: Re: ATG survivability in GT2.0
Quote:
I would suggest some test with the ATG´s integrity to prevent them to merely pop up like a tank but to be put out of action by being damaged or by crew loss.
AFAIK integrity won't help.
Quote:
I agree with the med and hvy ATG´s size to prevent them to be put into houses, but in that case I would also suggest to edit IG18´s size (and any other similar sized guns) to be be able to put into appropiate cover like the PAK38.
IIRC leIG has smaller size in CC than pak38 .
Quote:
Something to do with a german unit´s AT capabilities
the German units AT capabilities in Normandy are greatly overrated in TLD .
I would suggest some test with the ATG´s integrity to prevent them to merely pop up like a tank but to be put out of action by being damaged or by crew loss.
AFAIK integrity won't help.
In CC3 at least it did. I fiddled aorund with Mark I_V* in the GW mod to prevent them of brewing up to easily, instead of being pierced by solid AP-rounds, which killed crew and systems.
I agree with the med and hvy ATG´s size to prevent them to be put into houses, but in that case I would also suggest to edit IG18´s size (and any other similar sized guns) to be be able to put into appropiate cover like the PAK38.
IIRC leIG has smaller size in CC than pak38 .
Well, it wouldn´t get into houses or bunker as the PAK38 did. It´s not only vehicular size but also size object (element radius) in vehicle.txt. Have to admit, that I didn´t looked at the GT2.0 code by now.
Something to do with a german unit´s AT capabilities
the German units AT capabilities in Normandy are greatly overrated in TLD .
I see, but in nearly 50 H2H games by now I only saw a Shermie succesfully hit by Pzfaust twice and only once taking out the tank. If a grenadier group took only one casuality, their AT-ability dropped immensly, mybe by loosing the Pzfaust?
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: ATG survivability in GT2.0
I agree 100% with all of diggin.robat's observations regarding ATG survivability and the Panzerfaust 30 (should be more accurate and should be coded as a crewed weapon). IMO, panzerschreks are too powerful (very long range + good accuracy) while panzerfausts are near useless in the stock game. I've seen that GT 2.0 adds a second panzerfaust to panzerjager team, which is a good idea but panzerfausts' accuracy need to be upped a little I think.
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:14 pm Post subject: Re: ATG survivability in GT2.0
Quote:
In CC3 at least it did. I fiddled aorund with Mark I_V* in the GW mod to prevent them of brewing up to easily, instead of being pierced by solid AP-rounds, which killed crew and systems.
i mean it will not help the ATGs in CC.
Quote:
Well, it wouldn´t get into houses or bunker as the PAK38 did. It´s not only vehicular size but also size object (element radius) in vehicle.txt. Have to admit, that I didn´t looked at the GT2.0 code by now.
or maybe it's just set as Medium IG instead of Light in data? ;)
Quote:
I see, but in nearly 50 H2H games by now I only saw a Shermie succesfully hit by Pzfaust twice and only once taking out the tank.
well, look at it from other angle - the Germans in Normandy didn't have much (if any) PzF at the beaches .
Quote:
If a grenadier group took only one casuality, their AT-ability dropped immensly, mybe by loosing the Pzfaust?
1)making it crewed will not help much.
2)picture bullet or shell splinter hit the warhead or tube making it unusable .
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:14 pm Post subject: Re: ATG survivability in GT2.0
On the Pzfaust I would say that the tank spots the Pzfaust team too easily. On CC 2 if you mortared the tank they buttoned up. allowing inf teams to get up close without being spotted. And you do need to be very close with the Pzfaust. On a/t guns, the tank commanders in operation Goodwood, almost to a man said "that at no time did they spot the positions of the German a/t guns". I have never come across a/t guns being in buildings, most likely because when fired they would kick up a lot of dust, plus a near miss could knock out the gun by just knocking part of the building down on the crew. A/t guns were positioned with the same care as snipers in that they could fire and still not give their position away.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
.
, but it can work.
.
