• Havoc
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads

Antitank gun units
09-08-2008, 12:29 AM,
RE: Antitank gun units
Hmm..I dont think that allowing the gun to be pushed a kilometer will be the right affect....and on thinking, perhaps the destruction of the guns is historical? Are they not a fragile unit? So perhaps the only real problem, is they are not getting the right number of kills?

I know there is a scenerio where they seriously upped Wittman's tank unit's Hard Attack so they could acheive a historical result, perhaps that is all that is needed for A/T guns in general?

Then again, it seems to me that an A/T gun's biggest use comes in when the hex is assualted, not in standing off and shooting across at the enemy. Trouble is..the enemy can stand off, and shoot at the guns, but there is an optional attack that can be used to prevent that....perhaps a/t guns should always be hidden when they are stacked with other units?

Ah well..excuse my early morning ramblings...

Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2008, 03:22 PM,
RE: Antitank gun units
I like that idea of them always being hidden, only showing up in assaults. Slow down those who slam their panzers all over in assaults. In addition maybe some kind of rule along the lines of the combined arms rule: Multiply AT effectiveness if there are not sufficient inf to help out the tanks.

Then, as I can keep dreaming since I've already left the bounds of possibility I'm sure, make the AT not be hidden if it is without supporting units, so they won't have any real ability to defend a hex by themselves.

The main thing about being able to hide them is it would solve the current problem that fire targeted at the AT unit devastates them before they can do anything useful.
Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2008, 08:52 AM,
RE: Antitank gun units
I don't think the game engine can model the armored combat of that period ver well. The lethality is there in the MC games like D'85, but not in the PC games.

The fact that German infantry in late 44 or '45 has essentially the same hard-attack rating as everyone else demonstrates this. German infantry of this period was LEATHAL to allied armor, not in PC though.
Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2008, 12:18 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-11-2008, 12:20 AM by Turner.)
RE: Antitank gun units
Have to agree with HirooOnoda, the long range lethality of the Tiger I and PzV Panther was devastating and could penetrate T34 armor up to 2 km with the PzV high-pressure 75mm gun being more lethal than the infamous 88 of the Tiger I. German infantry in face of vast numbers of russian armor became masters of knocking out tanks and learned to use the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck very well, among other AT weapons the wehrmacht used. The germans also fully understood and used decentralized leadership philosophy, resulting in a much higher lethality and combat efficiency in mobile (fluid) combat situations. Perhaps the QFM rule was designed to help with this somewhat evened out and ahistorical design of PzC? (In the sense that this factor is not modeled I mean)

In open terrain, german armor should dominate, like soviet armor should dominate in rough and forested terrain where they could take advantage of the shorter combat distances and the great mobility of the T34 chassis.

Considering the dedication and historical knowledge of this community, you all knew this already eh?

Back to the topic of AT guns. A 1 hex mobility range in deployed mode would do wonders to survivability as would the ability to be 'hidden' until firing. If not firing during one round they should regain 'hidden' status. It should at least be possible to hit AT guns with return fire before they hide again.
"I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, January 1, 1815.
Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2008, 01:47 AM,
RE: Antitank gun units
Liquid Sky Wrote:Hmm..I dont think that allowing the gun to be pushed a kilometer will be the right affect.... ....
I don't believe the idea of the 1 hex movement while deployed is to represent a gun being manhandled that far. My view of travel mode for units is just that, the unit is formed up to travel long distance, thus it has the ability to take advantage of the road network, IN ADDITION to the mounting of infantry and guns with their transport. In other words, the unit is formed into column, or other formation to move without security but at high speed.

I see this deployed movement as being the unit is hooking up a gun or two, moving them while others provide covering fire, etc. And since many guns, up to 50 mm anyway, could be manhandled for short distances, this would allow them to be moved out of their firing postiion to a more covered position where the gun could be towed away by its prime mover. In addition, guns were dispersed rather than massed hub to hub, meaning there some out of sight of the enemy attack most of the time.

1 hex would still leave it vulnerable to enemy action in the next turn, representing the fire taken while moving that one hex distance. Losses would still be likely, but not total destruction, which was fairly rare and took time normally, not the consistent enemy arrives adjacent, 100% of guns destroyed within a couple of turns unless a very strong defense is formed.

[Image: exercise.png]
Quote this message in a reply

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)