AT Guns in ASL - Why so tough??

[TankDawg]

Hi Guys,

thought i would try to get a topic rolling here.

Something that becomes more and more obvious with the more combat accounts I read and the more I play Combat Mission, is that AT guns in ASL are WAY too tough to kill.

Usually, in WW2, an AT Gun would hide, fire a few shots, and then be suppressed by both MG and tank fire. Just the presence of exploding mortar rounds and bullets whizzing by a fairly exposed crew was enough to render it ineffective. Anyone that has read more than 4 accounts of armor vs. Guns in WW2 knows about this. Dozens of accounts of tanks taking out 2, 3, 4 AT guns in one battle.

In Combat Mission (which is basically realistic ASL for computer) the same thing happens. Gun hides, pops out, gets about 5 shots off. Maybe kills 1 or 2 vehicles. Then return fire from MG, MTR, tank or infantry pretty much pins it. Gets off a couple more bad shots and then it either is destroyed by further fire or the crew takes off.

In ASL, this NEVER happens. Lets say average range is say 400 meters (10 hexes). So a tank needs a base of 7 to hit. If buttoned up, plus emplaced a 4. Now most likely the tank is moving, so either it has no chance to hit, or can stop and try to roll a 2 (plus subsequent roll of 1). But if the tank is NOT moving, it would be a blaze, since the AT Gun would need a 9 to hit and probably would even get rate.

Even if you have 3 tanks moving upon a AT gun, chances are one will get killed in Def. FIre Phase, another in the Prep fire phase, leaving one return shot needing a 6 to hit it. then an effects roll. If it is ineffective, that tank is a goner in the following prep fire phase.

Now having played ASL for 18 years now, I know that the way to take out guns is with infantry. But it should not be that hard for tanks to do the job as well.

Any thoughts out there as to why the designers made it SO tough for tanks to suppress, pin or kill AT guns??

[Klaus Fischer]

TankDawg,

actually this is a good point and here in Germany we had a lot of discussion about it too - we even worked on some SSR for this.
BUT, remember ASL is an abstraction, and I think the current rules represent the Guns very realistically. It takes some time to find and locate an AT-Gun in hiding (in reality not some PC game), get your guts together and then attack it. Calling in OBA, or even the Mortar close by, to get that bugger also takes some time. This is represented by the "stay HIP, remain concealed".
So what's the secret in taking out an AT-Gun in ASL?
Act like the real soldiers out in the field! Combined Arms!
Have some Scouts advance ahead, keep Infantry, hts and Tanks together. If an AT-Gun opens up on you, Smoke it, Supress with Infantry, swarm it with Halftracks from different directions and OVERRUN it - this works in theory :D and is not for the faint at heart. 8)
I know that Chas Smith is working on a Halftrack article that covers this and he can explain it a lot better.
BTW, this article will be in our next Recon by Fire magazine :D
Ciao
Klaus

[TankDawg]

Klaus, thanks for reply.

Everyone else:

COME ON! This aint a mailing list no more. :shock:

You actually have to think about replies and 1 or 2 sentence blurbs dont cut it. This is a forum for discussion.

Lets get some thinking and typing going. I see longer, more thought out posts on Sports forums than I do here. And I know you guys DO have great thougths and opinions, so lets see em!! :!:

Thanks,

[mglouie]

Howdy,

Not sure if it's to hard in ASL or not. Maybe it's to easy in CM? I think the thing we have to remember is that what we read are about the successful attacks. If a tank and it's platoon did take out a number of AT guns that day, that doesn't mean they did it every time they wanted.

I can remember reading in one of the books on Wittman that they used to have a tactic to platoon fire into areas they susspected of hiding AT Guns. The thinking was that the Russians would think they were spotted and return fire even though they didn't have a good shot yet. It was a way of flushing out the enemy. They could waste a lot of ammo and time using these tactics. They feared AT Guns more then tanks.

[TankDawg]

Louie,

Good reply. thanks.

But firing 75mm area fire in ASL vs. suspected hidden guns would never work. It would be ineffective, and then the gun would pop out, and kill all the tanks that were stopped and firing at it.

I guess the designers really wanted something very tough for AFVs to go up against in this game.

They succeeded.

[mlicari]

I think, given the time frame of an ASL turn (and ASL scenarios), the rules model ATGs very well. After reading hundreds of books on World War II, I have the impression that it took some time to first recover from the shock of a newly revealed ATG (that maybe just blasted several friendly tanks), then plan a way to deal with the new-found unpleasant gun, and then actually go and implement that plan. Meanwhile the gun continues to fire. An ASL turn is supposedly a couple of minutes, so it seems right that the ATG should "last" a few turns before it's destroyed, outflanked, captured, or otherwise dealt with.

Plus, ATGs still have important vulnerabilities. A gun unsupported by infantry will be vulnerable to enemy infantry; lone guns don't fend off infantry assaults very well. Plus, it's often easy to outflank them or find areas that are out of LOS.

Just some thoughts.

Mike

[mglouie]

Louie,

Good reply. thanks.

But firing 75mm area fire in ASL vs. suspected hidden guns would never work. It would be ineffective, and then the gun would pop out, and kill all the tanks that were stopped and firing at it.

I guess the designers really wanted something very tough for AFVs to go up against in this game.

They succeeded.

How come my AT Guns would never 'Kill everything in front of them'? Dang, :cry: I must be playing the wrong way. :shock:

Really, it only seems to happen that way. If you shoot at a 'motion' tank within 6 hexes, you'll need at least an 8 or less. Not automatic, but very good indeed.

AREA firing wouldn't be a good tactic I agree, I hardly ever do that. In order to simulate the tactics I mentioned you would need a SSR. It's to bad ASL doesn't already do this, but it could be added by a good scenario designer. However, would the extra rules and time required add that much to the experience and gameplay? :?:

[pferraro]

Louie, you win best avitar. Ingenious. I gotta go find that custom leader GIF that Klaus built for me years ago...

:)

[Gunner Scott]

Hi-
Whats the proccess of puting those gif's/ pics under your names?


Scott

[mglouie]

You can then quickly identify someone. Your posts take on more personality.

Scott, maybe you should think of NOT having one. :lol:

Paul, I like yours too. Very nice.

[WesN]

If I read that question correctly he is asking how to do it. Go into your profile and at the bottom you give it the URL of the picture you want to use. I don't know what the restrictions are, but usually the picture can be no bigger than 75x75 or 100x100 or 150x150 or so.

Wes

[Gunner Scott]

Hi Janked-
Thanks for the info.


Scott

[Nat Mallet]

The current Avatar size limit is 80 X 80 and Avatar uploading is disabled. I want to see what kind of space requirements the posts are going to demand before I allow high res images to be stored on the system.

Nat

[Klaus Fischer]

Something that becomes more and more obvious with the more combat accounts I read and the more I play Combat Mission, is that AT guns in ASL are WAY too tough to kill.

Jeff,
did you ever try "Steel Panthers. World at War"? It is a free downloadable game from www.matrixgames.com and is the only PC game that comes close to ASL.
And if you have to fight AT Guns in SPWaW, you immediately realize the similarity to ASL. :cry:
The Gun gets an average (depending on distance) of about 10-20 shots out before you see it - half of your tanks are gone by then - and when you start firing at it, it takes forever and a day to take it out - eventhough you may be able to supress it (like Pinning) rather fast.
In SPWaW, just like in ASL, you can get the AT Gun with Infantry rather fast - and they help you spotting - but without infantry, you'll loose a lot of tanks before you get that bugger out of your way :cry:
Additionally, if you play the Russians, you get a feeling for low ROF and Red TH# - they can't hit a Barn Door even if they're in front of it - but improve -- should they survive :oops:
Try it out
Ciao

Klaus

[Jeff Leslie]

Yes, ATG's are hard to kill in ASL and I think that's probably not a bad representation of real life given the time span of an average ASL scenario.

One thing I've noticed about ASL is that you can usually apply real-life common sense to most of what happens in ASL and come up with the reason why things happen the way they do. I'm not basing that on assumption, but on 21 years experience as a tanker in the US Army.

First, the ATG is most likely going to be set up emplaced and covering a specific part of the battlefield that the owner of said gun would like to get a few good shots off at some tanks. He's probably going to pick a spot where he can get some flank shots (I'm not talking desert scenarios here, that's a whole different set of tactics) or maybe even some rear shots (it can be done).

Second, most WWII ATG's were actually pretty small targets. Take the German Pak 40 for example. The gun tube is very high up on the carriage, so when that baby is properly emplaced you're only going to have a target about a foot high. If I was emplacing that gun, I'd have the gun tube sitting about an inch off the ground. So, if you are taking fire on the battlefield in a tank (assuming you survive the first round or two), your first objective is to either find cover or get some suppressive fire on the target ASAP. I remember reading somewhere that in one US tank company in WWII, the round in the chamber on each tank was actually a smoke round. The reason there was that when the lead tank got ventilated , everyone else popped off their smoke round in the area or suspected area of the ATG to buy time for everyone else to find cover and start laying in some real fire to the target. With such a small target and the fire control systems available in WWII, the main objective was to suppress and obscure the target enough that somebody could take the time to get a good shot in.

Third, the Pak 40 had a rate of fire of 14 rounds per minute. That's 28 rounds in the time span of a turn in ASL! Here's my source for that info:

http://worldwar2.uhome.net/pak40.htm

You can criticize that source all you want, but if I can load a modern 40lb 120mm round in 5 seconds (do the math - 12 rounds per minute), then I would say that 14 rounds per minute for a 14lb 75mm round is not that far off. True, under battlefield conditions those rates of fire are probably significantly lower. It still means that an ATG crew can send several rounds downrange before the tank crew could probably even identify the ATG as a target. Read that as: the ATG will probably get you before you can get it...

In conclusion, I think that the lethality of ATG's in ASL is probably pretty close to real life, especially if you have the misfortune of being in the engagement area of the gun. Once you can do things like flank the gun position and get some effective fire on the ATG (the person that actually does this probably won't be one of the initial targets of the ATG...), the ATG's life span will become pretty short. The Pak 40 only had a 4mm thick gunshield on it, which would only stop small arms fire (if you're lucky) from the front, so the ASL idea of going after the crew rather than the gun actually seems pretty logical to me.

Tankdawg, I tried to do better than a one sentence wonder here....

Jeff Leslie

[Anonymous]

I don't find ATGs too tough in ASL. Like Brian, I think they feel right in light of extensive reading on the topic. In fact, if an ATG is killing more than a couple tanks, you are either very unlucky or just not properly handling the situation.

If I'm moving armor against an opponent's as-yet-unknown ATG defense, I try to identify the likely locations of the gun(s) and make sure I have no more than one AFV in a given hypothetical covered arc. Sometimes that means one or several tanks will be off the front line and not in action, but it's a small price to pay given the alternative. Once a gun reveals itself, I start hammering it with Smoke and/or infantry fire, and maneuver my infantry against it. If I have a lighter, less-valuable vehicle, I'll run it up, hose the position, and if the crew is still around, jam the tank into the location itself and follow up with the foot-sloggers.

If after all that I'm still facing a good order ATG that can shoot, I try using infantry smoke to cover my vulnerable tank's escape, plus whatever smoke the vehicle itself may have available. Failing that, I guess I'm just hoping he rolls high.

On the flip side, when I'm setting up a defense, I count on no more than one tank killed per ATG; I figure anything more than that is gravy.

JR

[TankDawg]

Jeff,

Thanks for the thourough reply. Nice to see a fellow tanker( Was 19k, then Tank Platoon Leader in M1A1s) so I can relate.

My problem is still this. Reading historical accounts, and simply thinking about that small little gun shield, would'nt you sca-dattle the minute some mortar rounds or a 75mm shell exploded close to your ATG?

That is what happened in all the WW2 German and US Armor books (of which i have dozens) occured. The gun crew would do its job by killing a tank or two, but then, would be suppressed, pinned and destroyed or would retrograde out of there.

I have no problem ATF ROF. I agree with you on that. Just think that they should not be so hard to pin, break or destroy.

Thanks again for long reply.

Fire and Movement! (303d AR motto)

[mglouie]

Hi Jeff,

I hear what you are saying, but what you describe above seems to happen in the vast majority of the ASL scenarios I've played, so I would say it is modelled well in ASL.

[J. R. Tracy]

> That is what happened in all the WW2 German and US Armor books (of
> which i have dozens) occured. The gun crew would do its job by killing
> a tank or two, but then, would be suppressed, pinned and destroyed or
> would retrograde out of there.

Yep, and I think that's what generally happens in ASL-land, too.

JR

[Brian W]

> That is what happened in all the WW2 German and US Armor books (of
> which i have dozens) occured. The gun crew would do its job by killing
> a tank or two, but then, would be suppressed, pinned and destroyed or
> would retrograde out of there.

Yep, and I think that's what generally happens in ASL-land, too.

JR

I think the real issue is gun density. Generally, the Germans were killing tanks with tanks as much as all other arms combined. While individual AT guns could be silanced, smart tactics is to aviod AT gun zones either by penetrating the MLR on a small front and then short envelopments with non-mobile elements and deep envelopments with mobile elements. I.e., hit 'em where they ain't (and it corollary, hit 'em when they is looking the other way).

The Soviet doctrine by mid war was to group AT assets in strong points, so you might have 6-24 AT guns (supported by a similar number of ATRs) in the area of one ASL board. Even with crappy penetration of the soviet AT guns, these areas became very difficult for german armor to penetrate without much combined arms help. If strong Soviet artillary was present to support the strongpoint woe was to the german.

Of course the other thing missing from asl is the concentration of armor you should see. Platoon sized attacks are usually poor tactics brought on by necessity.

As with RB, it may be better to think of some asl scenarios as each piece abstractly represents the effective part of a much bigger fight . . .

[Bruce Childs]

Just had to add my 2 or 3 sentences here.

Yes ATGs were a very tough target. The shocking effects of a hidden ATG knocking out the lead AFV in a column should be considered in several ways.
1) Confidence (morale) goes down as losses are sustained, especially such a visible loss as the lead tank. This will inevitably cause following AFVs, not to mention accompanying infantry, to search for the offending ATG while also seeking cover, not an ideal situation for killing the enemy. Conversely, the successful ATG crews' morale would have to be improved, knowing they had the means of inflicting damage on a relatively helpless enemy. So, an advancing column would be more vulnerable to and less able to deal with an ATG in front (see The Campaign in Norway, Derry, pg 120-121).
2) Lethality of ATG. A hidden gun crew would have plenty of time to choose a target, carefully line up the shot and fire at will, keeping in mind the need for rapid reload and continued concealment. Realistically, tanks present a target much easier hit than the well-emplaced ATG or its crew, and the gunners knew this. Tanks not closely supported by infantry or other means were an easy snack for any decent ATG crew whether in column or in line formation (see Operation Goodwood).

So, unless yer able to smoke the ATG, suppress it with fire, or otherwise incapacitate the crew, you should count on loosing any tanks that are wandering around the field unsupported. Dont forget yer sD, sM or reverse/motion attempt. Air/artillery support never hurts.

Bru
:evil: Dont fear the Reaper :evil:

[Stevedeth]

Maybe the issue is that ATGs are to easy to kill but AFVs are two easy! Why is it just a easy to hit a churchill moving at 5 MPh accross your front as it is to hit a hellcat moving 30 MPh? I have always thought that late war panther hit/kill is not fun when the hit is like 75% sure.

SD

[rryeates]

I'll start off with saying I do not have a probel with the AT gun/Tank model in ASL. I am no expert in this area. A couple comments though:

Similar to Jeff, I have read accounts where a primarily tank force has dealt with a fair number of AT assests with only minimal losses. These accounts have been primarily from the German perspective. This leads to the possibility that a certain amount of fabrication may be at work. I know, heresy. This fabrication could work both ways. Germans claiming excessive kills or Russians who after the first couple shots simply abandon their position, but report to superiors "We defended our position valiently, but simply were overrun".

Another aspect that I have read in many accounts that may explain his perceived discepancy is that engagement ranges were often greater than what is seen in a typical ASL screnario. One of the great advantages of some of the German guns was there ability to kill enemy vehicles at ranges where the enemy weapons were just not very effectively. Specifically I am thinking of situations where enagagements may have started at ranges in the range of a kilometer or greater. That's roughly 20-22 hexes or more. Add to this, due to folds in the ground, there is reasonable chance these tanks are going to be hull down and they will likely be CE. Most Russian AT guns in the first 1/2 of the war are not going to do a whole lot to a German tank with a 6 armor factor at that range. Especially if a Tank repositons after being aquired by dodging out of line of sight for a bit. The biggest problem here will be the ability of the AT gun to actually score a hit. Add to this fact the way ASL focusses in on the portion of an action where the real guts of what occurred are being modeled instead of what might have been a 4 - 8 hour engagement. In other words, in a typical engagement the Tank force may have stood off and fired at the AT gun position for an hour. Found some folds in the ground and gradually worked its way towards the AT gun positions from HD positions over the course of the engagement and then finally rushed the position that contained mostly unmanned guns by this time.

None of this really directly addresses Jeff's point, but I think these aspects need to be considered when thinking about AT vs Tank engagements in the context of the ASL model.

[ToxicShock]

I like to use my Sniper to take out ATGs. You can ask TankDawg how's it done properly. :P

[Peter Ladwein]

Jeff,
My problem is still this. Reading historical accounts, and simply thinking about that small little gun shield, would'nt you sca-dattle the minute some mortar rounds or a 75mm shell exploded close to your ATG?

That is what happened in all the WW2 German and US Armor books (of which i have dozens) occured. The gun crew would do its job by killing a tank or two, but then, would be suppressed, pinned and destroyed or would retrograde out of there.
)

I think the problem is the timeframe of most scenarios. Apart from having to spot the ATgun first, it would take time to bring mortars and other weapons to bear. ASL puts the attacker under more time pressure than there really was.
Another point is that our cardboard soldier crews are willing to take great risks if there is a chance to kill two or three more tanks. Real world crews would think about abandoning their gun once their position got under acquisition. This would especially be true for lone guns acting as a sentinel at a crossroads or such, when confronted with numerically strong enemy.

The first Tigers to see action on the Eastern Front got stuck in marshy ground and were then engaged by enemy AT guns with flank shots. All tanks were destroyed or abandonned.

Regards,
Peter

[Anonymous]

I'm following your arguments with interest. I would like to add a point.

From my point of view, I agree that ATG might have too many advantages in ASL. They can use hidden initial placement, are difficult to hit, have a high ROF, and crews are always elite guys. With only an AT gun and a bit of look, you can eliminate a full platoon of tanks in just one fire phase!

Well, of course, in an ideal situation the crew of an ATG coul do that, and here is where the "problem" lies: In ASL the situation is very often "ideal" for the ATG's.

What that means? In ASL tanks in the open are always like sitting ducks, even when moving around. If you were in an ASL tank you would always feel as advancing over an elevated road.
No level changes on the terrain, no brush or trees hindering the view... open ground hexes are like flat desert hexes.

When tanks fiire aganist an ATG, their machine gun fire is mostly ineffective: low firepower, gunshields and crews that always act under fire like "dare death" crews.
HE fire aganist ATG's is also quite ineffective for the same reasons. Even adquired ATG's crews continue to fire with the same effectiveness as if they were on the training ground when they are on the receving end. They have iron nerves !!
So in most occassions, ASL tanks don't even fire back aganist ATG's they use smoke, flee away, or charge madly forward to try to reach the ATG hex and frezze them.

Well ' I cannot imagine most humman tanks crews charging 200 meters with a vulnerable vehicle just to frezze an ATG crew....


What can be done:

-: provide some kind of hindrance for open ground hexes depending of the scenario: this reflects the fact that open ground is not always a desert.
This would affect also infantry fire.


-: Permit that a tank in open ground may attempt to be hull down. May be difficulting a bit the attempt. a +1 for example : this reflects that ground is not always flat

-: ATG's under fire suffer a -1 ROF : This reflects than a crew under fire cannot work hundindered and specially the ones who carry the ammunition and are not proytected by gunshields...

-: And ATG crew Adquired by enemy gun-s suffer a task Morale check with an -1 or -2 depending of the level of adquisition, in the rout phase if they fail they rout inmediatelly. This reflect that crews even trained speciallist are not "dare death". Heros would not be affected by this TMC.


What do you think.

[Swiftandsure]

There is the problem of simulating time.
A Gun may fire once per MP expended by AFV.
A 10 MP AFV will be potentially shot at 10 times ; a 18 MP, 18 times... which goes against the advantage of moving fast!
Of course, this never happens, but with a 3 ROF ATG, three successive shots are quite usual (25% of cases).
Fast tanks have no advantage, in this case.
They can, however manoeuver out of harms way more easily...

The toughness of ATGs (HIP etc.) helps simulate "tank traps."
When an ATG is spotted, it suffers really a lot... so its only chance is to take the enemy by surprise.

[Treadhead]

What can be done:

<snip>

-: Permit that a tank in open ground may attempt to be hull down. May be difficulting a bit the attempt. a +1 for example : this reflects that ground is not always flat

<snip>

What do you think.

Sounds to me like a good argument for some kind of "hillock" overlay to be used on conventional boards. We already have the optional "Alpine Hills" rule, and the Slope rule (which I find extremely odd in certain cases).

I think it would be quite reasonable for slightly undulating ground in otherwise open terrain. The Hillock overlays could be quite small, actually, and would nicely simulate what you suggest above. [The downside is the reluctance of some players to play a scenario containing overlays.]

As far as ATG being too strong... I know I've read more than one account (though I couldn't quote them at the moment) of an AT Gun destroying many, many tanks, even while under heavy fire. Maybe those cases represent a "heroic" instance, but on balance I've never thought that ATG were *too* strong in ASL. (Probably because my ATG seem to lose ROF and concealment all too easily!)

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

[Pitman]

I don't see any problem with AT guns in ASL per se. I think there is a more general problem of guns in ASL, which is that the range of results is too limited. Except under rare dice rolls, which may produce something like a possible shock or an immobilization, the results are 1) nothing or 2) tank killed. Yet accounts of armored warfare, even in cases of 88mm AT guns vs. Shermans, reveal all sorts of circumstances in which 88mm AT guns punch holes through Shermans with nothing happening.

As for ASL cardboard crews being braver than "real" ones--this isn't always the case. I have read numerous accounts along the lines of a jeep towing an AT gun right up to the front lines in completely open ground and firing away at the enemy--few ASLers do things like that.

[andy]

Disclaimer: No military experience whatsoever....

I remember either reading or seeing a documentary about Michael Witmann. To paraphrase, he said all things being equal, it was much easier to knock out AFVs than guns on the eastern front.

Is it still too hard in ASL? I don't know. What SSRs are used to "weaken" guns?

[SamB]

This ENTIRE thread was started by a a guy who is a total Treadhead. He ALWAYS thinks that tanks will / should win. If you play Jeff all you have to do is kill his tanks and he'll conceed the scenario.

Sorry Jeff, but ....

Sam

[FrankH.]

Maybe the issue is that ATGs are to easy to kill but AFVs are two easy! Why is it just a easy to hit a churchill moving at 5 MPh accross your front as it is to hit a hellcat moving 30 MPh? I have always thought that late war panther hit/kill is not fun when the hit is like 75% sure.

SD

The Case J1 and J2 To Hit DRM could be modified to reflect the speed of the moving targets and bounding first firing vehicles. Otherwise the speed advantages of armored cars and some light tanks is not represented in ASL.

Frank

[Peter Ladwein]

[
The Case J1 and J2 To Hit DRM could be modified to reflect the speed of the moving targets and bounding first firing vehicles. Otherwise the speed advantages of armored cars and some light tanks is not represented in ASL.
Frank

Yeah, it would be (realistic and therefore) nice to have such a mechanism, but it would require really complicated rules if you think about it. So IMO we better leave it as it is.
Fast tanks do have an edge anyway.

I like despeado morales idea about HD manoeuvres in open ground though. This could be pressed into an reasonably sized SSR.