Page 1 of 1
Gun Shields
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:44 am
by Dragoon 45
I did a quick browse through the editor and couldn't find any AT-guns or Artillery Pieces which had gun shields that had any armor protection entered for the front aspect. From what I can find out these shields were heavy enough to protect the gun crew from small arms fire and shell fragments from the frontal arc. Normally it would take something like a 20mm to penetrate them. Why are they not included in the game?
RE: Gun Shields
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:20 am
by FlashfyreSP
Because the game code doesn't recognize AT Gun-classed units as "vehicles". I tried this the other day: Gave an ATG a FH/FT armour of 5 and a Slope of 12. Set it in front of two Matildas (no HE, remember) and fired. Each time, only the CMG fired. No shos from the main gun.
Apparently, the armour ratings are disabled in SPWAW for non-vehicle classes.
RE: Gun Shields
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:27 am
by Riun T
Doesn't the guns size and # of crew give it some bonuses when it comes to being spotted and usually it can fire way before the range makes it have to worry about small arms or MMG's taking enough of the crew to disable it, so pull it back and set up again.[:'(]
RE: Gun Shields
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:37 pm
by KG Erwin
Yeah, I can understand this. An ATG under concealment has some minimal protection, but for game purposes it shouldn't be considered an armored target. However, if were encased as part of a bunker or pillbox, well, that's a different animal entirely.
RE: Gun Shields
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:39 am
by Dragoon 45
There is an example from the 2nd Battle of Lake Lagoda where a Russian Cavalry Bn charged a German defensive position occupied by a PAK battery with PPsH's blazing. Three waves of the Russians hit the battery position and died, most from HE fire from the PAK's. The Germans lost one man WIA. The German Battery Commander credited the shields on his guns with saving the lives of his crewmen. Agreed this is probably an isolated incident, but it does show that the gun crews had protection offered by the shields from small arms fire.
By the same token, any hit that did penetrate the shield probably resulted in a disabled or destroyed gun with possible crew survivors.
I would really like to see the ability to destroy the gun with a single hit, not having to kill the entire crew before the gun is destroyed.
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
Yeah, I can understand this. An ATG under concealment has some minimal protection, but for game purposes it shouldn't be considered an armored target. However, if were encased as part of a bunker or pillbox, well, that's a different animal entirely.
RE: Gun Shields
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:45 am
by KG Erwin
Ah, here's the problem we have. The capability for ATGs to use canister rounds against infantry. The USMC used their 37s with devastating effect against massed banzai charges. It isn't reflected in the game -- the code can't replicate it. Believe me, I wish we had it. Sorry, man.
As for destroying a gun on a single hit, NO. By having to wipe out the entire crew, THIS is how the game sims the effects of the gun shield. Think about it.
Jack, you gotta think in terms of how the code works --there are many abstractions. How youy see it in the game might not make sense, but in the overall scheme of things, it has it's own peculiar logic.
RE: Gun Shields
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:10 am
by Riun T
I agree with dragoon on this, I've had dozens of times that my shots have resulted in disabling the optical sights of an AFV,and countless times that the coaxial machinegun or bow gun has been shot off SO why couldn't u disable or cause abandonment more often from mechanical function?? OR a good old chance when under heavy fire that we could hit the guns ammo supply laying beside the gun??
RE: Gun Shields
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:32 am
by Dragoon 45
I would ask about core forces in a long campaign. You have a very experienced AT Gun crew, that is wiped out by a tank. You lose that experienced crew period. The only way to save the crew is to have it bail if you can rally it enough or hope that it retreats away from the gun. The tank though is not aiming at the crew if they are behind the shield, it is aiming at the gun. I would hazard a guess that 30-40% of the time anything that hits the shield and penetrates will damage if not destroy the gun, not necessarily causing losses to the crew.
I don't advocate that anytime the gun itself is hit that it is destroyed or damaged beyond use, but a suitable chance should exist that the gun can be destroyed without wiping out the crew. At some point the crew is going to go to ground or run to escape the fire so that the only target is the gun itself. Just as a tank crew will bail out from a damaged or destroyed tank, the gun crew should be able to do the same. A tank is subject to damage to the main gun or optics which prevents the gun from being used again in the scenario, so why shouldn't guns have the same characteristics?
The crew should be able to gain the protection of the gun shield if the gun is so equipped, if fired on from the frontal arc and vice-versa the gun should be able to be destroyed without having to kill the entire crew in the process. As it stands right now you can have a severely depleted crew that continues to fire a gun at full rate despite casualities. At a certain point the crew loses one too many members and the crew can no longer function in combat. Yes there are some rare instances where one man serviced and fired a gun single handedly, but at a much reduced rate of fire.
Your point is that it is a coding issue, but I remember in the early versions that you could destroy a gun without killing the entire crew, just as how a fortification is now treated. I don't remember the version where this was changed, but I vividly remember losing 3 x 3" AT guns to a Tiger without a single casuality to the the crews. My point is that the way things are now modeled is very unrealistic and different from earlier versions.
I have personally seen M-2 .50 cal's damaged by small arms fire and rendered useless without any injuries to the crew. I have a couple of photo's that show a Russian 45mm that was destroyed by a Tiger that according to the caption the crew escaped unharmed. I have another photo that shows a Tiger with a very neat 76.2mm hole through the gun barrel. Also another photo shows an 88mm PaK 43 with a very neat hole through the gun barrel also that did not cause any casualities to the crew.
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
Ah, here's the problem we have. The capability for ATGs to use canister rounds against infantry. The USMC used their 37s with devastating effect against massed banzai charges. It isn't reflected in the game -- the code can't replicate it. Believe me, I wish we had it. Sorry, man.
As for destroying a gun on a single hit, NO. By having to wipe out the entire crew, THIS is how the game sims the effects of the gun shield. Think about it.
Jack, you gotta think in terms of how the code works --there are many abstractions. How youy see it in the game might not make sense, but in the overall scheme of things, it has it's own peculiar logic.
RE: Gun Shields
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:17 am
by Riun T
I'm using 85mmAA in my russian camp. in ver.8.4 against tanks mostly and have had the crews of a couple of them route and retreat only to come back after the fighting dies down and reman the silly thing,guess these crews know how to survive to vetran status!![X(]
RE: Gun Shields
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:23 pm
by FlashfyreSP
ORIGINAL: Dragoon 45
I would ask about core forces in a long campaign. You have a very experienced AT Gun crew, that is wiped out by a tank. You lose that experienced crew period. The only way to save the crew is to have it bail if you can rally it enough or hope that it retreats away from the gun. The tank though is not aiming at the crew if they are behind the shield, it is aiming at the gun. I would hazard a guess that 30-40% of the time anything that hits the shield and penetrates will damage if not destroy the gun, not necessarily causing losses to the crew.
I don't advocate that anytime the gun itself is hit that it is destroyed or damaged beyond use, but a suitable chance should exist that the gun can be destroyed without wiping out the crew. At some point the crew is going to go to ground or run to escape the fire so that the only target is the gun itself. Just as a tank crew will bail out from a damaged or destroyed tank, the gun crew should be able to do the same. A tank is subject to damage to the main gun or optics which prevents the gun from being used again in the scenario, so why shouldn't guns have the same characteristics?
The crew should be able to gain the protection of the gun shield if the gun is so equipped, if fired on from the frontal arc and vice-versa the gun should be able to be destroyed without having to kill the entire crew in the process. As it stands right now you can have a severely depleted crew that continues to fire a gun at full rate despite casualities. At a certain point the crew loses one too many members and the crew can no longer function in combat. Yes there are some rare instances where one man serviced and fired a gun single handedly, but at a much reduced rate of fire.
Your point is that it is a coding issue, but I remember in the early versions that you could destroy a gun without killing the entire crew, just as how a fortification is now treated. I don't remember the version where this was changed, but I vividly remember losing 3 x 3" AT guns to a Tiger without a single casuality to the the crews. My point is that the way things are now modeled is very unrealistic and different from earlier versions.
I have personally seen M-2 .50 cal's damaged by small arms fire and rendered useless without any injuries to the crew. I have a couple of photo's that show a Russian 45mm that was destroyed by a Tiger that according to the caption the crew escaped unharmed. I have another photo that shows a Tiger with a very neat 76.2mm hole through the gun barrel. Also another photo shows an 88mm PaK 43 with a very neat hole through the gun barrel also that did not cause any casualities to the crew.
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
Ah, here's the problem we have. The capability for ATGs to use canister rounds against infantry. The USMC used their 37s with devastating effect against massed banzai charges. It isn't reflected in the game -- the code can't replicate it. Believe me, I wish we had it. Sorry, man.
As for destroying a gun on a single hit, NO. By having to wipe out the entire crew, THIS is how the game sims the effects of the gun shield. Think about it.
Jack, you gotta think in terms of how the code works --there are many abstractions. How youy see it in the game might not make sense, but in the overall scheme of things, it has it's own peculiar logic.
Yes, there used to be a version where the gun itself could be desroyed; why it was changed, I don't know. Besides actually hitting the gun with rounds, one of the favorite tactics (particularly of the German panzers) was to "overrun" the gun position and grind the weapon under the tanks treads. I have a translated copy of the German field manual
Panzerkampfwagenbuch by Cpt. Kurt Kauffman or the German Army that covers the use of the German Tank Platoon in Battle. In it, he makes the point that it is wrong for the tank to 1) attack the ATG from the front, 2) leave the weapon untouched after beating down the crew, 3) fire at an ATG at greater than 400 yards while moving, and 4) disregard the crew that has fled the gun to shelter. The right thing to do is: 1) zigzag to make the ATG gunner's job of aiming harder, 2) crush down the ATG after silencing the crew to prevent it being remanned, 3) go into position and fir with all weapons at the crew, and 4) mop up the crew by driving over their shelter (foxholes, shell craters, etc.)
I suppose that the "crushing of the gun" is represented by the one-turn required occupation of the abandoned weapon, but it seems a bit too long. It should be the case where if you drive a tracked vehicle into the hex with an abandoned gun, it is immediately "destroyed" by being crushed.
RE: Gun Shields
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:49 pm
by JEB Davis
ORIGINAL: Dragoon 45
I have a couple of photo's that show a Russian 45mm that was destroyed by a Tiger that according to the caption the crew escaped unharmed. I have another photo that shows a Tiger with a very neat 76.2mm hole through the gun barrel. Also another photo shows an 88mm PaK 43 with a very neat hole through the gun barrel also that did not cause any casualities to the crew.
Interesting discussion guys. It sure would be nice to have this game issue fixed.
And I'd love to see these photos...
RE: Gun Shields
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:04 am
by Dragoon 45
The photo of the Tiger with a 76.2mm hole in its barrel is in "Tigers in Combat, vol 1 & 2" by Wolfgang Schneider; there are at least three or four photos in each volume that show this. The other two photo's I mentioned are in an out of print book. If I can find a scanner I will try to scan them in and then attach them to a post.
ORIGINAL: JEB Davis
ORIGINAL: Dragoon 45
I have a couple of photo's that show a Russian 45mm that was destroyed by a Tiger that according to the caption the crew escaped unharmed. I have another photo that shows a Tiger with a very neat 76.2mm hole through the gun barrel. Also another photo shows an 88mm PaK 43 with a very neat hole through the gun barrel also that did not cause any casualities to the crew.
Interesting discussion guys. It sure would be nice to have this game issue fixed.
And I'd love to see these photos...