Rich Bliss | 10 Oct 2015 6:39 p.m. PST |
Sherman firing HE should have about the same odds to hit. And a hit is likely to be a kill. |
KnightTemplarr | 10 Oct 2015 8:26 p.m. PST |
Not really the Sherman would probably never see the shot by the ATG. The buttoned up tank has poor visibility. I think the ATG plus to represents spotting bonus. The Sherman enjoys no such benefit |
Rudysnelson | 10 Oct 2015 8:54 p.m. PST |
I interviewed a WW2 veteran in the nursing home prior to his death. He wore a hat with his battalion on it with pride. He fought in Italy rather than France. He said that his platoon did not lose a man to enemy tank fire. A few were wounded by artillery. Most casualties were suffered due to land mines. He was in both a Jackson and earlier a Hellcat. SP ATG were very effective when used in a stationary firing position role. Not only on defense but also in the over watch support role during an attack. |
Who asked this joker | 10 Oct 2015 8:55 p.m. PST |
Tank should not fire back with a D6. In RL, typically an ATG will get the first shot off if it is unspotted. If the Sherman survives, it may or may not have seen where the shot came from. If it does, it still has to kill the gun. Neil has it right. |
normsmith | 10 Oct 2015 10:02 p.m. PST |
To be honest, I think it is difficult and a little pointless to worry about such things too much with the NT rules, especially for the WWII set. If you need more detail other rules should be sought, as the number of amendments one might make removes the player from the intention of the rules – in their current format they can claim to be different and serve a different purpose than anything else on the market. the A/T gun is a point in case. It was an ambush weapon and has all the attributes given by above posters ….. but in the NT rules, it is given a movement capability that approaches something like it being Jagd Panzer, M36, M18 etc, so it's tactical use on the table does not seen to relate to it's historical role. So NT's treatment of the fire capability is probably just to differentiate the AT from a tank as other than movements rates they are pretty much simiar. |
Mark 1 | 10 Oct 2015 11:19 p.m. PST |
Sherman firing HE should have about the same odds to hit. And a hit is likely to be a kill. Disagree. If the 57mm AT gun is dug in properly, the Sherman is presented with a target that is about 18 inches high. That is smaller than the MOA error circle for the Sherman's 75mm gun at 500m. To state that more clearly, EVEN IF the gunner has PERFECT aim, the gun may put the projectile over or under the target. Now what is the result if the round is put even 1 inch over the target? If the ground is at all flat (rather than the gun being sighted at the base of a rise) then the round flies harmlessly by and misses by the target by 30 – 40m. If the round falls short? It strikes the ground in front of the target and probably detonates. This may or may not wound some of the gun's crew, depending on how far short, how dense the ground, and whether the crew were effectively behind the shield. And that's if the gunner's aim is perfect. You think the tank gunner in combat will have perfect aim? And that's IF he has accurately estimated the range to the target! Now as a test, I want you to look at something that is less than two feet tall at the edge of your visual acuity, and estimate it's distance from you with an accuracy of +/- 1%. Really. Look at a rock in the desert that is more than 1/3rd of a mile away, and tell me how far it is from you. If you guess 500m, and it is actually 490m, you are so wrong you miss it. Good luck with that! Now consider the ATG's target. The Sherman is more than 10 feet high. Aim at the center, and you have 5 feet of error space in any direction that still gives a hit. If your estimate of the range is off by 100 or even 200m, either way, you will still hit your target. So no, they don't have the same odds to hit. Not even close. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Martin Rapier | 10 Oct 2015 11:47 p.m. PST |
For NT, tanks engage AT guns at -2, AT guns vs tanks at +2. Irl AT mounts were two to three times more effective at killing tanks than the identical weapons in tank mounts. See Rowlands "The Stress of Battle". Wittman always said his top priority target in battle was enemy AT guns, not tanks. Taking out AT guns is a job for infantry and artillery, not tanks. |
Random Die Roll | 11 Oct 2015 5:07 a.m. PST |
I agree with the above in respect to WWII Not to hijack the thread…the reason AT guns and Tank Destroyers have gone the way of the Dodo is that shoulder fired weapons---starting with the WWII bazooka---have become a vastly superior way of dealing with tanks |
Dynaman8789 | 11 Oct 2015 5:32 a.m. PST |
AT guns have fallen away for another reason – the needed size to kill modern armor at the end of WWII made them so large that they were very hard to move once placed and as easy to spot as early war tanks. A spotted AT gun was a goner – either by arty, the tanks it did not yet hit, or the infantry that was bound to be nearby. |
Herkybird | 11 Oct 2015 6:18 a.m. PST |
I agree, a Veteran of the desert, Italy, and France once told me they called AT gunners 'Once'rs', as they had to get their target first shot or get killed. There are always exceptions to any rule though, as there were occasions where AT guns plastered attacking armour. |
Andy ONeill | 11 Oct 2015 7:59 a.m. PST |
The one who sees the other one first had a serious advantage. What with being concealed, that would be the atg. But if it was a concealed tank then it would have the advantage just as much. A tank that has time to pick their defensive position can be hull down. Maybe even camouflaged with bushes round it or some such. Plus, if it's facing a number of tanks then it can shoot a couple of times and pull back out of LoS. Then decide whether to withdraw or try and sneak round to another position and do it again. Having said that. Everyone thinks their way is best. I think it was Featherstone I read something about an artillery barrage. As it came down the tankers wanted to get into their tank and the infantry guys wanted to get out. The infantry thought they were better hugging dirt and the tankers thought they were better hugging steel. So I dunno about one group calling another "oncers" offering any deep insights. |
RitterKrieg | 11 Oct 2015 9:36 a.m. PST |
All good thoughts – my two cents: On a one on one, ATGs 'should' have some kind of advantage over tanks in a 'meeting' engagement. For one thing, due to the simple fact that the ATG must wait for the tank to show up in order to engage at all, the tank will always be on the move. The scene… …the Sherman racing down the sunken road, leads the charge of a platoon of Infantry that are fanned out on either side. No time to recon the bend in the road ahead…the Sherman turns the slight corner and is now in the full view of a 5.0cm Pak38 hidden in the ditch (Germans don't need no stinkin' 6-pounders!). The Sherman doesn't 'see' the ATG but decides to stop and 'recon-by-fire' the ditch. This is a sound decision but gives the ATG plenty of time to get off that first critical shot…and maybe a second…Tank may die but now Infantry set up tubes and kill gun…rock, paper, scissors… In the big picture, the ATG is a defensive weapon unless it has mobility (FlaK88 anyone?). Without the mobility, you cannot exploit local success. Once the ATG has fired, it gives up its only real asset – concealment. Cheaper to produce and easier to hide, ATGs when used in platoons or sections, would have an advantage over tanks but only until the tankers had had enough, withdrew and stonked the guns into the history books. To the original question, Neil has it right. Cheers, Troy |
Rudysnelson | 11 Oct 2015 11:14 a.m. PST |
A tank firing at a infantry or ATG target would use different ammo so a direct hit is not required. So the small target comment for the ATG is not a factor. However firing at a SPG target would be of concern. The stability of the firing gun would be a factor. Again game mechanics do not reflect the poor chance to hit for the V targeting scope. Americans and most Allies did not use the ghost, double image, system that the Germans used. I remind readers again what the US Army tank gunnery manual said in the 1970s. It rook 13 shots by a Sherman firing at a stationary target 500 yards away to reach even a small 50% chance to hit. Gamers would be frustrated and change games if the chance to hit in games were so poor. |
Weasel | 11 Oct 2015 12:00 p.m. PST |
Isn't ATGMs just a modern anti-tank gun? The concept of non-vehicle anti-tank didn't go away, we just updated it to maintain the benefits AT guns had: Mobility, concealment and low cost. |
Mako11 | 11 Oct 2015 2:55 p.m. PST |
I agree with much of the above. If they've gone to all the trouble to dig in the A/T guns, then you can bet they've stepped off the area, and installed range sticks, and/or noted other terrain features, so they'll know exactly how far it is to a target that gets in their gunsights, when near those. |
Last Hussar | 11 Oct 2015 3:03 p.m. PST |
I remind readers again what the US Army tank gunnery manual said in the 1970s. It rook 13 shots by a Sherman firing at a stationary target 500 yards away to reach even a small 50% chance to hit. Have I understood this right. After 13 shots each half the tanks firing would have registered at least 1 hit Chance of failure after x attempts = (100%-Hit Probability)^x (1-0.05)^13 = .51 ie to miss 13 times the hit chance is 5% Wow |
Rudysnelson | 11 Oct 2015 3:56 p.m. PST |
With the 13th shot a tank only had a 50% chance to hit. We discussed this passage at length during Armor Officers Basic course. It was of particular interest to those of us designated to be Cavalry officers and assigned to the M551 platoons. Since they used the same V firing system. Improved stability had increased the chances of a first hit significantly. Sadly firing the 152 would lift the chassis to its third road wheel which would throw targeting for a second shot off. It also disabled electronics so the misleading could no longer be fired. |
Lion in the Stars | 11 Oct 2015 7:20 p.m. PST |
Isn't ATGMs just a modern anti-tank gun?The concept of non-vehicle anti-tank didn't go away, we just updated it to maintain the benefits AT guns had: Mobility, concealment and low cost. Pretty much. And the attack helicopter is the inheritor of the US Tank Destroyer doctrine. ===== Tank versus AT gun greatly favors the AT gun if the gun is dug in and concealed. |
Martin Rapier | 12 Oct 2015 3:06 a.m. PST |
wrt the visibility of AT guns, at the Conference of Wargamers this summer we ran a vehicle recognition exercise using an old army Miltra 1/100th scale recognition set one of use had 'acquired'. A 1/100th scale West German town was set up 5 yards away (at a scale distance of 500 yards), not very far for spotting things with the naked eyeball, and various combinations of vehicles etc plonked around it which the teams had to locate and identify. Generally, the vehicles were usually located and in many cases correctly identified (unless they were placed in heavy cover), however one of the combinations included a Soviet towed 100mm AT gun, which was placed completely in the open at a 3/4 angle, on a road in front a whitewashed church. Not one single team spotted it. |
Mobius | 12 Oct 2015 4:43 p.m. PST |
In a 3D world a ATG dug-in to 18" high would in most cases not have a very good field of fire/vision. It might have a channel that it could cover very well but it could not support it's fellow ATGs if they came under fire. A tank standing 9' tall would see the terrain pretty well. That's the trade off. Playing on realistic 3D terrain one notices there are only a few places that a low ATG can get a good shot. I remind readers again what the US Army tank gunnery manual said in the 1970s. It rook 13 shots by a Sherman firing at a stationary target 500 yards away to reach even a small 50% chance to hit. Depends on what the target is. If it is a dug-in turret of a Mark IV tank it might be right. |
donlowry | 13 Oct 2015 9:09 a.m. PST |
The way I'm hearing it right now, the group seems to lean towards the ATG having an advantage over the tank in sighting, hitting and damaging. Sighting and hitting, probably, but as for damaging, that depends on what kind of guns we are talking about. But the tank has armor and the gun doesn't (except for a shield that might stop a rifle bullet). A hit from, say, a 75mm HE shell should put the ATG out of action; a hit on the tank may or may not put the tank out of action, depending on the thickness, quality and angle of the armor vs. the penetrating power of the gun at the given range. |
Wolfhag | 13 Oct 2015 11:17 a.m. PST |
So in a prepared anti-gun defense do all guns need a good field of fire? Remember, it works both ways. A wide field of fire is good but exposes you to more enemy threats than you can engage at one time. I think a somewhat idea anti-tank gun defense would be multiple guns with interlocking fields of fire narrow enough that you can engage one enemy tank at a time without the others spotting you. The German pillbox Type 630 is a good example of shielding the gun from the enemy while delivering flanking fire with a narrow field of fire. In this case narrow is better. Prepared positions also had time to put water, oil or canvas over the ground in front of the muzzle to reduce muzzle blast. This combined with flashless powder, being dug in and camo would make it very hard to spot. I've read AAR's where an AT gun got off 3-4 rounds before being spotted. When engaging dug in infantry and AT guns US/Allied Sherman tankers fired delay fused HE rounds aiming in front of the defender position. Under the right conditions the round would bounce off the ground initiating the delay fuse. The round would travel about 25 yards and detonate about 8 feet in the air with a very effective air burst. You don't need to actually hit the gun. I'm surprised no one has spoken about using machine guns on AT guns which I think most manuals suggested. It pretty much guarantees hits and only the gunner and loader are behind the shield. The other crew passing ammo to the loader will take cover effectively at least reducing the AT gun ROF. The gun sight telescope is exposed and easily knocked out if hit. OK, maybe a little too much detail. The rules I use is the emplaced/dug in AT guns cannot be rotated or moved but are harder to hit. Unemplaced/not dug in can be maneuvered in 360 degrees and if small or medium can be moved a short distance. Wolfhag |
Mark 1 | 13 Oct 2015 2:00 p.m. PST |
In a 3D world a ATG dug-in to 18" high would in most cases not have a very good field of fire/vision. Mobius, my friend, I fear you are mistaken. If I dig my AT gun in to be 18" high, the only angle I have reduced is the angle downward. I can still traverse and elevate as much as I may like. If the ground in front of my gun does not decline, I have not reduced my field of fire at all. After all I will not be engaging many targets shorter than 18" at ranges of less than 100m in front of my gun (after 100m I can hit targets as short as about 14", at 500m I can hit targets as small as 0" … IF I really want to). If you are suggesting I can't hit targets that are in depressions or behind rises at range, well yes that's right. But am I that much more likely to be able to hit those same targets if my gun is 24" higher? Fully exposed most WW2 ATGs had their barrels at a height of 36" or less. So digging in has done effectively nothing to reduce my field of fire. I shudder to think that you might not have read enough first-hand accounts of German panzer jaeger tactics? Surely that is not the case! In a 3D world ATGs were dug-in to 18" high all the time. They destroyed hundreds of British tanks. During the desert campaign, and even after, the Brits never seem to have actually recognized that the majority of their tanks were being lost to ATGs and not Panzers. It might have a channel that it could cover very well but it could not support it's fellow ATGs if they came under fire.
It is the very nature of ATGs to have limited fields of fire. The Brits were pretty much alone in their design concept for the 2pdr – a tall (upright seated gunner, vs. crouching) gun with 360 degree traverse). Can't think of a single other allied ATG that shared that design concept -- certainly the subsequent British ATGs abandoned the approach. (And before anyone drags out the infamous 88, remember that the cruciform-pedestal mounted 88mm guns started as FLAKs, not PAKs. 88s designed as PAKs were deliberately designed to be low profile, and many were mounted on split-trail carriages.) A well organized defense sites it's support weapons in enfilade positions. Targets are engaged from their flanks as they advance on other units. Competently situated ATGs will almost ALWAYS fire down channels. It is just a question of whether you've set up appropriate channels to fire down. A tank standing 9' tall would see the terrain pretty well. That's the trade off.
True, that. Take a look at the U.S. M2 medium. It was deliberately designed to be more than 10' tall, so that it could command the terrain. This was the first medium tank designed by U.S. Army Ordnance and built to U.S. Army Armored Board specifications. There was a lot of theory, and not much practical experience, guiding the Ordnance design or the Armor Board specs. Take a look at the M1 MBT. It was deliberately designed to have a turret that is less than 24" tall, so it could assume dug-in fire positions with minimum exposed height. The specifications were guided by decades of experience and study of combat results. Yes there are trade-offs. But at this point we actually know what can be traded off for what, what works well and what doesn't. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Last Hussar | 13 Oct 2015 2:11 p.m. PST |
Ditto Tango put forward if AT guns are better, why did the Allies go to TD/Tanks? A weapon is more than shot effectiveness. I've seen a troop of 25 pdrs drive up, deploy and fire 3 shots, all immpressively fast BUT it still took time. A TD deploys by stopping. Plys no matter what the tractor is, a TD is going to have better mobility off road than any towed gun. The Allies and the Germans were fighting different wars after D-Day. The German's were defensive, where as the Allies needed the manoeuvrability of tracks for mobile warfare. Additionally you fight with what you've got. The Germans needed tubes, and it would be easier to make AT guns than whole StuGs and Marders. |
Mobius | 13 Oct 2015 4:21 p.m. PST |
If I dig my AT gun in to be 18" high, the only angle I have reduced is the angle downward. I can still traverse and elevate as much as I may like. If the ground in front of my gun does not decline, I have not reduced my field of fire at all. But, my world contains vegetation and ground undulations. Grass and grain grow pretty thick in Europe. Unless you are going to mow or tamp down the grass in front of your gun and give it's location away. It is said the lower meter of a tank is not usually hit beyond 1000m as there are many small undulations hiding it. Think of this in reverse. If your gun is under a meter high it isn't going to be seen, nor at the same time will it be able to fire. |
wizbangs | 13 Oct 2015 6:40 p.m. PST |
The ATG was replaced by the 106mm recoilless. As a jeep mount, it was a small, easily concealed weapon that could also shoot & scoot effectively. Of course, the ATGM took it up a notch and I would consider those to be modern ATG replacements, but there was a period of time before the ATGM's were available where the 106 or bazooka filled that role. |
Last Hussar | 14 Oct 2015 11:29 a.m. PST |
I agree with the hidden set up for defenders. I IABSM we moved to a 2 stage blind. Defenders are hidden at the start of the game, and only go on blind when moved, spotted or firing. A second spot or fire puts the toys on the table. Once you do that you suddenly see Recce units as more than just a bit of extra fire-power! (To be fair, they do tend to act historically in another way – that of "flaming datum".) Also may I point out I coupled the situation with position – the Nazis needed to kick out as much as possible. If you play RTS you know the feeling – the enemy is getting near your base, so you recruit as much crap as you can: rubbish but cheap and quick; you don't have time for the top level units! I'm sure they would have preferred StuGs and Hetzers, but just couldn't afford them. |
Mark 1 | 14 Oct 2015 1:43 p.m. PST |
This question pops up from time to time and there is some sensei stripper who has inexplicably not chimed in, so here goes. Agree, that the value of stripping is directly proportional to the value, and rarity, of the fig. That said, Simple Green used to be the universal go to stripper. I tried everything. Alcohol, mineral spirits, Testors ELO, Acetone, turpentine, I drew the line at oven cleaner. Nothing. Simple Green did the trick. The sensei posted last year that Simple Green had been reformulated to omit a key ingredient that reduced its effectiveness. I have to agree. Purple Power is the way to go. You can get it in the automotive aisle in Walmart. Leave it soak 1-2 days then hit it with a stiff bristle brush. (No toothbrushes are rigid enough anymore) You can expect 90+% effectiveness. I found that hobby stores carry these sand picks. Plastic abrasive white sticks about 3" long with abrasive points. These are good in nooks and crannies and come in very fine grits so you will do little to no harm to your fig. |
Mark 1 | 14 Oct 2015 2:21 p.m. PST |
Ouch! Bite of the edit bug. I am left to wonder if my posting is a similarly off-topic insert, under someone else's name, in another thread. … -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Mark 1 | 14 Oct 2015 2:32 p.m. PST |
Ah, I was able to recover my original posting. The wonders of the "back" button! Apologies if this all seems rather long-winded at this point. But, my world contains vegetation and ground undulations. Grass and grain grow pretty thick in Europe. The big thing here is siting the gun or the position of a defending tank. Quite agree on this point. Well sited guns have a distinct advantage over hastily / poorly sited guns (here I mean the location and situational siting, not the gun sights). So I seems to me that much of the advantage I presume for the ATG vs. tank duel is not inherent in the ATG, but rather is dependent on the set-up of the ATG. A U.S. M5 3-inch gun (big ol' thing!) set up on a road in the open should not have any necessary advantage in a gunnery duel with a tank. It's a great big stationary target. No harder to hit, much easier to suppress or KO. But that same gun, or better yet a German PAK 40 75mm gun (much smaller carriage) properly dug-in in a tree line at the corner of a wide field is a VERY difficult target, far more difficult to hit and damage than the tanks that it will engage as they cross the fields. And again, I'll remind we are talking defending ATGs versus attacking tanks. … I think the sort of games I read about a lot where both sides know each other's order of battle, can see especially the defender's toys, and sides are designed to be "fair" miss some very major characteristics of WWII battles. Ah, bringing the conversation back around to wargaming now? Well I agree very strongly with this sentiment! I agree with the hidden set up for defenders. … A second spot or fire puts the toys on the table. Once you do that you suddenly see Recce units as more than just a bit of extra fire-power! (To be fair, they do tend to act historically in another way – that of "flaming datum".) Recce seems so "empty" to me in most wargames. Just cheap stuff that runs out and dies before the real battle begins. But in fact, in WW2 or today, most recce units were / are the most "expensive" units in a formation! They were / are elite troops, the best that commander had / has! Their job was / in NOT to go out and get shot so other guys on your side can see what to shoot at. Their job was / is to go out and gather INFORMATION. Real information. Information that will inform the commander's tactical decision-making. But most wargamers, in most wargames, have no use for information. They already have a God's eye view of the battlefield, and their tactics are set up by the scenario. They know exactly what forces they face, and where those forces are deployed, and how they are situated (dug-in, stationary in firing positions, maneuvering), and their tactics are so very often limited to "advance side-by-side across the board and shoot stuff". In my games I want none of that. I use hidden units for both the attackers and the defenders. And I set up my games so that neither side knows what forces the other side is bringing. And I pay very scant attention to balanced scenarios -- OK I often try to get it close enough to balanced to keep all sides interested, but in truth, when gaming with guys I know, the unbalanced scenarios are often the most entertaining! In my games every model is played with a paper "chit" until that unit is spotted under the spotting rules of whatever rules set we are using. So in my game all forces, both attacking and defending, are hidden. I also provide each player with a number of blank (decoy) chits that can never be spotted no matter how good the spotting role, and will never do any spotting or firing themselves. The advantage of the chits is that they can be moved and spotted just as if they were models, so there is very little disturbance to the game play. But the effect on the gaming experience is dramatic!
When you are looking at a piece of terrain you want to grab, like a bridge, you have no real idea if it is or is not well defended. Are those blanks? Are they infantry? Are they ATGs? Are they tanks? Are they mines? You just don't know. All you have are your suspicions. In this type of battle your recon forces become your most valued assets! Not to spot targets for your other units to shoot, but to give you some indications of what the defenses actually are. Yes eventually you may want to shoot at them, but before then you want to know if/what is there, so you (with your own hidden units unknown to your adversary) can assemble the right portion of your forces to take what you view as the critical positions on the board.
Oh, and in this particular game, the chits by the river were indeed blanks, but the chits at the corner of the walled industrial complex included a 47mm (Italian) ATG, which provided the very useful service of tracking the first Russian T-28 to attempt crossing the bridge, allowing the spotter on top of the storage tanks to call down a very well targeted artillery barrage. ;-)
However, not knowing how much strength my opponent had, and with all my AT assets and HMGs engaged in a very effective bottling-up of his tanks and trucks at the bridge, I was completely un-prepared for the appearance of a full company of infantry that forded the swampy ground on the left flank, and was unable to contend with the re-positioned recon assets (armored cars) which could not cross the swamp, but could very effectively suppress my infantry forces on the other side. :-( And to tie it all in to the discussion we've been having, in this particular game (set at Loboikovka, 29 Sept 1941) I had one company of Italian motorized infantry (from 2 Battaglioni di 82 Regimento, Torino Div), with support from two HMGs and two ATGs on the board, and off-board artillery on call, with which to set up blocking positions to prevent the retreat of a Red Army mech corps. I did not know which direction the Soviets would come from, either up the road on my side of the stream, or from across the stream, so I had to set up defenses from two directions. My opponent had a battalion HQ and battalion support company, as well as a depleted recon company, as his base. He received various units depending on die roles on a turn-by-turn basis, with infantry companies, tank companies (T-38s, T-26s, BT-7s, T-28s all possible), and support units (regimental supply, medical, and AA units all possible) coming in on various throws. With only two ATGs I split them, one defending the direction of the road, the other defending the river. So only one of my ATGs was ever engaged in the battle. But as history shows, a single well-sited ATG can be extremely effective in bottling up a choke-point, even in the presence of overwhelming enemy forces. But what ATGs can't do is respond quickly to enemy maneuvers, and once the Russians appeared on my flank with armored support, the infantry screen I was able to throw out was just not strong enough to salvage the situation. And that's the kind of stuff I like to see in my games. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Wolfhag | 16 Oct 2015 9:17 a.m. PST |
Mark, Your last post is probably one of the best I've ever seen on TMP. You stated everything about how a real war game should be carried out and you did it without any negative remarks about a particular game or criticisms. Bravo Zulu! Regarding hidden units. Most players want to get all of their toys on the table so they can sit back and see how pretty it is and take pictures. Hidden units mean nasty surprises which one player is not going to enjoy. Ambushes are not "fair" but the whole idea of a battle is to not fight fair. Most players are not going to understand that. I totally agree about the use of recon. As a recon trained Marine I've always said it's all about snooping and pooping on the enemy to identify targets, not Rambo. When attacked shoot back enough to break contact and continue your mission. I don't know any game system that really portrays how real reconnaissance works. It's difficult as even when there is not an active battle the troops closest to the FEBA are always actively patrolling and gathering intel on enemy positions, defenses, minefields and route recon. It's not something that players are going to be interested in but there can be a playable abstracted way to portray pre-game recon results but I'll save that for another post. Whittmann is credited with destroying 132 anti-tank guns. Whether he destroyed that many or not isn't important. What's important is how he did it. From my research he destroyed them by taking time to dismount and observe and coordinating with infantry to pick them out in advance. Poor camo discipline, crew moving around (especially observing relief crew changes), poor gun placement and recon patrols seem to be the main way they were spotted at the FEBA. Most tanks could safely standoff up at up to 2,000 meters and take out an anti-tank gun with HE rounds as long as they could observe the shot results. But that's only against guns at the FEBA. If you are attacking and break through the enemy front lines and they have an anti-tank gun belt in their secondary defensive position that's completely different, especially if the infantry has not been able to follow with the tanks. Tanks will be at a real disadvantage. The Germans would normally have their initial line of defense with infantry only and their job was to suppress the infantry and let the tanks through. Putting AT guns in the front meant they'd be identified by Russian recon patrols or identified as soon as firing or easily targeted by pre-assault artillery barrages. The Russian tanks would then be in the anti-tank defense zone and mostly blind and be ambushed by StuG's, AT guns and panzer jager teams that could operate without worrying about the Russian infantry. Take care of that tank threat and then counterattack with your mobile reserves. Sounds good but almost impossible in most games I've seen. I've only played a scenario like that with micro armor. With 28mm you can't have a table big enough to do that realistically unless you do it on a basketball court. One thing I've noticed as a GM at conventions is how absolutely clueless most players are about tactics and the ramifications of their actions. Probably the biggest mistake is opening fire too early and not setting up for an ambush. They feel any shot they can take even with a less than 10% chance to hit they must take. Then when they are on the losing end of a firefight they'll try to hang in there as long as they can rather than withdrawing to an alternate position to set up another ambush. This is not always the fault of the player as some tables don't have any real room to maneuver or pull back on. Even if the game is designed to use real tactics the players don't know how to execute them. Most players derive pleasure from blowing things up. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Wolfhag |
Jefthing | 17 Oct 2015 3:19 a.m. PST |
Slightly off-off topic, but I always allow recce vehicles to swap a direct fire hit for a withdrawal (as long as the escape route is open). |
Last Hussar | 17 Oct 2015 5:05 a.m. PST |
"Maintenance of the Aim" is something wargamers struggle with. Too many try to win every firefight, rather than pass through and attack the objective. |
Timbo W | 17 Oct 2015 6:07 a.m. PST |
Great post Mark1, this may be inviting thread slip, but.. Could you give us an idea of the spotting rules you used? In the past I've used some which tend to go - -Ok, I'll try to spot the enemy in the wood from jeep 1 >you need a 6 -Fail roll, ok, jeep 2 tries to spot etc etc ad nauseam… until >right ho, you rolled a 6, the second assistant bottle-washer on your rations truck has spotted its a PAK40 -great, I'll shell it with HE from my Shermans >roll eyes…. |
Mobius | 17 Oct 2015 7:41 a.m. PST |
The real affect of grass on the battlefield really surprised me. In our 3D computer game during development I made a number of realistic 3D maps of Kursk battlefield using Google Earth and 3D satellite mapping data. Then I placed Soviet gun dugouts and tank trenches cut into the terrain mesh. I first sited them so they covered all approaches to the Soviet lines. I play-tested the scenarios several times and defense was pretty effective and engaged the Germans AFVs out to 900 meters. Then the developers added realistic grass to the game system. It had a sight blocking factor depending on how many meters of grass a unit's LOS ray looked through. Grass completely changed the game. Many dugouts and tank trenches now were in their own little sighting islands of 200-400m. The interleaved covered areas no longer existed. I could re-create them by setting up the guns at ground level but then they lacked protection. In the end I left them in dugouts. The Germans were able sometimes mob individual ATGs but often the first tank to come into the sighting zone of an ATG got it as if stepping on a snake in the grass. (Note-This didn't happen in all maps because the Kursk area is on rolling hills so sometimes placed on the forward side of a slope all guns could sight together.) This made me wonder what was I playing when I played miniatures. |
Blutarski | 17 Oct 2015 9:19 a.m. PST |
It's worth noting that, in prepared firing positions, nearby grass/brush can be cut or trampled down within the desired line or arc of fire. FWIW B |
donlowry | 17 Oct 2015 9:46 a.m. PST |
Excellent discussion here. Mark 1, I have to ask, regarding your scenario with the bridge: Why have markers on the table at all? Mark the defensive positions on a map, which the other side doesn't see until the game is over. Meanwhile, let him guess, or shoot at suspected locations -- as in: if I were defending here, where would I put my stuff? |
Mark 1 | 18 Oct 2015 3:38 a.m. PST |
Mark 1, I have to ask, regarding your scenario with the bridge: Why have markers on the table at all? Mark the defensive positions on a map, which the other side doesn't see until the game is over. If you will notice from my admittedly brief description of the battle, hidden movement can be as important to the attacker as to the defender. Games which presume that only the defender needs be hidden just don't do it for me. They ignore far too much of the essence of good offensive maneuver tactics -- without hidden attackers there can be no bluffing, there can be no masking the vector of your main effort until it is too late for the defender to effectively react. I have played full double blind games using various techniques. I recall one memorable game where each side would mark their moves on maps that were actually digital photos of the terrain boards, and the game referee then excused both players from the room, compared the maps, did the spotting measures and roles, and put only the models that were spotted on to the terrain boards, and invited each player in separately to see what he had spotted and resolve his shooting. It was fun, and certainly intense, but … it required a full time game referee and pre-prepared scaled digital photo game maps with mylar overlays (with grease pencils to go around), it was slow, and it would have been VERY difficult for the referee to manage if there had been more than one player per side. (Also it led to some arguing about exactly what someone meant when they drew their unit on the map -- "I just put the platoon symbol on the hill, but of course that means they are hull down to the north … Oh, you mean they could be spotted from due east? Well no, they can't. No no no you see they should be two more inches further west than where you put them -- see they are not exposed to the east -- of course that's where they would have set up!") My approach is notably simpler. There is no question where the models are – the chits are moved just like models on the board. It keeps all players engaged in the game at the table (for all the good game-time socializing) and preserves the great majority of the effect of double blind gaming. Particularly once players get the hang of using a few blanks -- I have found that using even 10 or 20% blanks in the force will make EVERY chit suspect. The impact of the uncertainty on gamers' tactics is dramatic. Players suddenly start doing recon, setting out forward observation posts or picket lines (screening forces), holding a reserve to respond to surprises, holding fire until substantial targets emerge, firing arty at "suspected" positions, firing direct fire at "suspected positions" (ie: recon by fire) etc. etc. etc. And all the morale tables and modifiers and die rolls on earth will never be as interesting to me as the hesitation that comes from a gamer losing his nerve because he feels exposed (many rules provide auto-spotting of vehicles moving the open, so "put 'em on the table" even though they have not been fired on yet), or a player questioning in his own mind whether he is walking in to a trap, or being seized by indecision because he just doesn't know what's out there, or deciding he is facing a clearly superior force (when he isn't!), or moving all boldly and suddenly spotting an enemy he is desperately ill-equipped to face (4 SU-76s and a company of infantry, and I spot 2 frikkin' Ferdinands?!?!) but wondering if it might be possible to bluff and bluster to a satisfactory set of victory points … Could you give us an idea of the spotting rules you used? I use whatever the spotting rules are for the ruleset we are playing. Most of my recent games have been with Mein Panzer or Jagdpanther II rules. But the technique works with almost any ruleset. The primary mod is replacing the models with chits until they are spotted. True there are better and worse spotting rules in different rulesets. But whatever those rules are, I just add the chits until the units are spotted. Occasionally (depending on how the rules are written) there might be a need for some clarification about handing off a spot, and I like to let the players remove their models (using 2 chits to replace each model – one "live" and one blank) when a unit has gone out of sight for more than 2 turns. But sometimes players just don't bother with the effort of replacing their models with chits, which is OK too. As far as rules-modding goes it is a very simple adjustment. As far as the gaming experience goes, well if you haven't tried it before it will absolutely blow your mind. It's an entirely different level of wargaming. Not quite as much time playing with pretty models, but close enough … and WOW it helps you understand military history a LOT better. I don't even understand why I liked playing with tanks all over the table anymore. It's like what's the point? No tactics beyond which gun shoots at which target? If I want a dice game I can play Parcheesi. Oh, and I consider it critical to understanding the value of ATGs. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Blutarski | 18 Oct 2015 4:26 a.m. PST |
….. Absolutely, positively, comprehensively agree with Mark as to value of the psychological component delivered to a game by use of hidden elements. Granted, it is a bit more complicated and time consuming to employ and is sub-optimal for Hollywood-style convention "photo-op" gaming, but it profoundly transforms the gaming experience for the better. B |
Last Hussar | 18 Oct 2015 4:37 a.m. PST |
The solution to the argumentative players is 1) Point out they are the battalion commander and not personally positioning every platoon. The umpire should be using some common sense;he should place units where it seems logical from the guy on the ground, not on the precise map location 2) Say the following phrase.
I'm the umpire. My word is final As mentioned above we use a hidden->Blind->Revealed system. Defenders are hidden, but go onto a blind (one of your chits) if they move. |
Wolfhag | 19 Oct 2015 1:24 p.m. PST |
"I'm the umpire. My word is final" I once had two adult players engaging in an intense argument about a situation I did not observe while running the game so I could not say who was in the right or wrong. I told them both to step away from the table and discuss it as adults and while they are discussing we'll be playing on with the game and they should not miss too many turns but they can take as long as they wanted. It took 10 seconds more. Wolfhag |
Wolfhag | 19 Oct 2015 2:32 p.m. PST |
Mark 1 That's some really hard core gaming. Realism without a bunch of complicated rules and charts. Minimum models on the table generates suspense but minimum eye candy. I'll take the suspense and FOW anytime. Here's what I've been working on for hidden placements that can be used for tank vs AT gun: I use a similar system using chits (Fog of War markers) but the actual location of the unit is not where the chit is located, it's located from an offset of distance and direction from the chit. I use an abstracted pre-game recon phase that takes into account the overall scenario type, air photo recon, presence of dedicated recon units, patrolling, partisans, POW interrigation, radio intercepts and deception operation efforts. It's just a chart to roll on with various die roll modifiers. Nothing real complicated or time consuming but the players can tailor somewhat the assets they have and how they'll use them. For example, air photo recon can be tactical to get better intel on enemy unit locations or strategic to interdict reserves, better counter-batter fire with air strikes and artillery. Recon units can probe the enemy to gain information or screen your forces from their recon and patrols. EW assets can listen or jam. Meeting engagements will have a minimum of recon assets and a prepared assault against a prepared defense the most. The results determine the maximum distance a unit can be located from the chit and how many additional deception chits/markers each side will have. It can be used for any size game. An umpire will be needed. On the third page I have an example of another mechanic to determine max spotting range of any target and example of spotting a dug in camo AT gun from a moving and static vehicle. link: link Wolfhag |
donlowry | 21 Oct 2015 9:27 a.m. PST |
How about defending units (at least those that are dug in and not expected to move) marked on a map, and offensive units represented with chits (with a few fakes thrown in)? |
Last Hussar | 21 Oct 2015 6:13 p.m. PST |
As I stated – that's what we do with IABSM. We usually give attackers 1 blind per platoon, plus on. You can double up platoons on blinds to get more dummy ones. It does mean you are likely to suffer due to clustering. |
Wolfhag | 21 Oct 2015 7:47 p.m. PST |
donlowry, We set the figures up off the table in the formation and direction they would be on the table if they were there. That means while off table there is some re-positioning and movement but if enemy has LOS a potential spotting can occur. Yes, attackers can be represented the same way with the number of dummy markers dependent on the enemy pregame recon. Depending on the scale either side should be able to hear tanks and maybe other vehicles meaning the FOW marker must be pretty close to the real location. I like using an offset from the marker as the opponent does not have the idea of a specific location but it is a little more bookkeeping. Even if you have three markers for one unit you still know that one of them is the real location and can call in artillery on it. With the offset you are never sure and need to conduct recon by fire at suspected locations, especially tree lines. I hope that answers your question. Wolfhag |
No longer can support TMP | 22 Oct 2015 10:23 a.m. PST |
FWIW, Chain of Command's use of jump off points does a nice job of balancing stuff on the board vs off board. In terms of AT guns, you can hold it off board (and therefore safe) until you need to deploy it to have it take its shot. The deployment is within a certain distance of the JOP. That basically simulates the gun crew setting themselves up in a good location to take a shot but not being visible to the enemy. Deployment is not automatic. Once on the board, the AT gun seems to attract a lot of fire and is quite vulnerable. |
Andy ONeill | 22 Oct 2015 12:43 p.m. PST |
One mechanism we use is fuzzy placement. This is on larger sized games mainly. You place one thing out a unit on table which represents the unit being in that area. There's a radius the unit could be in. When sighted or firing you place the unit. This stops a player doing precise positioning based on where he knows the enemy are, but his unit couldn't. We use map placement for defenders. And we also do double blind, which takes gaming to a whole new level. When you're shooting the referee gives you a box with a clear top and dice in it. You rattle the box and hand it to the ref without looking. Say you're shooting at a tank. He says "you hit". You then roll again for effect. He may say "The turret flies off" or he may say nothing. He walks off to the other table and tells the unfortunate target what happened to them. Quietly. We used to have 2 rooms down the club. Got 1 now so just a curtain. Similarly at me and my mates. If only I was a billionaire. |
Wolfhag | 22 Oct 2015 12:48 p.m. PST |
AONeal, Wow! That's hard core for sure. To take it to the next level when you knock out a tank you can smack your opponent with a cricket bat. siggian, I have observed CoC games and watched their videos but not played Chain of Command. I have done an analysis of the rules and I think they are pretty impressive. The scale of the game matches up very well to recreate a realistic movement and fire system. Better than any others I know of. In that respect it's a very accurate design without compromising playability. After drilling down into the rules I was impressed. My opinion of the JOP system and ambushes is that it's playable and delivers a good gaming experience, especially for meeting engagements. However, for me it's too much of "gamey" mechanic to accomplish it. By that I mean units don't magically appear on the board but it is a good solitaire rule. The system Last Hussar and I are talking about involves the player planning and strategically placing his units at the start of the game using a hidden system. Poor planning means your units are out of position or the opponent can bypass them. There is nothing random about it but I've seen many players like random things happening on the battlefield because it gives them a feeling of realism and FOW. I don't have a problem with that, to each his own. CoC JOP is a little more playable because it does not involve any bookkeeping. Putting FOW counters on almost any part of the table is a little more intimidating than JOP. Also if you are a certain distance from a JOP (is it 12 inches) are you basically safe? Using FOW markers you can have dummies that can show up almost anywhere threatening the enemy flanks and maybe his rear area. JOP system can't do that but you could make your own house rules. In the end any system that gives AT guns the chance to conceal themselves and ambush or get off the first shot is what we really want as I think we all agree that's what is "realistic". Wolfhag |
UshCha | 25 Oct 2015 11:33 a.m. PST |
Its interesting within this topic to define what we mean by reconisance. From what I read in manuals and from books reconnisnace as wargamers see it may not normaly be valid. From my reading and some recent simulatoins/games it looks like the most likely result of reconnisnace is to tell you roughly where and how much enemy is around. One man from WWII in the LRDG noted that what he did was watch roads and count vehicles. This seems reasonable as what is seen quickly and efficently is supply vehicals. This tells you roughly where and how much enemy is around. The odds of actualy spotting exactly where a particular weapon is placed and when, while possible needs a very close observation over a considerable time and is probably poor use of a VERY expensive resource. Not a good use of reconnisance assets. Hence you may have an idea that there are ATG's somewhere in the next few km but you will not know exactly where they are. In the big real world that is very useful information. |
number4 | 25 Oct 2015 2:01 p.m. PST |
The odds of actualy spotting exactly where a particular weapon is placed and when, while possible needs a very close observation over a considerable time and is probably poor use of a VERY expensive resource The Red Army made great use of this resource with scouts plotting pre bombardment missions for their artillery. The offensive then began with an intense barrage that smashed everything in its path. The Germans found the only way to counter this was to pull everything out of the first line save for a couple of outposts |