pistols, ATRs and a few combat observations

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

pistols, ATRs and a few combat observations

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> pistols, ATRs and a few combat observations

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

pistols, ATRs and a few combat observations - 7/22/2021 5:39:04 PM

PMCN

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

I routinely watch battles with the detail level high and I noticed a few things which seem a bit off to me.

(not off but good to see): Grenades now seem to work as opposed to the first version, though I never saw any rifle grenades in use.

1. Pistols. I saw quite a few cases where pistols engaged targets offensively in one case a 130 mm Gun-howitzer. I have to admit my mind boggles at this. Pistols are at best self defence weapons and so they should be used only if the unit in question is targeted by something at point blank range not having the mortar team or whatever running off playing cowboy. Much the same point would apply to carbines on the Russian side...yes the 130 mm Gun-howitzer crew may have had them but I doubt they got that much use especially when the Russians were attacking...unless they had to deal with a gunfight at the Cossack corral or whatever.

2. ATR. Frankly in every tactical game I've ever played these things are useless. Oddly enough the red army used loads of them for real so they must have had some value: breaking tracks or shooting out tires or whatever. But strangely I never see them engage the target they are designed for and instead they seem to be used as anti-personnel or anti-material rifles something to the best of my knowledge (and as best I can google this) they never were used for in WW2. I don't think anyone would actually shoot (or likely could actually shoot) a non-vehicle target with these things. But the number of things disabled (very rarely destroyed) was quite high from them.

3. Defensive fire. Something seems off here. Basically if say 1 division attacks another division the combat would last say 5 min. So basically there is a certain amount of fire a division can lay down in its defence. Which makes sense they have say 9 battalions and those 9 can engage 9 enemy ones or if there are like 3 german squads being attacked by 15 russian squads then say 9 russian squads are engaged before the surviving russians get into range to jump the germans. If there are instead 3 attacking divisions it seems to take 15 min and it looks an awful lot like instead of what you would expect to happen to the 9 battalions or 3 squads when 27 battalions or 45 squads attack them that the defenders fire their full firepower at each of the attackers in turn. So there is no way to basically snow the enemy under in troops and firepower and thus lower the losses to the attacker instead it looks an awful lot like the attack will increase their odds of success a lot less than the actually increase in odds may suggest but will take higher casualties.

4. AFV exchange fire. Here is much the same it seems to be more a the defenders and attackers exchange fire but again somehow having like 90 tanks to 10 tanks doesn't result in what I'd expect to see. The attacker seems to suffer defensive fire or full defensive fire dependent of the number of attacking units with tanks rather than limited by the defender only being able to engage so many. I'm probably not explaining this at all well either...but I've only just started to get my feet wet in the game.

The last two things I admit are more an impression, basically one that is very much "not what I expected to see" but one where it looks like the result is going to be much higher offensive casualties then should be there if you can't do the whole snow the defender under in men, guns and tanks. The tank one was more obvious but the losses on the attacker side still seemed to scale with the number of attackers rather than being limited by the available defensive fire power. The fact that it very much looked like the defender unloads on attacking division 1, then unloads on attacking division 2 and so on with the same firepower really felt off. The more firepower I have the lower my losses should be and that for sure wasn't what I was seeing...though it did mean I had a greater chance to win the battle but the losses could be quite catastrophic. To be clear I can't see things like defensive bonuses, leadership, morale or experience so there may be a lot under the hood that explains this but it was very consistently happening so I'm not talking about something I saw only once in a blue moon or whatever.

The game looks great...but I think that I may need to see about ordering a physical rule book as trying to read the pdf isn't working so well and the ebook version is too small print for my eyes to comfortably read.

Post #: 1

RE: pistols, ATRs and a few combat observations - 7/23/2021 12:49:00 AM

56ajax

Posts: 1950
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Carnegie, Australia
Status: offline

Re Nos 2. The Germans nicknamed the Soviet anti tank rifles as the 'pest' and that is they why built 'skirts' on the hull or turrets of their tanks. So they did have some value. However, considering the large numbers of ATRs lost in battle there is a suspicion that the crew threw them in the nearest ditch and took off.

_____________________________

Molotov : This we did not deserve.

Foch : This is not peace. This is a 20 year armistice.

C'est la guerre a�rienne

(in reply to PMCN)

Post #: 2

RE: pistols, ATRs and a few combat observations - 7/23/2021 3:02:02 PM

PMCN

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

I was watching a you tube about the battle of Milne bay and the Aussies brought up a boyes ATR to deal with 2 Japanese tanks....and it did nothing. Given that Japanese tanks were more akin to armoured cars with tracks I'd say that their utility against anything on the eastern front would be limited to breaking tracks. In Tobruck by AH I recall that the only tank an ATR could do something to on either side was an Italian L6 and even then I think it was from the rear at near point blank range where you had a chance to kill it...all other tanks could only get a mobility kill from either sides ATRs. The Finish ATR was the only one in Squad Leader that could do anything baring a fluke. But watching battles in this game I see them disabling mortars, MGs, artillery, squads, you name it...occasionally a tank shows up but mostly it is everything but them. It looks for all the world like they are treated as snipers firing anti-material rifles.

I know the soviets used them extensively...and frankly for their cheapness and ability to break tracks as part of a layered AT defence this may well have been worth it....immobilise the tank with a broken track and then have the 76s open up on it or something to that effect. Abandoning the ATR may have been SOP as they are heavy and possibly the trained man was more valuable...I have no idea.

(in reply to 56ajax)

Post #: 3

RE: pistols, ATRs and a few combat observations - 7/23/2021 3:17:38 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PMCN

... Abandoning the ATR may have been SOP as they are heavy and possibly the trained man was more valuable...I have no idea.

I can't easily find it back but I read the Soviet technical instructions on handling the ATR. It ends with a very plaintive 'this is expensive, made for you from the resources of the Soviet people' typr of comment - which does suggest they tended to get 'lost' and then had to be accounted for.

_____________________________

(in reply to PMCN)

Post #: 4

RE: pistols, ATRs and a few combat observations - 7/23/2021 5:01:37 PM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 56ajax

Re Nos 2. The Germans nicknamed the Soviet anti tank rifles as the 'pest' and that is they why built 'skirts' on the hull or turrets of their tanks. So they did have some value. However, considering the large numbers of ATRs lost in battle there is a suspicion that the crew threw them in the nearest ditch and took off.

This needs to be fixed. SPW251s would be "meat on the table".

(in reply to 56ajax)

Post #: 5