RE: The way I understand it....

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: The way I understand it....

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> RE: The way I understand it....

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The way I understand it.... - 9/2/2008 2:54:50 PM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borsook

It's not the case of rapid fire, rather a well placed and hidden gun, and the enemy not expecting an assault. With the first hit all you see is a destroyed vehicle, since you start looking for the gun afterwards there is no easy way to tell where it is located.

Unfortunately, this doesn't hold true. I could maybe believe it if the gun was on the other side of a mountain or elevation where it couldn't be seen. But then, it would be an artillery piece and firing blind. Anti-tank guns have to SEE the enemy in order to hit it. And they have to be within a certain range to hit it effectively. Namely as close as safely possible. Anti-tank guns in WW2 were not small devices unless you had a Panzerfaust or bazooka. And then you would have to be very close for it to work. 50MM anti-tank guns are not small and are not easily manuvered. Hence the need for trucks to tow them into place. The only anti-tank guns that could be hidden and manuvered easily are the ineffective Soviet anti-tank rifles or something similar. And they are all but useless against anything but trucks and lightly armored vehicles. Remember also that there is more than just the visible aspect of an anti-tank gun. When it fires, there is a lot of smoke and gunflash. A tank observer standing in the top hatch of the turret (which was and is SOP for tanks that are moving and not under fire) is going to spot that hidden gun the second it fires. And anti-tank guns that can be hidden and easily moved, as I mentioned above, are not going to be very successful at causing major damage to a tank. I tried 1.03, and while moving my tanks through an open field with no cover I had 4 tanks knocked out by "hidden" anti-tank guns in that field that in the real world should have been visible after their first shot. Sorry, that just isn't realistic. I can see them being camflaged and not visible until they shoot, but not remaining invisible after they have fired. That's why I am still using version 1.02b.

< Message edited by Deputy -- 9/2/2008 2:57:02 PM >

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to borsook79)

Post #: 31

RE: The way I understand it.... - 9/2/2008 10:24:09 PM

borsook79

Posts: 477
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borsook

It's not the case of rapid fire, rather a well placed and hidden gun, and the enemy not expecting an assault. With the first hit all you see is a destroyed vehicle, since you start looking for the gun afterwards there is no easy way to tell where it is located.

Unfortunately, this doesn't hold true. I could maybe believe it if the gun was on the other side of a mountain or elevation where it couldn't be seen. But then, it would be an artillery piece and firing blind. Anti-tank guns have to SEE the enemy in order to hit it. And they have to be within a certain range to hit it effectively. Namely as close as safely possible. Anti-tank guns in WW2 were not small devices unless you had a Panzerfaust or bazooka. And then you would have to be very close for it to work. 50MM anti-tank guns are not small and are not easily manuvered. Hence the need for trucks to tow them into place. The only anti-tank guns that could be hidden and manuvered easily are the ineffective Soviet anti-tank rifles or something similar. And they are all but useless against anything but trucks and lightly armored vehicles. Remember also that there is more than just the visible aspect of an anti-tank gun. When it fires, there is a lot of smoke and gunflash. A tank observer standing in the top hatch of the turret (which was and is SOP for tanks that are moving and not under fire) is going to spot that hidden gun the second it fires. And anti-tank guns that can be hidden and easily moved, as I mentioned above, are not going to be very successful at causing major damage to a tank. I tried 1.03, and while moving my tanks through an open field with no cover I had 4 tanks knocked out by "hidden" anti-tank guns in that field that in the real world should have been visible after their first shot. Sorry, that just isn't realistic. I can see them being camflaged and not visible until they shoot, but not remaining invisible after they have fired. That's why I am still using version 1.02b.

That's German 50 mm anti tank gun. 37 mm guns were even smaller. Both were perfectly movable by the crew at a short distance. Low profile made it even easier to hide, esp as when preparing an ambush they were often 'pre aimed' at a given spot, and fired at a signal of an observer, with the actual crew not seeing the target. Also I cannot agree with the "a lot of smoke", this is not true, although I guess "a lot" is subjective. Of course the observer on the top of the tank should be able to locate it, provided he was looking in the right direction, not to mention other factors like artillery fire, enemy air force activity that can lower the visibility or make open hatch a bad choice. Anyway I am not saying that antitank gun should stay unspotted after destroying its first target, only that it is possible.

PS. As for a small anti-tank gun being able to destroy a tank at a distance, well, that depends on what period do you mean, e.g. Panzer I would go down without much effort after a 37 mm hit (that's why Polish cavalry was so successful in the role of anti tank unit in 1939 (Like in the Bzura Battle).

< Message edited by Borsook -- 9/2/2008 10:28:55 PM >

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 32

RE: The way I understand it.... - 9/2/2008 11:36:16 PM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borsook

That's German 50 mm anti tank gun. 37 mm guns were even smaller. Both were perfectly movable by the crew at a short distance. Low profile made it even easier to hide, esp as when preparing an ambush they were often 'pre aimed' at a given spot, and fired at a signal of an observer, with the actual crew not seeing the target. Also I cannot agree with the "a lot of smoke", this is not true, although I guess "a lot" is subjective. Of course the observer on the top of the tank should be able to locate it, provided he was looking in the right direction, not to mention other factors like artillery fire, enemy air force activity that can lower the visibility or make open hatch a bad choice. Anyway I am not saying that antitank gun should stay unspotted after destroying its first target, only that it is possible.

PS. As for a small anti-tank gun being able to destroy a tank at a distance, well, that depends on what period do you mean, e.g. Panzer I would go down without much effort after a 37 mm hit (that's why Polish cavalry was so successful in the role of anti tank unit in 1939 (Like in the Bzura Battle).

I wonder what the effectiveness was against tanks when "pre aimed' at a given spot". I would bet not very effective. The campaign I was in was 1944-45. The bad guys were Soviets. And they were located in open terrain. My tanks were not attacked until the anti-tank guns opened fire. And it was MULTIPLE anti-tank guns and ALL remained invisible. No distractions at all. And with the height of WW2 tanks, which were VERY tall compared to modern tanks, Tiger and Panther tank observers would have no trouble spotting a gun that size BEFORE it fired. And observers don't just look in ONE direction. They are required to observe a 360 degree field of view. I know, because I was an observer from the loader hatch. You jump up on the seat frame and you pivot completely around over and over again. It's called situational awareness

The ONLY way I can see an anti-tank gun being unspotted would maybe be if it was located in a forest and it was pouring rain and fog and visibility was very short to start with.. But again, sound, flash and smoke should give it away once it fires.

< Message edited by Deputy -- 9/2/2008 11:37:01 PM >

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to borsook79)

Post #: 33

RE: The way I understand it.... - 9/2/2008 11:47:27 PM

borsook79

Posts: 477
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline

The effectiveness of "pre aming" was good (given a good synchronization) i.e. a hit being achieved. Anyway in your particular example it indeed should not happen (though I still claim things like that did happen in more defensive circumstances), that said I've never seen (in the game that is) an AT gun remain hidden in the open terrain after destroying something, did this occur more than once?

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 34

RE: The way I understand it.... - 9/2/2008 11:56:26 PM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borsook

The effectiveness of "pre aming" was good (given a good synchronization) i.e. a hit being achieved. Anyway in your particular example it indeed should not happen (though I still claim things like that did happen in more defensive circumstances), that said I've never seen (in the game that is) an AT gun remain hidden in the open terrain after destroying something, did this occur more than once?

Once was all it took for me to uninstall the game and re-install version 1.02b. I have the 1.04 beta on my laptop and I'm testing it out now. So far the only silliness is artillery destroying tanks. So far it has only happened to the US tanks. Only way I am able to prevent it on the German tanks is to destroy all the spotters.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to borsook79)

Post #: 35

RE: The way I understand it.... - 9/3/2008 12:03:35 AM

borsook79

Posts: 477
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borsook

The effectiveness of "pre aming" was good (given a good synchronization) i.e. a hit being achieved. Anyway in your particular example it indeed should not happen (though I still claim things like that did happen in more defensive circumstances), that said I've never seen (in the game that is) an AT gun remain hidden in the open terrain after destroying something, did this occur more than once?

Once was all it took for me to uninstall the game and re-install version 1.02b. I have the 1.04 beta on my laptop and I'm testing it out now. So far the only silliness is artillery destroying tanks. So far it has only happened to the US tanks. Only way I am able to prevent it on the German tanks is to destroy all the spotters.

If it happened only once - maybe it was a bug or just some quirk? Actually I remember a photo of a Tiger destroyed by a artillery shell :) I've no idea how well the new artillery model works, but increasing effectiveness is a welcomed change for me. Half of the time I felt that plotting art fire is a waste of time, as 90% of time there was no effect... realistic or not, I feel it was bad for the gameplay.

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 36

RE: The way I understand it.... - 9/3/2008 1:48:54 AM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

Unfortunately it's no bug or one time event. Anti-tank artillery is now the ONLY thing that any vehicle has to worry about. Tank vs tank or tank vs infantry combat is nothing compared to indirect fire artillery vs tanks.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to borsook79)

Post #: 37