Yeah that makes sense
Heavy (now renamed Anti-Tank) Artillery against Mechanized artillery and Tanks
-
Maybe a balance Heavy Artillery relative to Artillery unit should have these values:
Heavy Artillery
Attack 3
Defense 2
Move 1
Gives +1A to 2 Infantry
Cost 6
1 transport can load only 1 unit and no Infantry.But what I’m looking for is this:
Anti-Tank Artillery
Attack 2
Defend 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1A to 1 Infantry -
@Baron:
Maybe special name should be given for all kind of counter-measure against offensive units of the game, I mean Tank. Maybe Specialized Artillery, which includes Anti-Tank Gun and any indirect fire weapons which can be good against Tank and mechanized units. Or Anti-Tank Artillery unit.
In my opinion, heavy artillery is primarily an offensive weapon against fixed land targets, not a defensive weapon against mobile targets (for reasons I outlined in one of my earlier posts). To destroy enemy tanks, self-propelled guns and other heavy armoured vehicles in WWII, the best options were:
-
to hit them from the air with a ground-attack aircraft like the Sturmovik (an exceptionally good tank-killer) armed with suitable bombs, or with autocannons (like the Stuka 87G variant), or with rocket launchers (like the Hawker Typhoon)
-
to hit them at short range with infantry-portable launchers for rockets with shaped-charge warheads (like the bazooka or the Panzerfaust)
-
to hit them with an armour-piercing round fired by a vehicle such as a tank or a tank destroyer
-
to hit them with an armour-piercing round fired by a fixed – meaning non-self-propelled – anti-tank gun (like the famous German 88mm gun)
Representing the 88mm gun with A&A sculpts is easy because it’s been issued in two OOB versions over the years: the small one from the early games which served (incorrectly) as German geneal artillery, and the current large one from G40/2 and 1942/2, where it serves as AAA. The 88mm gun was used very effectively as both an anti-tank and an anti-aircraft gun, so the same sculpt fits both purposes. Alternately, you can use the little early ones as anti-tank guns and the large later ones as ant-aircraft guns, if you want to distinguish the two unit types.
-
-
I got both OOB 88 Flak.
But it works only for Germany.
There is nothing similar for Russia.I keep the idea that against Mech and Tank, Anti Tank guns works.
There was no special artillery weapon against Tank and Mech units? -
The Russians actually had a similar 85mm gun that they sometimes used like the flak 88.
-
@Baron:
There was no special artillery weapon against Tank and Mech units?
A special artillery weapon designed for use against tanks and other armour is called an anti-tank gun. The major WWII combatants all had weapons of this type, though their effectiveness varied.
-
@Baron:
I got both OOB 88 Flak. But it works only for Germany. There is nothing similar for Russia.
A fair point. The solution could be to have all AAA gun sculpts serve in dual roles, since AAA guns tend to have firing characteristics – a high muzzle velocity and a flat shell trajectory – that are useful against armoured land vehicles as well as against aircraft. The ammunition for the two purposes would generally be different (against aircraft, a shell that explodes and fills the air with shrapnel is desirable; against tanks, a dense, heavy, hard shell that punches through the armour before exploding would work better), but as long as it was the same caliber this wouldn’t be a problem. Perhaps AAA sculpts used in an anti-tank role could be distinguished by having a plastic chip (of a colour different than the ones used to denote multiple units) placed under them.
-
@CWO:
@Baron:
There was no special artillery weapon against Tank and Mech units?
A special artillery weapon designed for use against tanks and other armour is called an anti-tank gun. The major WWII combatants all had weapons of this type, though their effectiveness varied.
Do those anti-tank guns include some indirect fire artillery pieces?
-
@CWO:
@Baron:
There was no special artillery weapon against Tank and Mech units?
A special artillery weapon designed for use against tanks and other armour is called an anti-tank gun. The major WWII combatants all had weapons of this type, though their effectiveness varied.
So it seems that I was looking for Anti-tank gun units and not Heavy Artillery.
Historically speaking, did Russia use a significant number of them to counter Operation Zitadel?Anti-tank defense proper was by 1942 designed in First World War fashion with several prepared trench lines incorporating anti-tank weapons of different capabilities. Depending on terrain and available line-of-sight, the longer-ranged guns could begin to fire on approaching tanks from as far as 2 kilometers, which was also the range at which German Panther and Tiger tank gunners were trained to fire. Anti-tank guns were usually deployed to cover terrain more suitable for tanks, and were protected by minefields laid at about 500 meters to 1 kilometer from their positions by combat engineers. In the Red Army the anti-tank rifle units would be positioned throughout the forward trench line and would engage the lighter tanks and any other vehicles, such as infantry half-tracks in an attempt to separate them from the tanks. The anti-tank guns deployed further back would often hold their fire until enemy tanks were within the most effective range for their ammunition. Where there were insufficient anti-tank weapons, engineers would construct anti-tank obstacles such as dragon’s teeth or czech hedgehog.
Towed anti-tank guns were thought to be the primary means of defeating tanks. At the battle of Kursk for example, the Red Army deployed more artillery regiments than infantry regiments and towed gun densities reached over 20 guns per kilometer of defended tactical zone. A towed gun was much cheaper than a tank and could be concealed in a shallow position. When time allowed, dugouts with strong overhead cover could be constructed. Guns deployed on reverse slopes and in flanking positions could take a toll of attacking tanks. However, gun crews were vulnerable to artillery, mortar HE fire and enemy infantry. Their positions had to be carefully selected and once engaged, they generally could not redeploy. Experience strongly suggested that towed AT guns were less effective than self-propelled AT weapons and took heavier casualties.
-
The Russians actually had a similar 85mm gun that they sometimes used like the flak 88.
Do you know if it is amongst OOB sculpts?
Or is it an HBG Russian Heavy Artillery sculpt? -
@Baron:
Do those anti-tank guns include some indirect fire artillery pieces?
No. When shooting at a tank, you want a weapon that fires horizontally in as straight a line as possible, to increase the chances that you’ll hit the target. Indirect-fire weapons (howitzers), which shoot their shells on a high curving path that looks like an inverted “U”, are used when you want to bombard an enemy position with plunging fire. Plunging fire means shells that fall vertically or diagonally on the enemy, which is particularly useful when attacking entrenched positions against which horizontal fire is ineffective.
-
@Baron:
Do you know if it is amongst OOB sculpts?
In case you find this useful for your project: the unit identification charts which I made for the OOB sculpts and which I posted here…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31982.0
…include (in Reply #7) these two charts:
WW2-Land-Artillery.jpg (270.7 KB, 2148x1260 - viewed 17 times.)
WW2-Land-AntiAircraft Artillery.jpg (327 KB, 2148x1260 - viewed 13 times.)
For each silhouette, I provided both the model name/number of the weapon and a description of its specific type.
-
Thanks.
Is it correct to say Anti-tank Artillery, even if ATGun is only a direct fire weapon? -
@Baron:
Is it correct to say Anti-tank Artillery, even if ATGun is only a direct fire weapon?
In artillery jargon, a “gun” in the strict sense of the term is always a direct-fire weapon, meaning a tube artillery weapon designed to shoot at an elevation between 0 degrees and 45 degrees. A tube artillery weapon designed to fire shells at land targets at elevations of 45 degrees and higher (meaning an indirect-fire weapon) is called a howitzer.
“Anti-tank gun” is (to my knowledge) the commonly used term for the type of weapon we’re discussing here. It’s possible that such weapons are also referred to as “anti-tank artillery” (though personally I’ve never heard the term used) because they’re artillery pieces and they’re used against tanks…but as far as I know, the more usual practice is to call these things anti-tank guns. It’s a bit like the practice of calling submarines “boats” rather than “ships”, even though one could plausibly use either term.
One thing to be careful of, however, is this. As I said, it would be reasonable to argue that an anti-tank gun could be called an anti-tank artillery piece because it’s an artillery piece and it’s used against tanks. It would, however, not be correct to make the opposite argument: that all artillery pieces can be considered anti-tank weapons. Not all artillery pieces are capable of being used against tanks. Because of their operational characteristics (their sighting mechanism, the speed at which they can be trained, the elevation of which they’re capable, their rate of fire and so forth), some artillery pieces – especially the big ones – would be utterly or virtually incapable of hitting a tank (especially a moving one) if their crews tried to use them in this capacity. So my recommendation would be to simply stick to the straightforward term “anti-tank gun” because then it will be perfectly clear what’s being talked about.
-
I agree that it seems the usual word is better.
Anti-Tank Gun.
The only annoying thing is it sounds like Anti-Aircraft Gun.
And this unit is made to directly hit planes.
So Anti-Tank Gun unit will makes players believe it is made to directly hit Tank units on the board.
That is not what I want for my roster.
This unit must work like other ground units which allows to use fodder casualties, like 3 or 4 IPCs units for instance.
I don’t need a special unit which can hit Tank on 1, like it is the case with AAA units against planes.The unit above named Anti-Tank Artillery help understand that it move like an Artillery for 1 move and help Infantry on offense.
But maybe this unit, ATG, is not that qualified for such combined arms on offense? IDK. -
@Baron:
I agree that it seems the usual word is better.
Anti-Tank Gun.
The only annoying thing is it sounds like Anti-Aircraft Artillery.
And this unit is made to directly hit planes.
So ATG will makes players believe it is able to directly hit Tank units.
That is not what I want.
The unit above named Anti Tank Artillery help understand that it move like an Artillery for 1 move and help Infantry on offense.
But maybe this unit is not qualified for such combined arms?I’m now totally confused because your previous posts – unless I’ve totally misunderstood them – talked about an artillery-type weapon whose purpose was to provide a defensive ability against tanks and armoured vehicles. That fits perfectly with the concept of an anti-tank gun. Your latest post, however, says that you don’t want a weapon that can hit tanks directly, and that what you’re looking for is a mobile artillery-type weapon that can help infantry on the offensive. What you’re describing here is self-propelled artillery, not an anti-tank gun. So at this point, I no longer have any idea of what kind of weapon system this discussion is supposed to be about.
-
Sorry, I jumped from historical POV to game POV without notice.
So I edited the post to give more details and sort out the confusion.
In game terms, which Anti-Tank Gun seems more consistent with historical uses of this weapon?ATG on offense is acting like Artillery on Infantry support
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Gives +1Attack to 1 Infantry
Cost 5Or
Anti-Tank Gun better for defense acting in better coordination with entrenched Infantry
Attack 2
Defend 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Defense to 1 InfantryFor the last ATG, I think about Fury movie in which German Infantry were help by ATGs against US Tanks and 1 Tank Destroyer which was commanded by Brad Pitt as Sgt.
And also about Russian defensive lines near Kursk against Germans’ Tigers.
-
Said otherwise,
Did ATG were as useful on offense than any other artillery units?Or
Motorized Assault Gun and Tank Destroyer were always prefered on offense compared to ATG while regular Artillery still remain an important weapon for offensive? -
Hi everybody! This topic caught my attention as I have been toying with expanding the G40 unit list for a number of years now. The following two mechanized units have become mainstays that, for me and my group, really fill some of the gaps you guys have identified without getting too crazy/complicated:
TANK DESTROYER
A: 2
D: 2
M: 2
Cost: 5
Special: target an enemy land unit on a roll of 1 (in both attack and defence)This unit is meant to represent the wide range of direct fire armoured units like assault guns and anti-tank vehicles (StuG’s, Hellcat’s… )
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_gunSELF PROPELLED ARTILLERY
A: 2
D: 2
M: 2
Cost: 5
Special: provides an infantry or mechanized inf with a +1 attack bonus (essentially the same as the trusty artillery, but it moves two.)This unit is meant to represent indirect fire artillery pieces that were capable of moving into position on their own (Hummel’s, Katyusha’s…)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-propelled_artilleryJust my two cents :)
-
Thanks for the quick links Admiral T.
Both of your units seems balance and can be introduced as 5 IPCs units.
It provides examples of the offensive units which work against my ATG. -
If we want a strong defensive unit our game, the Blockhouse from HBG is the best choice.
Blockhouse, cost 8, no movement, zero attack, defend at 4 or less and take two hits to kill (it absorb one hit)
If you still want more ideas for a unit that provides a defensive boost Baron, I do something similar to what Narvik outlined earlier. Blockhouse units represent that extra bit (sometimes a substantial extra bit) of preparation defending forces put into creating bunkers, pillboxes, tank traps, trenches, etc… I however like these units simple, cheap and only marginally effective… You in turn see players encouraged to bulk up some of the classically defended territories (like the coast of France, places in Russia and maybe some Italian territories) without completely changing the nature of Axis & Allies combat system.
BLOCKHOUSES
A: 0
D: 0
M: 0
Cost: 2
Special: Increases defence value of one infantry by +1. Can be taken as a casualty in battle. Limit one per territory IPC value.
Blockhouses are ‘built’ on territories much the same way you would build an industrial complex.
Suggested Topics
