Great stuff Marc. I think you hit it on the head when talking about how the mechanized infantry sculpts show a broad definition of mobile infantry, from troops on trucks (the hobilars of their day, with the vehicle being just a conveyance) to tracked fighting vehicles with highly trained infantry contained within.
I like your split into three units, but I don’t know how, using the existing combat system, to create a mechanic for tank destroyers to target certain units. The system is a little too abstracted to make it work, methinks. But it sure would be fun to try.
However, the mobile AAA would be great, and combined with self propelled artillery would make a perfect combined force - armor, artillery, infantry, and air defense, all able to move as one. That would be fun! My only concern is that historically these sorts of devices numbered in the hundreds, whereas a tracked self propelled artillery piece like the StuG III pushed 10,000 produced. So it’s a minor scale problem, but hey, if someone wants to buy a fleet of shiny new mobile AAA units at 6 IPCs a pop, more power to them :-D I know I’d buy at least one - couldn’t help myself.
Interesting points.
For what it worth, I can say that my playing group accept quite easily a Mechanized Artillery unit but it would have been a tough one to make them accept 2 similar kinds as sub-type unit SPA and Assault Gun/Anti-Tank Gun, even when I had the HBG units.
So we agree on a 5 IPCs units including both sculpts which have tracks and gun but no turret.
With Mech Inf and TcB it complete our roster. Hence, my opening question on finding a value for Heavy Artillery acting like the responding units against such Mech Art.
I believe that the rotating turret is the most proeminent aspect which makes the distinctive feature of Tank unit. So, Tank Destroyer with turret should considered bigger Tank while Assault Gun with no turret used as Tank killer should be part of the Mechanized Artillery and any sub-type.
I’m not sure that there is a room inside A&A for a mobile AAA.
ALL ground units are able to hit air units even infantry.
I think this imply that each ground units include in it some mobile AAA.
I like your split into three units, but I don’t know how, using the existing combat system, to create a mechanic for tank destroyers to target certain units. The system is a little too abstracted to make it work, methinks. But it sure would be fun to try.
I believe that the only units which should be targeted independantly is planes.
They are really apart from anything else up in the sky.
I made up my roster with 3 planes carriers in this perspective.
It also gives a distinctive feature between Tank and Fighters.
Tank can be protected by other fodder units while planes and mainly Fighters can often be directly vulnerable.
I like your split into three units, but I don’t know how, using the existing combat system, to create a mechanic for tank destroyers to target certain units. The system is a little too abstracted to make it work, methinks. But it sure would be fun to try.
Yes, the concept of the three-part division was just an abstract one, and as I noted it was merely an alternate to the much simpler concept of a single unit type that would encompass all the different types of vehicles you mentioned – assault guns, SPA, tank destroyers and so forth. A&A units always get pulled in two different directions: on the one hand, there’s the practical advantage of keeping things as simple and manageable as possible by having just a few unit types, while on the other hand there’s the temptation to add variety by creating house rules for additional unit types, more finely divided unit types, combined unit types (tank + infantry = mech infantry), tech upgrade unit types, and so forth. The latter temptation gets fueled by people’s creativity (which is a good thing), by a desire for novelty (especially since there haven’t been any new A&A games released in a while), and by the availability of a wide range of new sculpts from the good folks at HBG (which is a great thing).
There’s no perfect balance between the “fewer unit type simplicity” and “more unit type variety” schools of thought, and everyone has to decide for themselves where along that continuum they’re happiest to position themselves. One compromise solution is to create a large range of variant unit types from which to choose, but to add only a few of them in any given game to the basic OOB units of the game itself.
@Baron:
Hence, my opening question on finding a value for Heavy Artillery acting like the responding units against such Mech Art.
I’m not sure what you mean by heavy artillery being a “responding unit” to something (in a general sense) or to mechanized artillery (specifically). Heavy artillery – which I think is defined as anything above 155mm in caliber, and which I think tends to get called “divisional artillery” because it operates at the divisional level rather than at the level of smaller units – is simply large-caliber artillery that, on land, is generally used to bombard fixed enemy positions such as fortifications, cities, trench lines and so forth. It isn’t used to attack enemy vehicles.
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.
I’m taking in a game perspective.
If Germany use a lot of Mechanized Artillery, Mechanized Infantry and Tank, is there any kind of 5 IPCs unit which can have a high defense such as Defense @3, move only 1 and work as Artillery on attack A2 +1A to 1 Inf?
At first, I thought that Heavy Artillery could be this unit.
But the more I read what people post the more it seems that Heavy is more an Attack @3 than a Defend @3.
The only reason I see that Heavy Artillery can still be a better defensive unit is because it seems more difficult to move them in an offensive while it is easier to imagine these big guns standing in entrenched zone ready to fire against any offensive assaillant.
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.
