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 5
Or
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 Infantry
For 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_gun
SELF 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_artillery
Just 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.
By the way, CWO Marc, I am a big fan of your detailed responses!
By the way, CWO Marc, I am a big fan of your detailed responses!
Thanks – much appreciated. Your proposal for three broad new unit types (tank destroyers, self-propelled artillery and blockhouses), which would each represent a range of more specific weapon categories, sounds good, with each of the types you’ve described having a clearly-defined function as well as capabilities reflecting those functions.
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)SELF 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.)
These are both great ideas in my opinion. All I need now is a good Light Tank… all the suggestions on these forums seem to be A2 D2 M2 C5, which strikes me as worthless next to A3 D3 M2 C6 regular tanks (and also next to the strictly better Tank Destroyer). Any ideas?
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)SELF 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.)These are both great ideas in my opinion. All I need now is a good Light Tank… all the suggestions on these forums seem to be A2 D2 M2 C5, which strikes me as worthless next to A3 D3 M2 C6 regular tanks (and also next to the strictly better Tank Destroyer). Any ideas?
I started with this basic values and developed some combines arms bonus for Light Tank in this thread:
Mechanized (MI/ SPA/ SPG-TD) vs Tank (Light/ Medium/ Advance/ Heavy) units
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32892.msg1243157#msg1243157
Also many cost structure for these types of units here:
HBG units “Custom” Rules question (Global game)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31368.msg1151376#msg1151376
Amongst many ideas, a return to the combat value of Classic Tank:
Light Tank A3 D2 M2 C5, can Blitz, gives +1A to TcB when paired with.
OR
Light Tank A2 D2 M2 C5, can Blitz, gives +1A to TcB when paired with,
gets a +1 A/D bonus when paired to a Tank Destroyer, a Medium Tank or a Heavy Tank.
This thread can also be interesting:
The Missing Mechanized Unit: Assault Guns
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24554.msg843967#msg843967
@CWO:
@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.
Marc, do you think that naming such unit as Anti-Armour Gun or Anti-Vehicle Gun can be more accurate (and still used in the military, or at least not used in a complete different way) that Anti-Tank Gun, in a game perspective, since the unit I want to create is built to make a defensive counter-weight against all type of unit moving at 2?
That way, the players will not think that this unit is able to directly destroy tank on “1” roll, such as AAGun were made to against planes.
I develop a third option for Anti-Tank Gun, and better describe the general behaviour of 3 games unit (from which I will pick one), I just don’t know what is the real historical facts on ATG:
Sorry Marc, 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?
Could you help me by giving an advice?
Anti-Tank Gun-1
On offense, it is acting like Artillery on Infantry support, no big difference.
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Attack to 1 Infantry
Or
Anti-Tank Gun-2
Not very useful on offensive action and of no real help for Infantry, artillery is very much better.
(Absolutely needs to be mechanized to have some mobility on offense, to give some support to Infantry.)
Better for defensive action, acting better in coordination with entrenched Infantry.
Attack 2
Defend 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Defense to 1 Infantry
Or
Anti-Tank Gun-3
On offense, it is acting like Artillery on Infantry support,
slightly inferior, since it needs to be transported within sight of the enemy,
but it is clearly better on defense with deep entrenched position combined with Infantry.
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Attack/Defense to 1 Infantry
For the last two ATGs, 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.
I say we should have an artillery for defense. Like a unit that can pair with an infantry or artillery that give them a +1 on defense.
Thanks, I keep the idea.
Below, I found some interesting facts on Anti-tank warfare:
Anti-tank tactics developed rapidly during the war but along different paths in different armies based on the threats they faced and the technologies they were able to produce. Very little development took place in UK because weapons available in 1940 were judged adequate for engaging Italian and German tanks during most of the North African Campaign. Its experience therefore failed to influence US Army’s anti-tank doctrine prior to 1944. From 1941 German anti-tank tactics developed rapidly as a result of being surprised by the previously unknown Soviet tank designs, forcing introduction of new technologies and new tactics. The Red Army was also faced with a new challenge in anti-tank warfare after losing most of its tank fleet and a considerable part of its anti-tank capable cannons.
Anti-tank tactics during the war were largely integrated with the offensive or defensive posture of the troops being supported, usually infantry. Much of anti-tank tactics depend on the range effectiveness of various weapons and weapon systems available. These are divided as follows:
Operational range over the horizon (20-40 km range) bomber aircraft and long range artillery
Tactical staging areas (7-20 km range) ground attack aircraft and field artillery including MRLs
Tactical zone forming-up area and rear combat zone (2-7 km range) heavy anti-tank guns and mortars
Tactical forward combat zone (1-2 km range) anti-tank guns and tanks deployed in defense
Engagement distance (200-1000 m range) mines and anti-tank rifles
Close combat distance (25-200 m range) infantry anti-tank weaponsGround-to-air cooperation was not yet systematic in any army of the period, but given sufficient warning ground attack aircraft could support ground troops even during an enemy attack in an attempt to interdict the enemy units before they come into tactical combat zone. Various bomb loads can be used depending on what type of tank unit is engaged in at the time or who its accompanying troops are. This is an indirect form of anti-tank warfare where the tanks are denied the opportunity to even reach combat.
Field artillery was particularly effective in firing against tank formations because although they were rarely able to destroy a tank by direct penetration, they would severely crater the area preventing the tanks from moving therefore causing them to become nearly stationary targets for the ground attack aircraft, or disrupting the enemy schedule and allowing own troops more time to prepare their defense.
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.
Self-propelled anti-tank guns were rare at the beginning of WW2, although the Belgian Army deployed a few T.15 tank destroyers and the French army was developing several wheeled and tracked designs. The advantages of mobility and even thin armor protection were so compelling that most armies were using self-propelled AT guns by mid-war. Examples of these weapons included the US M10, German Marder II, and Soviet SU-85.
@Baron:
Anti-Tank Gun-3
On offense, it is acting like Artillery on Infantry support,
slightly inferior, since it needs to be transported within sight of the enemy,
but it is clearly better on defense with deep entrenched position combined with Infantry.
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Attack/Defense to 1 Infantry
Perhaps that last one, but only gives a bonus when the opposing force actually contains at least one tank (any variant of tank, if you use light/medium, etc.)?
EDIT: ON a side note, what piece do you plan on using as the anti-tank?
@Baron:
Anti-Tank Gun-3
On offense, it is acting like Artillery on Infantry support,
slightly inferior, since it needs to be transported within sight of the enemy,
but it is clearly better on defense with deep entrenched position combined with Infantry.
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Attack/Defense to 1 InfantryPerhaps that last one, but only gives a bonus when the opposing force actually contains at least one tank (any variant of tank, if you use light/medium, etc.)?
EDIT: ON a side note, what piece do you plan on using as the anti-tank?
I have two types of Artillery units (old Spring 1942 version, I believe, but I can identify them for sure) and more recent ones which are bigger (probably from Second Editions).
I will use the bigger ones as ATG, simply because it is costlier than Artillery (moto: bigger is costlier).
I cannot introduce the kind of limitation on “what the other side bring into combat”. It is an additional layer of complexity.
Another reason is the ATG unit should not only figure the gun but also figure all kinds of defensive counter-measure against Tank and other mechanized units (like minefield, trench, camouflage, deep defensive lines, etc), which level the combat to an even match: 1 unit Attack 3 against 1 unit Defense 3.
If you find this unit too OP, you should know it will be counter-balance by this kind of Assault Gun/SPA/Tank Destroyer:
@Baron:
Here is a more A&A paradigm rules version for a single type of Mobile Artillery unit (SPA / SPG /TD):
Mechanized Artillery (Assault Gun)
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Move: 2
Cost: 5
Can only blitz when paired to a Tank.
Infantry Support: Give +1A to a paired Infantry or Mech Infantry
Tank Hunter as a tank support ability: Get +1A/D when paired to a Tank.This unit cannot give and get both bonus as Inf support & Tank support when teamed with both MI and Tank on attack. Player must choose which bonus is given.
I think it could be viable and balance.
My main issue is about the extension of the combined arms bonus toward Infantry for the ATG and toward Mech Artillery with Tank. This depends mostly on historical accuracy.
A) Only +1 offense or only +1 defense or B) both offense/defense?
If one unit gives only 1 bonus, the other will get the same.
So, if you feel it is too powerful compared to Artillery unit or Tank, then you can choose ATG-1 or ATG-2.
