Anti-Tank guns OPP fire....One shot?

[cjsiam]

I'm a little perplexed about AT Guns....
Not being able to hid them, makes them even less effective---but -- Hidden setup/the VASSAL Hidden extension helps with that.

But, I still have an issue.....

It would seem to me, that if Armor Efficiency can be called on German tanks---that AT guns should all be "Armor Efficient"....

The LIFE of an AT gun depends on those guys getting LOTS of shots off before they get whacked....
I find it odd that a cramped Tank, with the same gun, can fire twice (two rounds) where an AT gun can only fire ONE during regular fire,
and ONE during OPP fire.....(not both, I know..)...Given their entire reason for existence was to surprise tanks--they are set up to fire fast...

I think this severely short changes the utility of AT guns......

Thoughts?

[plloyd1010]

Uh... yeah.
Imagine, inside a turret: cramped, single loader, no handlers = 1 or 2 shots depending on training.
Now imagine, behind gun: lots of space, probably 2 loaders, 2-4 handlers = 1 shot regardless of training.

Wilhelm von Thoma with the ground element of  the Condor Legion in the Spanish Civil War, and a tactical observer for for the Wehrmacht, noted that it only took a "few" anti-tank to breakup a substantial armored attack.

When the Germans launched there spoiler attack at Mareth, a British staff officer noted that the AT guns fired off 17,000 rounds in 20 minutes. (For some reason it was a short attack.)

Right, AT guns get one shot.

[cjsiam]

Uh... yeah.
Imagine, inside a turret: cramped, single loader, no handlers = 1 or 2 shots depending on training.
Now imagine, behind gun: lots of space, probably 2 loaders, 2-4 handlers = 1 shot regardless of training.

Wilhelm von Thoma with the ground element of  the Condor Legion in the Spanish Civil War, and a tactical observer for for the Wehrmacht, noted that it only took a "few" anti-tank to breakup a substantial armored attack.

When the Germans launched there spoiler attack at Mareth, a British staff officer noted that the AT guns fired off 17,000 rounds in 20 minutes. (For some reason it was a short attack.)

Right, AT guns get one shot.

So you agree with me---that perhaps AT guns should get "Efficiency"....2 shots on activation, or 2 shots on OP fire...??

NOT one shot....
You're examples all clearly support the perspective.....

[plloyd1010]

Au contraire! You agree with me. I have 3rd Edition and 4th Edition related documents to prove that.

Now that my vitriol is done, I also caution about adding house rules too quickly. For making anti-tank guns efficient, we also had to flatten the climb of the AT curve to maintain a general play balance. Mucking with the AT system was the only change we made that was not extrapolated from the system at large.

(We is my cousin and myself. He is unknown in my registered plays.)

[cjsiam]

Never am I one to argue with wisdom...
...especially when it agrees with me.

And---I'm not sure how much of any other changes should be made to any other elements until we 
see how it plays out....IF the current set up is creating an artificial situation due to a too limiting utility of AT guns---
I don't think its "maintaining the erroneous construct" is a necessary goal....

who was it who said---"The tanker does not fear the AT Gun, he fears the Hidden AT Gun"....?

 Peter---in all seriously---is there a "House Rules" compendium/vault/document?  Collecting ideas would be useful--if nothing other then getting
other intelligent eyes to give them a yea-nay...  Something like "Optional-Optional rules" O^2R put up the whys/wherefores and then allow emails...like these
Topics--in forum.

OK, back to reality....sigh...it too is full...

[plloyd1010]

who was it who said---"The tanker does not fear the AT Gun, he fears the Hidden AT Gun"....?

The tank is not afraid of the gun; it is afraid of the concealed gun.
-- Lieutenant-General Sir Giffard Le Quesne Martel

The motivation for our rewrites was to have referencable rules, instead of a pile of notes. All the changes we made were tested in 3 games, after final modification.

[leonard]

• if playing face-to-face, it is just much easier : you can hide the guns...
• you may consider the guns as « efficient » allowing two shots (see special rule nr 5 in scenario 14 of the road to Dunkirk)
• PG AT guns platoons usually represent 4 or 5 guns. When designing scenarios, I often include one platoon for 2 guns only. That multiplication allows for more shots and crossed fields of fire.

[plloyd1010]

I'm not so sure that doubling the gun batteries is a good solution. The AT system is based on a subjective mix penetration capabilities of 4 guns. Double the rounds would do exactly what, in simulation. Keep in mind that there is a balance between play and simulation. I not only doubled the shots for AT and AA guns, but also mitigated the results table.

[J6A]

Given the 15 minute turn length, I think the lack of efficiency is due to lack of mobility.  Once the tanks find you, they aren't going anywhere fast.

If anything, I would say that AT guns in limiting terrain aren't spotted except within 1 hex (maybe 2 hexes for recon).  That's just an idea.  I've never tried it.

There's also a point where you'd getting into tactical level decisions rather than operational.  If I wanted ASL levels of granularity, I'd play ASL.  However, I'm sane.

[Bluebell88A]

Au contraire! You agree with me. I have 3rd Edition and 4th Edition related documents to prove that.

Now that my vitriol is done, I also caution about adding house rules too quickly. For making anti-tank guns efficient, we also had to flatten the climb of the AT curve to maintain a general play balance. Mucking with the AT system was the only change we made that was not extrapolated from the system at large.

(We is my cousin and myself. He is unknown in my registered plays.)

Peter,
Looking at your AT Fire table, what happens when you roll a hit and what happens when you roll a kill?
Thanks, Tim