Merry Christmas!

[goosebrown]

In my opinion Towed ATGs, including the Flak 88 should get more than one shot per activation, maybe depending on morale, the higher the morale the better trained equals at least two shots per activation.

Well we all know that ATGs in WWII were useless and never caused problems to advancing tanks. They could only fire once every three or four minutes and the crew generally had a little ho-down dancing out in the open waving flags every time they took a shot revealing their position to the ever present artillery that smashed them to smithereens every 20 seconds or so. An 88 in PG has maybe a 20% chance of getting one shot off before being destroyed. It is really quite lame. 

ATG efficiency makes it a lot more balanced. Right now you are better off dropping the ATG at the start hex and using the trucks to try and run down lone infantry units for crush injuries than to try to employ the guns. In fact, you might as well drop them entirely and get a MG or two instead since it has the same firepower and is a lot more resilient than an 88.

As Rommel once said, "Gib mir ein Zimmer voller Schulmädchen mit Molotowcocktails über einen PAK43 an jedem Tag der und zweimal sonntags!"

[treadasaurusrex]

I would also wager that an AT gun platoon on the ground could get more shots at/on target in a 15
min period then a similar gun in a turreted vehicle....

so....
AT guns had ONE job.....

Oui Mon Ami, alas, that would be incorrect . . .

One armored piercing round fired every 8 seconds in a minute of elapsed time with an experienced, human loader in a cramped, stationary, M48A5 in 1985 = 7.5 rounds a minute - ON TARGET - in a turreted tank at multiple threat AFV targets. In an old M60A1, the record is 8 rounds per minute, also all of which were hits. No cringing under return fire, or OBA to distract the tank crew in that short time span.

That's got to be better than any towed, WWII AT gun could manage at multiple targets with a 90 degree frontal arc of fire, without overhead cover.

[treadasaurusrex]

I would also wager that an AT gun platoon on the ground could get more shots at/on target in a 15
min period then a similar gun in a turreted vehicle....

so....
AT guns had ONE job.....

Happy to take that bet, Mon Ami.

[cjsiam]

Well let's keep the statistics and comparisons to WWII..... M48s are not WWII....neither are M60s....

I'm hard pressed to believe a t34 gunner,
or a M4A1 turret, could keep up with a 75mmAT on the ground serviced by a crew...
in delivering number of shells on target at pretty much any range.....

"The Tank does no fear the ATgun....the Tank fears the hidden ATgun"...said someone once

[cjsiam]

One bottle Jack.....hand delivered by who-ever takes trip across the big wet thing first

[Grognard Gunny]

As WWII went on, tank guns did better than AT guns. The biggest factor was that the Tank gun/AT gun (Tracked or Trucked) were mobile. Whereas the AT gun was not. For ambushes the AT gun was superior (could be hidden more readily), BUT they had better make sure that the enemy got their "butts outta dodge" after the first round or two or the ambushers were in deep kim chee!

...and that's my two cents worth.

GG

[treadasaurusrex]

Well let's keep the statistics and comparisons to WWII..... M48s are not WWII....neither are M60s....

I'm hard pressed to believe a t34 gunner,
or a M4A1 turret, could keep up with a 75mmAT on the ground serviced by a crew...
in delivering number of shells on target at pretty much any range.....

"The Tank does no fear the ATgun....the Tank fears the hidden ATgun"...said someone once

True enough, Mon Ami!

But, here's some food for thought . . .  Consider what my Korean War amigos say who were in M4E8 (Easy Eight) Shermans of the 7th Infantry Division. They tell of rates of tank fire that were around 6 rounds per minute, with a 120 degree arc of fire - regardless of turret aspect & orientation in stationary positions - and a roughly 75% first hit rate against stationary enemy AFVs and towed AT guns, or emplaced, recoiless rifles. They also recalled that Soviet-built AT guns & their motor transport - in both Chinese and North Korean hands - had comparatively high casualty rates that probably contributed to a lack of veteran, experienced gun crews, and hence, relatively inaccurate AT shooting. Manhandling a long and cumbersome AT gun with only limited traverse as BlackCloud6 has mentioned elsewhere, is typically not an easy thing to do quickly, especially when under hostile fire. Then again, as you indicate: in PG terms, a hidden AT gun position is often a deadly proposition for a hapless tank crew.

[triangular_cube]

I feel like this debate happens every two years. 

We sure aren't a very original bunch are we? 

[cjsiam]

All good discussion points Thread.....at that point, with fire systems, and loading systems, and training...I could see that.
Conversely---we suffer (in the non-double blind games) with too much information and AT guns are severely crippled vs. the
  threat they posed in RL (my opinion)..

I liked the rules that Peter has worked in(part of his House rules), where they are efficient---they get two shots....to me that seems reasonable...
At one time I proposed that that went on being efficient every turn until they took fire in a turn, then they became non-efficient for the remainder of that turn....
  taking fire interferes with "only one job".

it is 15 min....

Biggest issue is not being Hidden....
without hidden placement their threat is just less...can be avoided...

[treadasaurusrex]

You're right, keeping the darn things hidden until they fire, or move, is the key factor at play in this situation.