Author Topic: I would add AT guns to all bases.  (Read 1815 times)

Hans

  • Guest
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« on: November 05, 2000, 08:47:00 PM »
I wouldn't mind seeing some 75mm anti-tank guns in bunkers at each base.  Naturally, we all know what these would do.  Stop the AA Ostwind from being used as a base killer.

But now that would make ground assaults impossible.

So, for every measure, there has to be a countermeasure.  The M7 Priest.  It can outrange the 75mm AT guns and knock their bunkers out.  Its also a 105mm gun.  It would probably be even more usefull to a ground assault than a Ostwind, since it wouldn't be odd at all to see one shelling a base.

Hans.

Fly Bishop, for we have God on our side (I think).

Offline Torgo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2000, 08:57:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hans:
So, for every measure, there has to be a countermeasure.  The M7 Priest

Screw the Priest. We've got an 8" gun cruiser in 1.05. Make sure the new terrain makes every base in gun range, get someone to forward spot the fall of shell and BOOM no more AT guns.

Of course, this would mean you probably wouldn't need any tanks, either :-)



Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2000, 09:08:00 PM »
Torgo, how about long range shore batteries?  

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2000, 10:17:00 PM »
Try hitting a target behind a hill with the flat trajectory of a naval gun  

It's possible but wasn't very easy.

- Jig


Offline Thog

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2000, 10:55:00 PM »
I like the idea of mobile arty in the form of a M7 or a Hummel (M7 had more ammo).  Good combined arms concept forming up there.  

Naval guns have a variable trajectory like any other gun.  They were frequently used to nail anything within absolute range, hills or no.  If you ever drive into Mobile, Alabama, you will get to see a sign that roughly says "You are 27 miles from the Battleship USS Alabama, and within range of her guns".

About 30-45 minutes later you can see the ship as you pull into town.  

Just for reference though, an 8 inch gun is about 210mm, vs. 155mm for a Hummel and 105mm for a Priest.  That isnt a liniar progression, since the 210mm is about 4 times the weight of a 105 if I remember correctly.  

In other words, it'll compleately bugger a field in short order. But it'll be easy to kill from ground or air.  But protected by Panzers, which are protected by mobile flak... Combined arms concepts (like the AT gun) would do allot to address the imbalances people see.  These things worked like they did for a reason.

Thog

Offline flakbait

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
      • http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2000, 11:10:00 PM »
As taken from: Warships1.com US Navy Guns page

 
Quote
Ammunition Mark 15 8"/55:
APC [armor piercing; superheavy] 335 lbs
APC [standard] 260 lbs
HE 260 lbs

Range Mark 15 8"/55:
335 lbs APC shell: 30,000 yards
260 lbs HE shell: 29,800 yards

8" converts to 203mm.




------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2000, 02:03:00 AM »
mobile artillery goes there where no ship can go..

How about having rail guns with 270mm guns or something like that  
or 300mm rockets... (if i remember right, germans had 210mm and 300mm rockets)
those rockets sure does alot damage.. but are bit inaccurate for direct fire.
Also russians rocket launchers would be neat    katysha, or how it was spelled

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2000, 06:26:00 AM »
One thing to consider is that since we always fly aircraft in our arenas, distance perceptions become really distorted.

27 Miles sounds like alot, and it IS if your a foot slogger, or driving a boat. To an aircraft thats nothing.

The 8" gun comes out to my quick calculations to a range of 17 miles.

The standard sector in AH is 25 miles, so the shipboard artillery will have to be within .7 of a sector to hit something.

How fast can a Ju88 with two torpedo's make a 17 mile trip?

See my point? Don't get me wrong, I can't wait to see 1.05 and the Navy

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Offline Westy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2871
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2000, 08:08:00 AM »
 The Panzer has gun that makes a fine AT weapon. And it's about as automated as that Osty is too,  which is as it should be.
 I'm all for adding more ground weapons!! Variety is the spice of the warring life  

  -Westy

[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 11-06-2000).]

Offline flakbait

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
      • http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2000, 08:10:00 AM »
Salvo capacity sits rather high with these Mark 15's. 3-4 rounds per minute works out to be 27 to 36 rpm for the ship. Figure 2-3 hits to blow each hangar and you've got a real mess. A single 3 minute salvo would level an entire Medium Field in short order. Here's where things get fun. If you don't put fields within range of a Cruiser's guns, people will get bored. Then again, if you work it as above with 2-3 hits per hangar, people will scream about it.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. My biggest worry is how they're working the sighting. Either a Lat-Long system [cheap GPS] or direct observation by a forward observer. The latter could be done, but they'd have to really make improvements. I was hearing strikes on my Panzer this morning from an Ost shooting in the dirt 50 feet in front of himself. I was a LONG ways off. I did have one idea, regarding artillery. Below are a few ideas of mine, from a post on arty a while back.

 
Quote
My ideas regarding Arty:

Indirect fire could be done with a range card just like the real thing. HTC could publish a small range card for arty use. When in the gunner position you would have two scales. One vertical scale indicating elevation, the other a compass. As you moved the gun, each would change in relation to gun movement. In short, put a compass ring around the Panzer's turret and add an elevation indicator.

Instead of laser-guided shells, your accuracy would be minute-of-hangar instead of minute-of-angle.

Minute-of-angle is one inch [24mm] at 100 yards. Minute-of-hangar would be about 120 feet of accuracy variation at 5 miles. This could be done by adding in various effects. Wind effects, ground instability, dispersion, and recoil effects and you've got a gun capable of nailing a hangar at 5 miles. At 7 miles you should be able to hit a field with some degree of accuracy.


Now, you could increase the range those effects happen at to compensate for each gun caliber. 8" APC standard shells can be fired a long way [17.1 miles]. Say minute-of-hangar accuracy at 12 miles, minute-of-field accuracy at 17 miles. This might work, depending on how it comes together.

Sights would be simple enough, as you could do what I proposed above. Place a compass ring around the turret, and add an elevation marker. The compass ring would give you degrees in 10º increments, elevation would be done in 5º steps. Naturally there'd be hash marks indicating each degree.

Turret control for these guns is beyond me, although you could take one idea a little further. I figure two possible choices as far as gun control go:

1) Allow more than one person to join as gunner. You could simply read off your sight indications to them for accurate hits.

2) Work it as now, with a single gunner on board. All 3 turrets would track the one you're in, just like bomber guns. You could fire each turret in the following manner.
A: Single fire. Each gun is fired independantly of the other guns.
B: Linked fire. Firing the #1 gun in a turret would cause all 3 #1 guns to fire.
C: Mass linked fire: Pull the trigger once and all nine 8" guns open up.

Gun selection could be done like engine select in bombers, only with a seperate key. Use Alt-1 as Single Fire, Alt-2 as Linked Fire, and Alt-3 as Mass Linked Fire.

What do you think?

------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000


[This message has been edited by flakbait (edited 11-06-2000).]

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2000, 10:12:00 AM »
I wonder how accurate those would be from 20 miles..
it is quite long distance and it doesn't need more than a small error and you'll miss
plus waves in the sea, even though you have some sort of stabilizers in the turret.

UncleBuck

  • Guest
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2000, 11:30:00 AM »
The USS Missouri currently holds the long distance record, A direct hit with one of her 16 inch guns at 28 miles, the target was a 55 gallon Drum.  It is historically accurate to say that no fire is more devastating or more accurate than naval Bombardment.  Remember in WW2 acceptable Gunnery was hitting a moving Ship at greater than 20 miles with at least 10% of your rounds.  A battle ship is not that big when you think about it.

  Including Naval Bombardment would be devastating and reinforce the terror that a naval task group  had in WW2.  Even a destroyer with it's pop guns (5 inch 127mm) were devastating to Shore installations and were persecuted as soon as they were detected.  If the Bombardment is allowed Ships will control the Costal Zone.

  So to answer the question, Naval fire is very accurate.

                      UncleBuck

                  UncleBuck

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18872
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2000, 11:39:00 AM »
Last time I check, it was called "Aces High".
I don't mind the ground and now naval aspects but they should be secondary as this is an air combat flight sim first. Your sim isn't out yet. It's called WW2OL. I'm in this for the planes as I love WW2 aircraft, the pilots and the battles they fought. The rest of it is okay as long as it doesn't alter the flying. Lag, cpu requirements, lag, lag,... have to be considered every time you add another gizmo.
 
Flying 1st! The rest I can do without.

Eagler
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2000, 12:16:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler:
Last time I check, it was called "Aces High".

But but.. there are tank aces and ship aces as well..

and who knows which cloud they're in.. maybe they're as high as in heaven already  

Rojo

  • Guest
I would add AT guns to all bases.
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2000, 02:01:00 PM »
Hmm...as I recall, this thread was about adding AT's at bases.  I concur with this concept, with AT guns that could out-range an Osty, but would be about an even match against a panzer (panzer should have slight edge in range).  The would be AI controlled, just as the ack/flak is, but would not be laser sighted.  Rolling into range of one and stopping should result in your death within say 20-30 seconds at max range, unless you begin moving again.

The point to having AT guns at the bases is so there's no free ride for the tankers. If I JABO a base from the air, I have to take out the ack, thereby risking my own skin.  An Osty should have to take the same risk. If I take a buff, I'm safe from the ack (tho not the flak); likewise I'm safe in a tank that outranges the ack and should slightly outrange the AT's.

------------------
Sabre, a.k.a. Rojo
(S-2, The Buccaneers)