anti-tank guns

[STXAce8]

Will we be able to use the anti-tank guns on the preview thing?

[Lusche]

Yes.

[speak]

that looks an awful like a 37mm anti-tank gun.  Not really going to do much if you are rolling a tiger towards it....................  well, maybe it will make the tiger stop, aim, and fire;  and that would be the last of the 37mm. 

<S>

Speak

[321BAR]

that looks an awful like a 37mm anti-tank gun.  Not really going to do much if you are rolling a tiger towards it....................  well, maybe it will make the tiger stop, aim, and fire;  and that would be the last of the 37mm. 

<S>

Speak

its alot bigger than a 37mm its a QF 17lber speak

[speak]

its alot bigger than a 37mm its a QF 17lber speak

ah I see.   I guess it works to actually open up the image and see the full size view.  I was/am wrong with my previous lack of respect for the new anti tank gun.  thanks for straightening me out.   

[715]

How were such guns aimed?  Did the operators have to actually slew the thing around by the rolling it on it's tires?  Does that mean the traverse rate will be modeled as really slow?

[Lusche]

How were such guns aimed?  Did the operators have to actually slew the thing around by the rolling it on it's tires?  Does that mean the traverse rate will be modeled as really slow?

Consider such a mount being  turret with very limited traverse. The QF 17 pounder had a traverse of 30 degrees to either side. To fire outside of that arc, the gun had to be repositioned, which was quite difficult for guns of this size (3 tons) to be accomplished without a vehicle.

While smaller guns like the various early war 37mm models were easily moved by their crews by hand...


... the arms race between tank armor and AT guns resulted in basically almost immobile pieces of artillery.

[fbWldcat]

Consider such a mount being  turret with very limited traverse. The QF 17 pounder had a traverse of 30 degrees to either side. To fire outside of that arc, the gun had to be repositioned, which was quite difficult for guns of this size (3 tons) to be accomplished without a vehicle.

While smaller guns like the various early war 37mm models were easily moved by their crews by hand...
(Image removed from quote.)

... the arms race between tank armor and AT guns resulted in basically almost immobile pieces of artillery.
(Image removed from quote.)

Could you give us a pie graph of mobile to immobile artillery used throughout the war? 

[AWwrgwy]

Consider such a mount being  turret with very limited traverse. The QF 17 pounder had a traverse of 30 degrees to either side. To fire outside of that arc, the gun had to be repositioned, which was quite difficult for guns of this size (3 tons) to be accomplished without a vehicle.

While smaller guns like the various early war 37mm models were easily moved by their crews by hand...
(Image removed from quote.)

... the arms race between tank armor and AT guns resulted in basically almost immobile pieces of artillery.
(Image removed from quote.)

Not sure about the 17 pounder, but the QF 25 pounder could be mounted on a circular firing base:

The circular firing platform proved its worth in the anti-tank role, the 25-pdr was able to be repositioned by its crew with ease when faced with multiple direct fire targets

A new carriage was next designed, though the 18/25-pounders saw active service until after the French campaign ended in Jun 1940 in British and Canadian units. The new carriage was to be of split-trail design but users in field units in 1938 expressed a preference for a box-trail with firing platform allowing rapid traverse. The unique circular firing platform was put into production late in 1939, and the first of the new guns saw action in limited numbers in Norway in Apr 1940.

I haven't found a 17 pounder mounted this way yet.


wrongway

[Lusche]

Could you give us a pie graph of mobile to immobile artillery used throughout the war? 

[Noir]

(Image removed from quote.)

 

[321BAR]

Not sure about the 17 pounder, but the QF 25 pounder could be mounted on a circular firing base:

(Image removed from quote.)(Image removed from quote.)


I haven't found a 17 pounder mounted this way yet.


wrongway

IIRC the 17 pounder never had a firing base like the 25 did

[KG45]

will this gun be added to the base, or will it replace the manned AA?

[Infidelz]

You should be able to operate the traverse without difficulty. Repositioning beyond that, requires the crew to pick up the legs where the spades dig in and point the gun. Larger guns had larger crews. Moving the guns to another position would best be accomplished with a truck or towing vehicle. Not out of the question to push it, just don't expect it to go very fast or climb hills. AT guns are sneaky. But if they are fixed in the same spot, then they can be removed easily from the air. Know why we hate wirbles? It because you never know where they will be.   

Infidelz

[Pongo]

The crew for an anti tank gun can easily traverse it by pivoting the whole gun. It would be reasonable to have to leave it in place, but they have to make it able to change its arc though 360. A much more elaborate operation then just traversing the weapon with the mount stationary, but the crew is manned and trained to do it quickly.
Of course the ultimate implementation would have it towable by an M3 and deployable and pushable by its crew. And then re-deployable.But the in game mechanics for all that would be a challenge.