Better 17lbrs and more mannable gun positions

[tunnelrat]

I dunno if it is just my perception, but the 17lbr installations (for being one of - if not THE - best antitank weapons in WW2) seem very poor.

The trajectory seems wrong, the optics are meh, and the traverse rate seems arbitrarily slow.  Generally if enemy GVs are close enough to hit with the 17lbr (assuming they survive long enough to get congress to turn the gun on them) the 17lbr is already dead.

I would also love to see more manned ack positions, some around town (maybe some 17lbrs there too?) and some Flakvierling 4-bangers around the airfield, and while I am dreaming a couple of 40mm dual or quad mounts at airfields.

Vulching should be a nightmare, and this at least puts the power in the hands of the players to defend.

[Eric19]

+1

[WWhiskey]

17 pound guns need their views set up again,,  I can only see we're the gun is looking,, on an open air gun?

[lyric1]

HE rounds would be nice as well for the 17 Pounders as well.

3x magnification on the model 51 sight.

http://nigelef.tripod.com/anti-tank.htm

[kvuo75]

dual or quad 40 on fields   

[icepac]

They changed the 17lb'ers because guys like me were using f3 and f8mode and the head movement keys to shoot tanks at ridiculous distances.

[The Fugitive]

LOL!!! I remember the crying when they added the guns we have now. In the old days there were only a few ack on a field. People couldn't believe the ack when they added the extra guns. "How are we ever going to capture a field now?"  LOL!!!

I agree the 17pounders gunner should be able to look around while in the gun, but more isn't better. I think ack should have a time change. 4 times out of 5 the ack gun should come up in 5 minutes or so to simulate the gun being remanned, the 5th time it's down for the 45 minutes it is now.

[Sabre]

I agree that the 17-lb'ers are pretty much useless, and can't currently do anything the 88's don't do better.  Besides the limited viewing angle, they're invariably sited in such a way that they won't bear on a ground target before the target can shoot back, negating any advantage in range it may have (plus, they're a soft target, compared to tank).  It would be better to have a battery of said weapons that could be fired beyond line of site, and directed by clicking the map (land-mode) and then making adjustments (i.e. artillery); would be great if it could be controlled by someone in a storch or jeep.  Great example, yesterday we were defending a base, but the enemy held the ridge line ahead of us. Would have been cool to be able to direct artillery along the top of the ridge and just beyond as we pushed to take it back.

[SmokinLoon]

I agree that the 17-lb'ers are pretty much useless, and can't currently do anything the 88's don't do better.  Besides the limited viewing angle, they're invariably sited in such a way that they won't bear on a ground target before the target can shoot back, negating any advantage in range it may have (plus, they're a soft target, compared to tank).  It would be better to have a battery of said weapons that could be fired beyond line of site, and directed by clicking the map (land-mode) and then making adjustments (i.e. artillery); would be great if it could be controlled by someone in a storch or jeep.  Great example, yesterday we were defending a base, but the enemy held the ridge line ahead of us. Would have been cool to be able to direct artillery along the top of the ridge and just beyond as we pushed to take it back.

I'd take that challenge.  The 17 Pdr's have a legit tank sight on them and the 88's do not so the 88's are like trying to pee in to a bucket at long range.  Granted, the rate of fire for the 88 is about 3X faster and the zoom is incorrectly better as well, but it does NOT penetrate armor any better that is for sure.

I have a picture of a 17Pdr sight and the ranges are numbered so the shooter is not guessing by virtue of which line is which, so I am not sure what HTC is using the sight that they are using.  It would also be very nice to at least be able to lift your head above the shield and get a "real" view of the battlefield. 

If you want indirect fire support you do not need or want the 17 Pdr, there are far better weapons for that.     

[Sabre]

UPDATE: Well, yesterday I finally managed to kill something with the 17-lb'er, but it was an incredibly frustrating exercise. For one thing, everytime I fired, the gun settled in a rather random place afterward.  This meant I had to take time to very carefully note my gun elevation prior to each shot; took quite a few shots to walk it onto the correct range.  It took me three of four pings to kill him, too (a Tiger, so I suppose that's to be expected). And yes, it has an actual gun site, but the ballistics of the weapon seem to be worse than the 88 (more drop, even at relatively short range).  And as noted, SA is awful and traverse rate is snail-slow. Still nearly useless, IMO.

I agree, there are better choices for battery artillery, but the 17-lb'er is as close as we have to a real arty piece (although the 88 is also capable of fulfilling that role). BTW, anyone know how to adjust the burst range of the 88 when firing AA rounds? Default seems to be 5 K.

[Lusche]

BTW, anyone know how to adjust the burst range of the 88 when firing AA rounds? Default seems to be 5 K.

C, V

[gpwurzel]

Range change on the 88 in aa mode is x and c I think Sabre or might be c and v..........is one of that pair (just woke up, no coffee yet)

Wurz

[Tilt]

Given its a 5 man crew. (or a 4 man crew if no artilery officer attending)

would/could the gun aimer actually stay with his eye to the sight whilst two of the crew were turning the gun?

would/could the gun be fired whilst being turned?

would the site be valid/stable whilst being turned?

It would seem that the aimer could look up and around at any time............. but not zoom unless in the site.

[Sabre]

C, V

Cool, thanks! Maybe now I'll be able to hit something with it.

[Brakechk]

Cool, thanks! Maybe now I'll be able to hit something with it.

I finally got to where I can hit with the 88 sometimes...one thing that seems to help is to add or subtract a little range to account for the time it takes the shell to get to the target plane.  So if they are closing I'll subtract a little from what the actual range is on the plane icon.  Then keep adjusting as the range changes.  You can also set the range .5 + or - and keep shooting hoping that when plane gets there they haven't changed direction....kind of like pulling the trigger and letting them fly into it.  The easiest situation for me is against planes inbound to the field on an attack run.  They tend to keep the same heading longer.  Against vulchers good luck.  They are usually moving too fast to adjust quick enough for me.

Someone else probably has a better grasp on this than I do.  I'm a terrible gunner in manned guns of any type, almost as bad as my GV ability