Troop Quality in preferences

[Charles22]

I can't see them dealing with bunkers with that peashooter, even if it is worthy of that 6 AP rating (salvo is another matter of course). So this would mean that they used salvo on fortresses? Did they do anything to increase velocity later? Is there a later high-velocity version?

[Mobhack]

Charles22 said:
I can't see them dealing with bunkers with that peashooter, even if it is worthy of that 6 AP rating (salvo is another matter of course). So this would mean that they used salvo on fortresses? Did they do anything to increase velocity later? Is there a later high-velocity version?

Max 6AP at the muzzle + some chance of some or all of the WH size of 3 being added = max at the muzzle (unlikely) of 9 cm.

Then at short range, if the hit % gets over about 90%, and depending on experience-relatred rolls, extra pen for a critical hit. (but I would only expect 1 or 2 for this gun if so).

Tiger side armour is 8, so zero deflection shots with all the ducks in a row at point blank range may well get through. But I would not bet the farm on it!

Panther side is 5, so I would expect a reasonable chance at maybe 150-200 metres.

Bunkers have 6 or 8 armour, and in any case are somewhat permeable - rifle/MG rounds (or shells) will sometimes "go through a slit" and cause casualties. Bunkers are NOT treated as AFV armour.

Cheers
Andy

[serg3d]

Charles22 said:
I can't see them dealing with bunkers with that peashooter, even if it is worthy of that 6 AP rating (salvo is another matter of course). So this would mean that they used salvo on fortresses? Did they do anything to increase velocity later? Is there a later high-velocity version?

IIRC 45mm guns were phased out in 1943 or 44. However some companies seems kept them around until Berlin. It could be a legend - where would they get the ammo ?

[cbo]

Charles22 said:
I can't see them dealing with bunkers with that peashooter, even if it is worthy of that 6 AP rating (salvo is another matter of course). So this would mean that they used salvo on fortresses? Did they do anything to increase velocity later? Is there a later high-velocity version?

Soviet 45mm L/46 ATG was more or less a copy of the German 37mm, scaled up to 45mm to fire a more usefull HE round. An improved version was made in 1942 with a longer barrel, increasing muzzle velocity and thus penetration. An APCR (aka HVAP, in game "sabot") round was also developed which increased penetration even further.

The 45mm gun remained in production until 1945, but production peaked in 1943. In all, 48.800 were made. Only 5400 57mm guns were made during the war, so it never replaced the 45mm as the main infantry anti-tank gun. 76mm field guns were produced in considerable quantity, but it was used primarily as field artillery. 68,800 were made during the war. In the divisions, the 76mm guns were only found in the divisional anti-tank battalion (if available) and in the field artillery regiment of the division. They were also found in anti-tank artillery regiments, army assets that could be used to strengthen anti-tanke defenses in critical areas.
The 76mm guns in the field artillery regiment was positioned to act as anti-tank defense in depth, so they could deal with deep penetrations of the division front.

Claus B

[Smersh]

exactly, claus. sergB your comments about the gun are totally unbacked where did u hear this legend idea?

and also the the 85mm aa gun was never used as a anti-tank defense (like the famous german 88.) until much later in the war when panthers and tigers started appearing. even then it was more of a stop-gap measure (the 85m at gun was not yet developed. it was a very rare thing for the 85aa to be used in any sort of tank defense role.

also the t-35 itself was a rare weapon. when u don't want to use the KV, t-35 wouldn't be the correct predessor. let me make a list of tank "linages"

t-28>KV
t-26>t-50(dicontinued)>t-60/70
BT-7>T-34

as u can see the t-35 is an oddball.

[cbo]

Smersh said:
and also the the 85mm aa gun was never used as a anti-tank defense (like the famous german 88.) until much later in the war when panthers and tigers started appearing. even then it was more of a stop-gap measure (the 85m at gun was not yet developed. it was a very rare thing for the 85aa to be used in any sort of tank defense role.

According to Zaloga, in the summer of 1941, a shortage of 76mm guns resulted in some Anti-tank regiments formally being issued 85mm AA guns instead. These units were apparently wiped out during the autumn battles, but a some new units raised were also issued the 85mm AA gun as an AT-weapon. Some were still available early in 1942.

After that, the 85mm AA gun wasn't used as an AT-gun until playing the 8,8cm FlaK in post-war warmovies

Claus B

[Smersh]

here is a direct quote from Zaloga which is where what I said in my post is based on: " It [the 85mm aa gun] was not generally issued to Army units, and unlike its german counterpart, it was seldom used in the anti-tank role except in expedient basis-such as the summer of 1943 when special anti-tank units were formed for a defensives battle at Kursk."

I don't know if Zaloga contradicts himself or claus u had a typo in your post.
but it logically doesn't make sense for a large caliber weapon like the 85mm to be used in 1941, when most germans tanks could be penetrated by the 45mm gun.

[Charles22]

Mobhack said:

Max 6AP at the muzzle + some chance of some or all of the WH size of 3 being added = max at the muzzle (unlikely) of 9 cm.

Then at short range, if the hit % gets over about 90%, and depending on experience-relatred rolls, extra pen for a critical hit. (but I would only expect 1 or 2 for this gun if so).

Tiger side armour is 8, so zero deflection shots with all the ducks in a row at point blank range may well get through. But I would not bet the farm on it!

Panther side is 5, so I would expect a reasonable chance at maybe 150-200 metres.

Bunkers have 6 or 8 armour, and in any case are somewhat permeable - rifle/MG rounds (or shells) will sometimes "go through a slit" and cause casualties. Bunkers are NOT treated as AFV armour.

Cheers
Andy

Yes, I always thought the recent treatment of bunkers was a bit peculiar, as it seemed that the slit was too much accomodated for. It used to be the front had the heaviest armor, but now it's the worst. It look as though peopel went to an extreme to accomodate the slit and left most of them very vulnerable to AP shot instead. In that respect certainly NO gun scarecely has a problem with them. I'm curious if there isn't some way that the slits can be better balanced (just as a sidenote).

IOW, if it's possible, find some way to where the armor is bucked up, but the chance of hitting it is increased, or better yet the chance of the weak point sort of hit being fairly large. So, let's say you have a bunker with 10 armor all around, but the front is sort of cheated because of the slit, therefore a 2 rating. Couldn't that armor be bucked up to a ten, but the weakpoint hit chance increased as oppossed to the rate of weak points on tanks? What's more, the weak point hit damage could be much vaster than what we typically see in this game, like a +10 AP hit or something. That may not be doable but it seems to make more sense than a 2 armor rating. What do you think? Impossible?

[cbo]

Smersh said:
here is a direct quote from Zaloga which is where what I said in my post is based on: " It [the 85mm aa gun] was not generally issued to Army units, and unlike its german counterpart, it was seldom used in the anti-tank role except in expedient basis-such as the summer of 1943 when special anti-tank units were formed for a defensives battle at Kursk."

I don't know if Zaloga contradicts himself or claus u had a typo in your post.
but it logically doesn't make sense for a large caliber weapon like the 85mm to be used in 1941, when most germans tanks could be penetrated by the 45mm gun.

Cool! We've found inconsistencies an a reference

Zaloga: "Red Army Handbook", Gloucestershire 1998 Page 119 Zaloga refers to the use of 85mm AA guns being used as AT guns in AT regiments due to a shortage of 76mm guns in 1941. Page 121 he shows relevant AT-regiment and battalion TO&Es for 1941 with the 85mm AA gun. On page 127 he refers to TO&Es and the number of anti-tank formations using them, including some with the 85mm AA gun, all effective January 1st 1942, but not later.
The text you quoted is from page 218, stating that the 85mm was "seldom used" and only on "an expedient basis" as an AT-gun, referring to Kursk 1943. Something similar is repeated on page 220 with a picture of the gun which repeats the story of its use at Kursk in 1943 and that it was not "widely [used] for anti-tank fighting".

Seems that the two parts of his book, the part about the organisation and the part about the weapons are not really corresponding. However, seen over the cause of the whole war and the number of anti-tank units raised, he is right that it was seldom used as an anti-tank weapon compared with, say, the 45mm or the 76mm for that matter. So I guess you can argue that the apparent inconsistency can reasonably be harmonized.

Claus B

[Smersh]

wow,
the main point remains, that the 85mm aa gun was not commonly, "seldom" used in front line army units.