The Commander Series Forum

Whilst writing up the unit rosters for a new scenario I noticed that the stats for the Italian 47mm ATG differs as a support unit to those when listed as an anti-tank unit.
The anti-tank unit version has a move of 10 rather than 5 and costs 65 rather than 60 points.

Anyone know why one would move faster than the other?

Likewise for the British 2 pdr, 5 faster but costs 10 more

No takers?
No suggestions?

Artillery men spent more time training to heave their gun across country?

One was man-moved, toher ad an orse.....maybe.

IanS

It'll just be a type. Don't they all move 10 cm if less than 75 mm?

Points cost is different and it's across a lot of armies iirc - rated as an ATG they're one, as an infantry support the other...

Anyone know if the integrated platoons were different in composition to the platoons that formed the anti-tank companies?
Given the nature of the 2-pdr ATG, I'm not sure you would be wanting to push it very far, and that assumes you have time to put the wheels back on.
Horses aren't really an option as the difference applies to British as well as Italian units and, as far as I know, the Brits never used horses to move guns in WWII. And I'm not sure the Italians had any horses in North Africa.
Even if there were horses, the army lists would have a horse transport unit as per other army lists, so I'm still puzzled.

The comment was meant for Italians. There seems to have been no difference between British Inf AT and RA AT platoons/Troops. All were motorised, and officially the 2pdr was never part of an infantry battalion.

The Italians definitely had a horse tow - 1 only, and also a man tow harness, for all of the crew. Remember that the weapon is an Austrian mountain weapon in origin.

IanS

Horses? Perhaps, but not in North Africa. The 47mm was considerably lighter than the British 2pdr (300kg compared to over 700kg).

I bet you it's just a typo.

Pete?

All good comments, and I wouldn't disagree with any

I'm just trying to puzzle out why Pete went with a 10cm move when set as one unit type and a 5cm when another for the same weapon...

TBH I would have made the 2pdr immobile without a tow. it was a beast and the cunning wheelless tripod with spinning gun was cunning but a pig...

Uhmmmm. Just checked, and it is in many lists as far as I can see.

The rule of thumb seems to be that as an infantry unit some AT guns have a manhandled move of 5, then as an AT unit it jumps to 10?

Toxic might be on the right line: Perhaps Pete's assuming that as a dedicated AT unit it has more men to help move them?

Could it be superior training of dedicated AT crew and their ability to make better use of vehicles, animals, manpower? I've always assumed differences in attacks relate to superior drill, better access to specialist ammunition, greater ammunition availability, more guns per unit, etc.

Cheers, Andy

Perhaps ...but this is the manhandled movement rate. Presumably no vehicles or animals are contributing to this? Just manpower - but the number of crew for a 2pdr didn't vary from that in a motor battalion to that in a Royal Artillery AT battery.

If it's right it does seem odd.

It was about the only thing I could think of, real world wise. But it doesn't really sit right - as pointed out, numbers of men crewing guns didn't usually change between unit type, and if anything an infantry platoon might have *more* warm bodies to shift things about at need?

I've been more than happy to play it as written, but it does feel a bit odd now it's been mentioned and I've thought about it

I think that I'd go the other way. Guns <50mm, or whatever, manhandle 10cm, larger 5 or 0?

PETE?

From what i have found, the 2 pounder had two carriage variants, one wich allowed the wheels to stay in place (they where lifted of the ground by deploying the front legs), and one that required the removal of the wheels before firing. Maybe this has something to do with it??


"Vickers was the first to submit a design, which was accepted as the Ordnance QF 2-pounder Mark IX on Carriage Mark I. A limited number of pieces were built in 1936. The carriage had an innovative three-legged construction. In the travelling position, one of the legs was used as a towing trail, and the other two were folded. When the gun was positioned for combat, the legs were emplaced on the ground and the wheels were lifted up. Woolwich Arsenal had continued to develop their carriage and when re-examined was seen to be superior to Vickers design, and with this carriage the gun was adopted as Ordnance QF 2-pounder Mark IX on Carriage Mark II. It was conceptually similar, although when the gun was emplaced for combat the wheels had to be removed. This carriage was also manufactured by Vickers.[2]

The unusual construction gave the gun good stability and a traverse of 360 degrees, allowing it to quickly engage moving vehicles from any approach. With the Vickers carriage, the gun could also be fired from its wheels, at the expense of limited traverse. "

It's not limited to the 2pdr - it's the same for the German 37mm/Russian 45mm etc IIRC. Dedicated AT Arm of Service guns move 10cm, the same weapon & crew as an Infantry Support AoS move 5cm...

In BKC I all of these had a move of 0 cm!

A 5cm or 10cm move for any of them doesn't worry me, especially as manhandled guns get max of one move per turn. It's the difference between moves for arms of service that's now making me wonder