 |
|
ATG Effectiveness - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: ATG Effectiveness (/showthread.php?tid=37015) Pages:
1
2
|
ATG Effectiveness - CptCav - 09-20-2006 I have seen many discussions regarding the effectiveness, or rather the lack there of, of anti-tank guns in the PzC game series. I have just finished reading Osprey's US Tank and Tank Destroyer Battalions in the ETO 1944-45 and I would like to share a passage: "The Ardennes doomed the towed battalions. The initial Ardennes fighting made it quite clear that the towed anti-tank gun battalions were extremely ineffective when fighting German armor on their own. One study concluded that the loss ratio in these circumstances was about 3:1 in favor of the attacking tanks. When integrated into an infantry defensive postion, the towed anti-tank guns were barely adequate with an exchange ratio of 1:1.3 in favor of the guns. In contrast, the self-propelled M10 3in. tank destroyers had a favorable exchange ratio of 1:1.9 when operating on their own without infantry support and an excellent ratio of 1:6 when integrated into an infantry defense. The study noted that the towed 3in. guns were successful in only two out of nine defensive actions while the M10 tank destroyer battalions were successful in 14 of 16 defensive actions against German tanks. The First Army report noted that the tank destroyer battalion losses totaled 119, of which 86 were towed guns, a remarkable disproportion that glaringly revealed the vulnerability of the towed guns. The report concluded "It is clear that during the battle of the Ardennes, the self-propelled battalion again proved its superiority over the towed battalion for both offensive and defensive action." The book had indicated the disatisfaction of the towed battalions throughout (North Africa through Normandy and the Ardennes). Realizing that this is based on American doctrine and tactics, it would be interesting to see a study comparing each nation's results with towed anti-tank gun units. Regards, CptCav RE: ATG Effectiveness - Landser34 - 09-20-2006 In these game most people i see mostly use them to dig trenches because if it isnt a 88mm at gun.The only they are worth the is space they take up on the map. I think they should just be added to overall hard attack strength in a infantry regiment RE:��ATG Effectiveness - Glenn Saunders - 09-20-2006 RE: ATG Effectiveness - von Waldenburg - 09-20-2006 AT guns can be very effective in PzC if used in enough numbers, just like any other branch of the army... RE: ATG Effectiveness - Al - 09-21-2006 Another ATG topic. I love these. :smg: First off, the Zaloga book that CptCav quotes is excellent if you're into OOB & TOE type stuff. It's also a good history. Also, let me put in my vote for retaining all ATG units & their ability to dig in. Here's how I use ATG units. Comments both pro & con would be appreciated. If possible, I keep my ATG units right behind the attacking infantry. I do this so they can move up & add their hard attack value to the assault if it's going to take more than one turn for the assault to succeed. Admittedly, this isn't always an easy thing to do but, IMO, the employment of ATG in the attack is one the harder thing to accomplish in PzC, let alone real life. I also use ATG's to occupy captured improved/trench/bunker hexes as a backstop to any possible enemy counterattack. Having them close to the front & ready just adds that much more to the defense in case my own attack falters or fails. In defense I always try to stack ATG's with an infantry unit - again giving some hard attack value to a unit that might have little or none itself. Leaving them behind the lines to sit idle is a waste of a valuable resource. ATG units by themselves are rarely a battle winner, but are valuable enough that I actively whenever I can. They might not be huge tank killers but the fatigue than can inflict adds up. Hope this was helpful to some. RE: ATG Effectiveness - Ricky B - 09-21-2006 Regarding the initial post, I wonder what AT guns were used in these towed AT battalions, versus the excellent M10s with their large weapons. I believe, but don't know and don't have resources handy, that the towed AT bns still used the 57mm AT gun at this point? If they had converted to larger then my comments don't matter, but if they were still this small then the results make perfect sense. The various larger weapons used by both tanks and tank destroyers had much better penetration - the 57mm would have been only marginally useful in the Bulge fighting and probably couldn't have gotten more than a lucky mobility kill on the German tanks, except maybe the PzKw IVs. So I think the usefullness would have depended on the front, time frame, etc. Rick RE: ATG Effectiveness - Al - 09-21-2006 The ATG units within the US infantry divisions had the 57mm, the 3" ATG was in the independent TD battalions. The 3" gun was generally regarded as a sub-par weapon. Sadly, one reason the 3" was used & even replaced some of the M-10 battalions was because the 3" was cheaper. RE: ATG Effectiveness - Ricky B - 09-21-2006 Thanks Al - I see I missed the size in the original post by Cpt Cav also. The 3" guns must have had a fairly high profile, seems like it was similar to the 88 Flak in size, before the Germans rolled out the low profile carriage for the AT role, if so it would have been very vulnerable to fire. Good info. Rick RE: ATG Effectiveness - Volcano Man - 09-21-2006 Well, I guess it all depends on how you employ them and what theater you are in. ATG units are obviously defensive units and if they are placed with infantry support in well fortified positions and on high speed avenues of approach, then they can definately break up an armored attack. Well, in many cases, occupying the enemies time to disrupt and dislodge the guns prior to an armor attack is just as valuable as causing any actual kills with them. RE: ATG Effectiveness - McIvan - 09-21-2006 The 3in AT gun had a much lower profile than an 88mm, although larger than a 57mm. The 57mm was easily capable of taking out PIVs and Stugs, had a small chance of killing Tigers but only at close range or from the side/rear, and could easily go through Panther side armour, but not the front (shot trap kills excepted (meaning shots deflecting from the bottom of the turret mantlet into the top hull armour). El Alamein saw a celebrated action with 57mm (6pdrs) where dozens of German tanks were destroyed. No Tigers or Panthers there of course. You'd rather have the 3in, granted, but the 57mm/6pdr was still a pretty good gun even if nearing the end of its useful service life. |
){kind=link}