Soviet Antitank gun units

Oberst · 09-02-2007, 04:44 AM,

Through all of my readings dealing with the period of 1943-1945 on the EF any action where German units would counterattack they would be met by a hurricane of AT fire. Especially actions where Tiger tanks where involved. To do them justice I think it only fair that those creating scenarios involved with this period should include numerous AT gun units. What is anyone else's opinion?

Gil

The Rattler · 09-02-2007, 11:35 AM,

Yes having just finished reading "the generals" and the exploits of the likes of Manstein/Guderian/Model etc the PAK FRONTS formed by the soviets had a 1000 anti tank guns and mortars per square mile and were devastating i.e operation Zitadelle. I suppose this is on a defensive basis particular to this battle.

Tide1 · (This post was last modified: 09-02-2007, 10:11 PM by Tide1.)

During the German Konrad operations in Hungary the Russians had strong pak fronts also.

Krec · 09-04-2007, 06:28 AM,

i concer, armor thrust where counteed with multiple lines of AT kill zones

majog · 09-05-2007, 11:22 PM,

Rommel wrote that he felt the german defense budget would be better spent on AT guns than armor once germany was in retreat. Although a fixed defensive line is a folly he felt that AT guns could be moved and from a defensive aspect be much more affective. For instance 300 88mm At guns could have been built for the cost / time to market for 1 Tiger.

Huib Versloot · 09-06-2007, 12:23 AM,

300?????

Mike Abberton · 09-06-2007, 02:32 AM,

Probably less than 300 when you consider all the ancillary items, like extra crew training, prime movers/horses to transport the AT guns, extra ammunition (and ammo haulers), extra maintenance units, etc. versus 1 Tiger and it's maintenance requirements (certainly it takes more to maintain 1 Tiger than 1 88 ATG, but 300 ATGs/HTs has got to consume more maintenance than 1 Tiger).