AT division

[Gatemaster]

Hi,
Quick question.

will I be able to do battle with a division with only AT brigades?
Noticed they have 0 frontage, so do that mean that a division with only AT cannot attack (or defend)?

Thanks in advance.

[Thanik]

Unit with 0 frontage(all support brigades,or HQ) can't join battles,both in defend and attack.
But if you add exchange 1 AT with 1 INF(of what you want) they can.

[Portal]

Yes. A division of AT would suck even if it could fight. I reccomend MOT and TD or MECH and TD. TD is the best unit in the game. Pity it's a support brigade.

[CplKatie]

I prefer my armor divisions to be Larm and Mec/mot cause its simpler techs and since the tanks are so expensive with beta patch it really does make all the difference if your not Germany/USA.

[Saint-Exupéry]

Later in my game, after 1941,as Germany, I build dosen or so 2x Inf+ 1xAT+ 1xRocket artillery(Nebelwerfer) divisions.

This is only way I use AT ever in game, is good against Mechanised Allies later on, and from immersion perspective lets say its something like historical"grenadier"divison.

[SAS]

You must remember that they are called support brigades for a reason. You can build them, but you will lose the war pretty quick once Barbarossa starts.

[Secret Master]

I'm not a big fan of AT brigades for Germany. While the Soviets have some armor (and if you let them get away with it, they will get HARM into the mix at some point), and the Allies can have some nice armored units, I find that I prefer sending either my own motorized/mechanized forces against armor, or my own tanks.

Of course, I also like to use CAS as highly mobile tank busters thanks to their insane HA. Even just a few can wreak havoc on large armored formations in ways that AT just can't compete with.

[Pro_Consul]

I'm also not a fan of AT brigades. Their attack penalty makes them really only useful in standing and defending against enemy attacks. And I hate standing and waiting for enemies to attack me. On the attack an AT brigade's relatively large attack penalty gets averaged across the entire division, dragging the whole formation down like a bad attitude. I prefer to just not build the things and use air forces (CAS) and/or mobile response forces like LARM or MOT with TD support to deal with any serious armor threat from my enemy.

[Beagá]

As the soviets in 1941 you will be attacked a lot, so "don´t get AT brigades because they are slow and you should be attacking" is not a good advice. Better to have 5 AT brigades spread out than 1 elite TD brigade that won´t be everywhere at once.

[Secret Master]

Depending on how you build, AT for the Soviets isn't that great, either. If you prioritize aircraft or armor, you should be able to reach parity with the Germans by 1941. That's not the same thing as saying you can trounce them, but I can optimize my foot divisions with more SA to beat German infantry while using armor or planes to neutralize German armor. \

German tanks can't be everywhere at once, either.

[Lord Curlyton]

I generally build some AT for flavor purposes. Not too much, and usually when I'm going to try for a rather static front somewhere. Generally combined with land forts + ENG. The German front towards France, for example, assuming I plan to go the ahistorical route and stomp on the Soviets first. Or the France/Italy border when trying out either nation.

[Biggus Dickus]

I`ve found a division 2inf, 2art, 1at to be effective especially on defense.

[Beagá]

Well for that price it ought to be good.

[GAGA Extrem]

(1) As said above: pure AT divisions cannot fight.

(2) I like AT, it is really nice if used well. The only problem: TD is vastly more powerful and preferable in almost any way. Still, some nations can use them. FRA and SOV are good choises, depending on the JAP playstyle CHI can use a few as well.
A few suggested builds:

INF-HQ-AT-AT -> use your corps HQ as a mobile anti tank reserve.
INF-INF-AT-AT -> use a corps of these as an army or army corps reserve and bring them up where the enemy tanks show themselve. Can be a valuable addition for the SOV to delay or even defeat the german spearheads.
INF-INF-AT-ENG -> very powerful defence against armored spearheads. Excellent for the second line to contain an armored breakthrough. Vastly more powerful if in difficult terrain behind a river.

[Pro_Consul]

INF-HQ-AT-AT -> use your corps HQ as a mobile anti tank reserve.
INF-INF-AT-AT -> use a corps of these as an army or army corps reserve and bring them up where the enemy tanks show themselve. Can be a valuable addition for the SOV to delay or even defeat the german spearheads.

Not really seeing these two as described. Using a non-mobile unit as a mobile anti tank reserve just seems counter intuitive to me. I totally get using AT units as the basis for static defenders, standing in place to deny enemy tanks an easy route through a particular province. But trying to use AT units to meet a force of enemy armor on the move seems like throwing away their bonus without getting anything in return. If a mobile reserve is called for, I would think a mobile unit like a TD or LARM would be more appropriate.

[JASGripen]

I have used TD and MOT compositons for divisions and they are not really up to the task against armoured divisions. This is fine, but one should really think about how to use the TD divisions. They are often out of combat as the MOT is out of org while the TD element still got gas left (but as a support brigade they do not fight without the MOT).

[Beagá]

I use 2xARM 1xMOT 1xTD if possible. Best all-around division until mechanized IMO, pretty expensive however.

[GAGA Extrem]

Not really seeing these two as described. Using a non-mobile unit as a mobile anti tank reserve just seems counter intuitive to me. I totally get using AT units as the basis for static defenders, standing in place to deny enemy tanks an easy route through a particular province. But trying to use AT units to meet a force of enemy armor on the move seems like throwing away their bonus without getting anything in return. If a mobile reserve is called for, I would think a mobile unit like a TD or LARM would be more appropriate.

Well, it depends. Certainly regular AT is not meant to intercept tanks directly via move commands, but you can still use strat redeploy to mass them in front of an enemy tank advance. Granted, LARM/TD would be faster - but it is also much more costly. And while you can afford the luxury of TD brigades in a SP, I really don't have the IC and time to build them in a MP enviroment...
There I usually use a massive defence in depth strategy with 3 to 4 layers of defending units. AT reserves are usually in the 3rd or 4th row, ready to move into combat once the tanks managed to pierce the second or third line.

I also use a few AT reserves in my army - basicially one full corps with INF/INF/AT/AT assets for each army corps, ready at the rear to counter a tank spearhead. AT might be meant for defence, but if massed it can still give tanks a hard time, esp. when flanking the enemy. And since AT is VERY cheap, building a 2-3 AT fully equipped corps units won't kill you as a large nation.

I remember a game where a german player massed his armor on the northern front (thank you, radar intel!) - only to run into my AT wall and get his head bashed by a counter attack from 2 AT corps while advancing on my rearward defence. Hehe... Good times.

[StanCollins]

On the attack an AT brigade's relatively large attack penalty gets averaged across the entire division, dragging the whole formation down like a bad attitude.

Please pardon my ignorance here but, is this referring to the attack penalties per terrain type as shown in the Wiki reference for Terrain Modifiers? Or, is there some other penalty I'm obviously unaware of? If the former, would it still not be better to attack an armored unit with AT than Infantry due to the AT's higher Hard Attack value?

P.S. I'm playing SF 2.04f

[Secret Master]

Please pardon my ignorance here but, is this referring to the attack penalties per terrain type as shown in the Wiki reference for Terrain Modifiers? Or, is there some other penalty I'm obviously unaware of? If the former, would it still not be better to attack an armored unit with AT than Infantry due to the AT's higher Hard Attack value?

P.S. I'm playing SF 2.04f

He is referring to the terrain penalties you can see listed in the wiki (although it doesn't seem that the wiki gives the penalties AT has attacking through plains). So yes, attacking a hard unit with AT is still better than attacking a soft unit. But it also means that the penalty hurts the entire division, so attaching AT to a division drags down its overall values when attacking and not just the AT brigade's attack values. INF has generally better values at attacking into all kinds of terrain, and you could substitute the AT for something else, so the decision to use AT in significant numbers, and HOW to use AT in significant numbers, is a question you have to think long and hard about. Just spamming AT brigades and attaching them to all INF divisions may not be the best use of IC or time.