Anti tank support battalions worth it?

[Lumpy]

If I understand the mechanics of hardness and piercing correctly, it is a binary matter. You either pierce the enemy by having a higher piercing value than his armor value, or you do not. Considering this, are anti tank gun support brigades viable without further AT line battalions? Would it be a good idea to attach just support AT to 20 or 40 width infantry divisions as any of the major powers, particularly when playing the Soviets or Germans, or would that just be a wasted slot, especially in MP? Thanks in advance.

 

[Captured Joe]

As support? No. Either go with line AT battalions or don't.
Personally I prefer using line AAA instead, much cheaper and able to pen enemy light tanks. Some people prefer tank destroyers in infantry divisions to provide a bit of hardness though.

 

[Lumpy]

As support? No. Either go with line AT battalions or don't.
Personally I prefer using line AAA instead, much cheaper and able to pen enemy light tanks. Some people prefer tank destroyers in infantry divisions to provide a bit of hardness though.

I see. Would equipping my standard infantry divisions with enough line AT to pierce enemy mediums be in any way feasible? It sounds like a horribly inefficient thing to do, especially when considering that probably only a small portion of my entire infantry divisions will actually face tanks in combat. Just equipping some of them with AT doesn't seem reasonable either, since leg infantry is too slow for redeploying them to face enemy tank divisions?

 

[Goshawk]

I use AT support battalion just because you don't really need to spend much Mil-factory on them, so why not?
But if I can't even support my basic infantry division with my factory, then I will probably forget about AT.

 

[Meglok]

If I understand the mechanics of hardness and piercing correctly, it is a binary matter. You either pierce the enemy by having a higher piercing value than his armor value, or you do not. Considering this, are anti tank gun support brigades viable without further AT line battalions? Would it be a good idea to attach just support AT to 20 or 40 width infantry divisions as any of the major powers, particularly when playing the Soviets or Germans, or would that just be a wasted slot, especially in MP? Thanks in advance.

In MP? Support AT alone is not likely to be worthwhile. The piercing probably won't be enough and the extra HA isn't worth it as good players will design armor templates well. You are better off designing an Infantry template using line AT in addition to your regular infantry template, if you want AT guns in your infantry. Adding it to a template in addition to line AT only adds a little more HA and piercing, basically only saves you half the AT gus a line AT battalion would use.

Against the ai it can be useful, especially in the early game.

 

[Goshawk]

In MP? Support AT alone is not likely to be worthwhile. The piercing probably won't be enough and the extra HA isn't worth it as good players will design armor templates well. You are better off designing an Infantry template using line AT in addition to your regular infantry template, if you want AT guns in your infantry. Adding it to a template in addition to line AT only adds a little more HA and piercing, basically only saves you half the AT gus a line AT battalion would use.

Against the ai it can be useful, especially in the early game.

From what I check on wik,i AT support battalion use 24 instead of 36 AT but are only half as good in stats comparing to AT line battalion.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In MP? Support AT alone is not likely to be worthwhile. The piercing probably won't be enough and the extra HA isn't worth it as good players will design armor templates well. You are better off designing an Infantry template using line AT in addition to your regular infantry template, if you want AT guns in your infantry. Adding it to a template in addition to line AT only adds a little more HA and piercing, basically only saves you half the AT gus a line AT battalion would use.

Against the ai it can be useful, especially in the early game.

In MP people actually push their armor and hardness up decently though, while many ban 13/4/HT destroyer (which a single support arty can pierce for less MIC). It's a situational choice that depends on rules of the game, since researching the anti-tank line is a non-trivial investment. In MP where tanks effortlessly roll up with > 100 armor and hundreds/thousands of breakthrough coupled with 80%+ hardness support AT is doing squat.

In SP, support AT is well worth it, AI template designs are such that just one support AT is almost always enough to pierce its armored divisions, which also don't have anywhere near enough hardness to cause problems by taking too small a % of soft attacks. Virtually ignoring the threat of AI tanks on generic infantry makes this a viable SP choice.

 

[Covfam]

I dont use AT or support AT, the AA & give your soft trrops enough as well as are a decent dual purpos weapon vs air. Typically i keep a Mech Inffantry + medium TD experienced up that i use if someone is bringing heavy and super heavy tanks around. As this combo will hold pretty well and alow air support to hurt the heavy/super heavies. To me the supAT and antiAT are too much of a one trick pony to build when supAA and AA does good enough for most situations imho