They are so awesome for countries like Italy that has enough IC where they can build armor but not enough to justify tanks, not mention Italy tends to lag in tank research, which TDs help with that.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
When setting up a Panzer Corp, I'll put in one Mot/Mech division with one TD brigade minimum. decent speed and gives a good addition to hard attack value.
I have never "had" to use them as of yet. Only Germany, Soviet Union and USA use large amounts of armor and the Soviet war is laughable ('36 campaign). Only time I really needed more hard attack was when my Japanese force of Larmx3/AC had a difficult go of it in my invasion of the vast and mighty USA. I still did well though until supply bugs (1.2) ruined my game.
I do like the idea of Mot x 2/TD for non-majors and will try it out my next Italian/Japanese game.
I do like the idea of Mot x 2/TD for non-majors and will try it out my next Italian/Japanese game.
I've always had enough IC for a corp or two of Larm/Larm/Ac. You have to really be efficient with your resources and trades but a little IC building can create a strong Italian industry by wars start ('40-'41 for Italy) that can afford a light armor force of this nature.
I normally end up devastating the Soviet southern front with my Italian army. Someday maybe I'll be rewarded for such deeds...damn BP event.
I like TD and probably over use them for inf units just love them to have combined arms bonus 2inf+2TD or2mt+2TD makes them reay tough storm troopers or heavy defensive units
In this HoI game finally hard attack and soft attack do work more or less as intended, so yeah, AT and TD are nice brigades against enemy armour. And as a nation with armoured units I usually add roughly as many TD's as SPArt to those units. It really helps defeating enemy tanks a lot!
I don't remember at this moment, but does a mot/mot/td unit gets the CA bonus? That would be great for Italy, I would guess.
I don't remember at this moment, but does a mot/mot/td unit gets the CA bonus? That would be great for Italy, I would guess.
Not initially. It hits the mark in around '41.
Remember that such a unit only has a combat width of 2.
I use MOT/TD as mobile reserve units.
In addition, TD are esp. good for countries that want combined arms, but only want to research 1-2 techs. Even 1 AT gun tech is enough to keep TDs up to date.
In addition, TD are esp. good for countries that want combined arms, but only want to research 1-2 techs. Even 1 AT gun tech is enough to keep TDs up to date.
I really like them when playing from a historical / role playing standpoint as they were really imp to germany.
I never tried 2inf and 2 TD but like the idea and might try it out soon.
I never tried 2inf and 2 TD but like the idea and might try it out soon.
Actually TDs should help negate the CA bonus of attacking forces rather than
add CA to their own. TDs like AT are defensive units designed to support friendly
units and blunt enemy armor attacks. This would give them a slot in use for Inf
units to help protect themselves against enemy armor (somewhat).
Same as light armor vs med armor or med armor (like Sherman/PZIV) vs heavy
armor (Tiger/JSII/Pershing) should loose its CA ability. Historically and also
technically lighter armor was always at the mercy of heavier armor (meaning
bigger gun/better armor).
This would "layer" the usage on the battlefield of armor vs armor and supporting
armored type units and make their abilities more realistic against one another
add CA to their own. TDs like AT are defensive units designed to support friendly
units and blunt enemy armor attacks. This would give them a slot in use for Inf
units to help protect themselves against enemy armor (somewhat).
Same as light armor vs med armor or med armor (like Sherman/PZIV) vs heavy
armor (Tiger/JSII/Pershing) should loose its CA ability. Historically and also
technically lighter armor was always at the mercy of heavier armor (meaning
bigger gun/better armor).
This would "layer" the usage on the battlefield of armor vs armor and supporting
armored type units and make their abilities more realistic against one another
Interesting thought but...; assault gun brigades were certainly an offensive type unit. Those units were used with mobile units early in the war to gain a "combined arms" advantage of speed/maneuver and firepower. Late war PZG divisions had assault gun bde's assigned in lieu of PZ Bn's (due to the shortage of tanks) and were able to function as well as they did before. To further complicate this idea of offensive/defensive capabilities; tank destroyer Bn's and assault gun Bn's had very similar, or sometimes identical, equipment.
This certainly deserves some discussion. However, there were times when this was clearly not the case--the opening months of Barbarossa being a prime example. There are many situations where training, crew/unit experience trumps the bigger tanks. Other operational advantages also come into play to maintain combined arms abilities regardless of the size of enemy tanks.
I play as Italy most of the time (much more challengig than the big country's). TD units are quite economical. I build armored divisions with 1 Larm, 1 TD and 2 Mot. It has the combined arms rating and a higher HA for less IC. On the down side, you are not really saving anything on research as to get good TD's you need to also research AT. It works out pretty good.
Last edited:
I feel like SP artillery and TD's are an over simplification.
While you certainly had specific self propelled artillery, the assault guns which model TD's in this game ALSO were used as close support artillery weapons. If anything TD's should be renamed Assault Guns and given increased soft attack to represent the fact that assault guns were both anti-tank and infantry support direct or indirect HE chuckers.
While you certainly had specific self propelled artillery, the assault guns which model TD's in this game ALSO were used as close support artillery weapons. If anything TD's should be renamed Assault Guns and given increased soft attack to represent the fact that assault guns were both anti-tank and infantry support direct or indirect HE chuckers.
assault guns are soft attack in the attack but are TDs in the defence. a TD would be
anything from a Brit "portee" 2pdr on the back of a truck up to the US M36 90mm. This
would include almost all open topped German stuff like the Marders and Grilles. Assault
guns would be the German Stugs and Russian SUs. There is a difference between the
two but both are really infantry support rather than tanks. Remember if your gun does
not traverse attacking with it is very dangerous. they are all wait and hit em vehicles.
anything from a Brit "portee" 2pdr on the back of a truck up to the US M36 90mm. This
would include almost all open topped German stuff like the Marders and Grilles. Assault
guns would be the German Stugs and Russian SUs. There is a difference between the
two but both are really infantry support rather than tanks. Remember if your gun does
not traverse attacking with it is very dangerous. they are all wait and hit em vehicles.
Late model Stugs were among the most effective anti-tank weapons the Germans had. They had high velocity guns that were capable of destroying anything on the battlefield BUT the IS-2.
The gun doesn't need to traverse when the chassis can pivot on point and bring the gun to bear faster than a turret.
The difference between SP Arty and purpose built tank destroyers was more marked in the allied camp. The only REAL difference between German tank destroyers and German assault guns was a doctrinal difference. For all intents and purposes Stugs/Stuhs which were classified as assault guns and part of artillery batteries were the same machine in function as the Jagdpanzers, jagdpanthers and the like.
Doctrine dictated they were ambush weapons yes, but that does not mean they were not EXTREMELY effective weapons in an offensive role. Many top German aces in the later part of the war used Stugs and other assault guns/tank destroyers to score their kills. As mentioned they rotated the tank on location. In fact many actual tank commanders used the exact same technique because the tank could bring its gun down on a target more quickly by rotating the tank, than by rotating the turret. You also present your strongest front by facing the enemy vehicle down frontally.
The point remains, the differentiation is arbitrary and based on an awkward doctrine rather than the actual functionality of the weapon platform.
As I said the argument can be made that in the allied camp there was a larger difference between tank destroyers and actual self propelled artillery, however in the German and Soviet camps, SP arty was actually an assault gun which was as capable, if not more so than the "tank" destroyers and taking out armor and that is in addition to maintaining their role as an infantry support weapon.
Additionally, Tank Destroyers are NOT towed anti-tank artillery pieces. Those are already modeled in game as anti-tank. Tank destroyers are self propelled guns.
The gun doesn't need to traverse when the chassis can pivot on point and bring the gun to bear faster than a turret.
The difference between SP Arty and purpose built tank destroyers was more marked in the allied camp. The only REAL difference between German tank destroyers and German assault guns was a doctrinal difference. For all intents and purposes Stugs/Stuhs which were classified as assault guns and part of artillery batteries were the same machine in function as the Jagdpanzers, jagdpanthers and the like.
Doctrine dictated they were ambush weapons yes, but that does not mean they were not EXTREMELY effective weapons in an offensive role. Many top German aces in the later part of the war used Stugs and other assault guns/tank destroyers to score their kills. As mentioned they rotated the tank on location. In fact many actual tank commanders used the exact same technique because the tank could bring its gun down on a target more quickly by rotating the tank, than by rotating the turret. You also present your strongest front by facing the enemy vehicle down frontally.
The point remains, the differentiation is arbitrary and based on an awkward doctrine rather than the actual functionality of the weapon platform.
As I said the argument can be made that in the allied camp there was a larger difference between tank destroyers and actual self propelled artillery, however in the German and Soviet camps, SP arty was actually an assault gun which was as capable, if not more so than the "tank" destroyers and taking out armor and that is in addition to maintaining their role as an infantry support weapon.
Additionally, Tank Destroyers are NOT towed anti-tank artillery pieces. Those are already modeled in game as anti-tank. Tank destroyers are self propelled guns.
Last edited:
They were the most effective but were not active tank hunters chasing enemy armor. if
you watch videos of them in action they move forward in supporting groups or in protected
terrain and engage armor. a traverse is very needed in combat vehicles. one reason they
dont make turretless assault guns anymore. they were a one-war weapon. actually the
Stugs were part of the German Artillery command thruout the war and not part of the
Panzerwaffe.
you watch videos of them in action they move forward in supporting groups or in protected
terrain and engage armor. a traverse is very needed in combat vehicles. one reason they
dont make turretless assault guns anymore. they were a one-war weapon. actually the
Stugs were part of the German Artillery command thruout the war and not part of the
Panzerwaffe.
I am aware of the fact that Stugs were part of the artillery. Which was a shame for the Germans and prompted the Army to build the jagdpanzers based on the stug because it was so effective.
The reason why turret-less assault guns became less useful, has less to do with their effectiveness in WW2, and more to do with the fact turrets became MUCH faster and stabilized gyros emerged allowing tanks to fire while on the move with high degrees of accuracy.
I am fully aware of the doctrine and use of stugs and stuhs in WW2, however just because they were used in a doctrinally inflexible manner, does not take away from their ACTUAL effectiveness both offensively and defensively.
You ignored my point that many German tank aces piloted stugs late in the war, and they used them in exactly the same manner and role as a regular turreted tank.
Again since you seem to ignore this point, a stug can bring its gun to bear on a target FASTER than a panzer IV, V or VI that is rotating its turret.
The chance that you may throw a tread while rotating your tank or assault gun on the spot was greatly offset by the speed you gained in acquiring targets and the top tank commanders in WW2 did not use the turret traverse to find and target enemy tanks, they rotated their tanks ON the spot because it was faster. In essence they used their tanks as assault guns, and this is why assault guns like the stug were so prized and highly sought after in the late war. It has a lower profile, excellent armor protection, enough punch in its gun to penetrate virtually any tank they could expect to run into and due to lacking a turret they had increased performance.
Citing how assault guns were supposed to be used in the Wehrmacht, and generally were used does not discount how they were occasionally used and how blood amazing they were when the handcuffs were removed.
Another reason to build TD: TD+SPA are arty practical, so if you build lots of arty bde, you get a great price break for TD and SPA. The other CA support bde is AC which is mobile practical along with mech, motor, and cav.
SOV had a mix of TD and SPA. They had SU76 and SU85 tank destroyers along with big gunned SPA.
SOV had a mix of TD and SPA. They had SU76 and SU85 tank destroyers along with big gunned SPA.