Is towed Anti-Tank worth it?

[kviiri]

Towed anti-tank looks reasonably good on paper - because of how piercing and armor works, slapping a battalion or two along an infantry division can increase the firepower of all combatants against an armored division. It seems like a good idea to add one or two battalions to infantry divisions expected to face armored opponents regularly.

However, it is still tied to a lonely tech tree branch without impact elsewhere, making the opportunity cost of adopting towed anti-tank fairly heavy. With the same research, I could've researched better equipment elsewhere (for example, a better tank and the TD variant of it).

What is the consensus? Is towed AT worth adding to heavy infantry divisions?

 

[Alex_brunius]

Normally your not going to afford to put TDs or Tanks in each infantry division (without fielding significantly fewer of them or making significantly fewer tank divisions), so AT is the only option that won't cost a fortune if you want your infantry to be able to cope better with tanks.

 

[rust95]

Depends on how you play of course. If you're preparing to fight a war of attrition against an opponent who has plowed research and IC into tanks, 100 Inf divs with 2 AT or even support AT with an their entrenchment bonus can make progression for enemy tank divs very slow and cost heavily equipment wise for an enemy. Best example is the Soviet strat for having only infantry divisions with AT to fight Germany.

 

[Tacticus101]

Playing against the AI, yes. You will be able to pierce their light tank divisions and possibly their medium tank divisions depending on research and numbers. That alone makes it huge, since then your infantry become exceptionally difficult to shift.

Against Humans, sometimes. Generally they will have stronger divisions that you will not be able to pierce, but a little piercing and hard attack can add up and it really helps against any infantry divisions with tanks in.

 

[rust95]

Playing against the AI, yes. You will be able to pierce their light tank divisions and possibly their medium tank divisions depending on research and numbers. That alone makes it huge, since then your infantry become exceptionally difficult to shift.

Against Humans, sometimes. Generally they will have stronger divisions that you will not be able to pierce, but a little piercing and hard attack can add up and it really helps against any infantry divisions with tanks in.

If you rush Anti-Tank 3 you'll be able to pierce most of what the enemy can throw at you for the decisive part of the war. Of course there is an opportunity cost for this but I think this is an underrated strat (one which I haven't actually used myself in multiplayer but have seen it used.

 

[Meglok]

Towed anti-tank looks reasonably good on paper - because of how piercing and armor works, slapping a battalion or two along an infantry division can increase the firepower of all combatants against an armored division. It seems like a good idea to add one or two battalions to infantry divisions expected to face armored opponents regularly.

However, it is still tied to a lonely tech tree branch without impact elsewhere, making the opportunity cost of adopting towed anti-tank fairly heavy. With the same research, I could've researched better equipment elsewhere (for example, a better tank and the TD variant of it).

What is the consensus? Is towed AT worth adding to heavy infantry divisions?

A qualified yes. It is prohibitively expensive to equip all of your divisions with AT, but selectively equipping divisions can prevent tanks from rampaging over your infantry. An AT build with 2 AT and AT support will stop most armor in it's tracks, assuming your tech is close. But there is not much sense in equipping divisions facing the Japanese with much AT or other fronts where tanks are unlikely to be found, or trying to put AT in every division as the Russians when you are fielding 300 or more infantry divisions.

Playing against the AI, yes. You will be able to pierce their light tank divisions and possibly their medium tank divisions depending on research and numbers. That alone makes it huge, since then your infantry become exceptionally difficult to shift.

Against Humans, sometimes. Generally they will have stronger divisions that you will not be able to pierce, but a little piercing and hard attack can add up and it really helps against any infantry divisions with tanks in.

Remember, armor and piercing is dynamic based upon how much equipment is actually in the division. A panzer division that has been fighting a few months is likely below ToE which will lower it's actual armor stat to something that is easily pierced. It is easier to produce AT guns than tanks due to cost and resource needs, as long as you can get tungsten.

 

[Tacticus101]

If you rush Anti-Tank 3 you'll be able to pierce most of what the enemy can throw at you for the decisive part of the war. Of course there is an opportunity cost for this but I think this is an underrated strat (one which I haven't actually used myself in multiplayer but have seen it used.

Possibly, but you then still need to produce it in sufficient numbers to equip all your divisions, and even then they wont be able to pierce Mechanised Medium tank or heavy tank divisions unless you have lots of AT in the divisions or some serious research (like, weapons 3 etc). If you want to pierce proper player tank divisions then you really need at least 70 piercing, which is actually quite hard to get.

Remember, armor and piercing is dynamic based upon how much equipment is actually in the division. A panzer division that has been fighting a few months is likely below ToE which will lower it's actual armor stat to something that is easily pierced. It is easier to produce AT guns than tanks due to cost and resource needs, as long as you can get tungsten.

Oh yeah, I agree with that. That's what I meant when I said the extra hard attack adds up; playing defence in depth as the soviets, you will slowly wittle away the tanks until they start having equipment issues and you can pierce them.

That I would say is the biggest use of them in MP. If you want dedicated anti-tank divisions, the most effective way is Tank Destroyer divisions, lots of anti-tank in a division leaves it a bit too vulnerable. But one anti-tank (line or support) in your divisions can be very effective.

 

[Comrade110]

Ofcourse it is worth it, the cheapest HA/piercing in-game.

 

[Celdur]

It is worth it and they are cheap.

 

[Slimmins]

Cheap alternate to TD as mentioned by several people above. I find having dedicated AT divisions is the go for the way I play, a little bit of micro and you're golden.

Given the recent patch changes for factory efficiency retention I haven't even bothered building TD's this patch as you lose so much production per month, if you're fighting and aggressive war you are gonna run out of relevant TD's quickly. AT is very much more viable in this regard due to the significantly lower production cost

 

[Achab]

Towed ATs (ideally with some CAS) are the cheapest armor decimators.

Unfo many MP houserules restrict the amount of towed AT you can put into your divisions, turning tanks into invincible behemots.

 

[P3D]

Until 70-75% target Hardness, Artillery is cheaper (effective damage/production cost) that AT. So as long as you can pierce enemy units, just spam Artillery.

 

[Celdur]

Until 70-75% target Hardness, Artillery is cheaper (effective damage/production cost) that AT. So as long as you can pierce enemy units, just spam Artillery.

You can't pierce without AT, that's why they exist...

 

[Celdur]

Towed ATs (ideally with some CAS) are the cheapest armor decimators.

Unfo many MP houserules restrict the amount of towed AT you can put into your divisions, turning tanks into invincible behemots.

What's the reasoning behind that? its both ahistorical and dumb.

 

[seattle]

However, it is still tied to a lonely tech tree branch without impact elsewhere, making the opportunity cost of adopting towed anti-tank fairly heavy. With the same research, I could've researched better equipment elsewhere (for example, a better tank and the TD variant of it).

I always end up slapping two ATs to each inf division. I usually skip the AA branch entirely because I aim for air supremacy all the way.

Here's an idea though for nations like Soviet Union, China...
What about skipping AT branch and instead go heavy on AA? Slapping 2-3 AA to each inf division and garrison will add hard attack and piercing while also giving you air attack. It might be worthwhile to go AA instead of AT+fighters if you want to skip the airforce entirely and still pack a punch.

 

[dave1233]

You can't pierce without AT, that's why they exist...

The problem with AT is it cannot pierce heavy tank divisions and struggles to pierce well built medium tank divisions as well

 

[Alex_brunius]

The problem with AT is it cannot pierce heavy tank divisions and struggles to pierce well built medium tank divisions as well

That's only because medium tank equipment is so easy to research way ahead of time (+50% bonuses for many majors and for the generic NF tree), while you can't really rush AT ahead to similar degree without great cost.

Compared year for year 1support+1line AT should be able to pierce all except the most extreme (not most well built necessarily) medium tank divisions.

The extreme divisions they can't pierce are so expensive (due to their massive amount of tanks) that they don't need to pierce them really, since you can afford 15 infantry+AT divisions for each of those tank divisions.

 

[melkor88]

In SP it isn't actually vital to, but it does make things easier, and it is good practice to include them for MP, and for when the AI improves.

 

[kviiri]

That's only because medium tank equipment is so easy to research way ahead of time (+50% bonuses for many majors and for the generic NF tree), while you can't really rush AT ahead to similar degree without great cost.

This is something I really hadn't thought of, but makes perfect sense. Thanks!

 

[P3D]

You can't pierce without AT, that's why they exist...

One probably can pierce space marines with an AA. If one AT cannot pierce, then the cheapest option to get the piercing is usually to attach a gun-improved TD, and rely on soft attack to do the killing against anythin but heavy tanks.