Repulsing an Armored Thrust

[Generalfeldmarschall]

i was just thinking about the armored divisions and infantry divisions and such, and then i thought about anti tank weapons. i thought it was said that we could build artillery, but i was wondering if that is just heavy artillery like howitzers and such or if its also anti tank cannons. i remember patric saying we would be able to attach AA and other things to divisions to increase their attacking power, but i couldnt recall anything about anti tank guns.

well we all know their importance in the war, but now i am worried if infantry divisions will have any hope of defending a province against an elite armored division. in real life they would have an excellent chance if they would prepare fortifications and stuff, but in HoI i cant remember if we can entrench or not. so here is my question, can an infantry division be supplied with so many AT guns it is almost invulnerable to an attack by armored units?

i hope we can because if not people will just try to build as many tanks as possible and throw them at their opponent... hey wait that kinda sounds like what happened in WWII

 

[unmerged(10384)]

i remember someone saying something about reserching AT guns and other things like that for there divisions..

 

[unmerged(1057)]

Without giving away too much..AT guns will be included in the game..

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

well i would think you didnt give anything away. quite to the contrary, not having at-guns would be giving something away, a lot of realism, since they did very good when large enough and used properly.

 

[unmerged(5261)]

What about self-propelled anti tank guns and artillery?
Can they be attached to an armored divission to increase speed?

*thinking of the Hummel and the Stugs*

 

[unmerged(5261)]

I don't know, but I don't think those skirts in the Stug are much help against armor piercing rounds.......
One more reason to arm infantry with anti-tank guns.
The question is, are they going to be just a research for infantry tech or a unit that we have to build?
I would prefer to build it, you know......

 

[unmerged(457)]

Originally posted by Siegebreaker
I don't know, but I don't think those skirts in the Stug are much help against armor piercing rounds.......

The skirts "schürtzen" were devolep agains HEAT rounds not AP rounds. HEAT rounds being hollow charge rounds such as in bazooka, PIAT and panzerfaust/schreck.

 

[unmerged(6871)]

Erm, soory to jump in, but the "anti-HEAT" story for schurzen is a long-standing mistake.

Actually, schurzen were introduced to protect Pz-III and StuG from Soviet PTRD/PTRS AT-rifles. The AT-Rifles could damage tracks/side armour of Pz-III and Pz-IV chassis vehicles, so aromured skirts were attached.

Panther had 5cm thick side armour and new design of tracks, and was largley immune to AT Rifle fire.

The anti-HEAT capabilites of Schurzen was discovered in 1944, and since then Western front vehicles had them too.

 

[unmerged(10384)]

ya i hope they have them self propeled tank killers and artillary would make me more happy

ya those russian at rifles are a real pain in sudden strike as i found out..

 

[unmerged(8622)]

Originally posted by Siegebreaker
I don't know, but I don't think those skirts in the Stug are much help against armor piercing rounds.......
One more reason to arm infantry with anti-tank guns.
The question is, are they going to be just a research for infantry tech or a unit that we have to build?
I would prefer to build it, you know......

I would think that when it comes to classing units, the AT should be a viable, independent weapon class. So that the Wolverines from the USA and the [StuG/Nashorn/Elefant Guns] make an appearance under the correct unit class, and are NOT lumped under the 'tank' class.

 

[Spruce]

I played steel panthers a lot, my findings about at guns and tanks =

= each tank model has a different cost and different benefits. So I like a good mix fit for each operation.

defensive battles = AT guns, flame tanks, fast tanks (panther, jagdpanther) for counter attacks, AT tanks

counter strikes = AT guns, fast tanks, heavy tanks, AT tanks,

assaults = heavy tanks, fast tanks, infantry support tanks,

most german and brittisch AT guns were always capable of taking out a tank. AT guns are extremely vulnerable to HE tank shells or machine gun fire (planes, infantry, tank). AT guns in ambush sometimes lacked the transport to evacuate them.

AT guns give a nice bonus in the beginning of the combat, but if the enemy armour is not immediately repulsed or artillery/air support for the enemy is good, AT guns are knocked out very fast.

AT guns are best used in combination with mech. divisions.

Steel panther cost of tank = 4-5 times the cost of the same AT gun.

 

[unmerged(5261)]

Is it only me or WW2 tanks are prettier than the current vintage?

KV2

Pz IV

 

[Warden]

Originally posted by Siegebreaker
Is it only me or WW2 tanks are prettier than the current vintage?

KV2

Pz IV

That's just you, have a look at a nice modern tank like the Leo 2A6.

 

[unmerged(457)]

Originally posted by Gud
Erm, soory to jump in, but the "anti-HEAT" story for schurzen is a long-standing mistake....

Intresting. That makes sense. Do you have any sources to back you up?

 

[unmerged(5261)]

Originally posted by Warden


That's just you, have a look at a nice modern tank like the Leo 2A6.

Take a look at a Panzer I, and tell me that doesn't look cool...
It looks like a wierd machine.

 

[unmerged(5261)]

I just which we could design our tanks in HoI, you know, to create weird machines, like the "Land Cruiser".....

 

[unmerged(5261)]

check out the Tzar Tank........

 

[Warden]

Originally posted by Siegebreaker
check out the Tzar Tank........

LOL, that has got to be the most combat ineffective tank ever conceived, but I'll grant you it looks cool. (In an insane sort of way)

 

[Ming]

What's the story behind this amazing vehicle?

 

[Darkrenown]

Originally posted by Siegebreaker
check out the Tzar Tank........

Good lord! Were those ever built or *shudder* used in combat?