WH40K: Fifth Edition

[FatR]

That's not just the most impressive victories.. that's EVERY victory. At the battle of the bulge, the US fired more shells in that sector in one month than the German army fired on the entire front in an entire year.

That's (if that's true) because most of the German army ammunition was consumed on Eastern Front. The actual US production figures were comparable for 1944.

And, infantry discussions nonwithstanding (although some parts of it make me cry), I'll go out and say, that the general rule of WW II was that whomever could bring stronger firepower, meaning artillery + air attacks, to bear, generally dominated. And artillery fire in particular was the main killer, responsible for 60-80% of troop casualties. Being able to produce and expend about 2 times more ammunition was one of the main reasons why Germas enjoyed tactical superiority on Eastern Front in 1941-43.

Warhammer does not really reflect this. Probably because battles where an average infantrymen stands a good chance of never seeing enemy soldiers, except as corpses or prisoners, and even better chance of just dying from indirect fire without doing anything meaningful (particularly if his unit happens to be in the thick of a major assault), are not very fun to play or write about. Except, they weren't particularly smart and inventive in cooking up justifications for things being different.

So, Warhammer infantry fighting and tactics, as per Gaunt's Ghosts novels (the part of WH warfare I care about), are about on the level of Franko-Prussian war/early parts of Russo-Japanese war, really. The main killer is direct fire infantry weapons, and even these are not good enough to completely massacre sufficiently determined enemy charges. Well technically their weapons are better, of course (they do have HMGs in novels, and lasguns fire faster than bolt-action rifles), but this is nullified by the enemy soldiers mostly being superhumanly tough and/or psychotic.
Indirect fire infantry support weapons do not exist, even though in WW II light mortars were actually one the main tools of killing infantry, pinned down by fire. Artillery technically exists, but the coordination between artillery and infantry does not, neither in the form of attaching heavier weapons to infantry, nor in the form of enabling infantly to call the fire support. In fact, the only time when Ghosts got any meagninful artillery support (beyong just big guns firing the direction of the enemy in the background) was when they were send to help natives on the world, deliberately meant to ape WWI realities.

That decision wasn't bone headed. Why attack a tiger with a sherman? You outnumber them TWENTY FUCKING FOUR TO ONE!

Because otherwise you'll just be blown up from beyond your pathetic range of effective fire. I've seen thesises like this a lot, and sometimes in even more sweeping form (like "tanks should not fight tanks unless something gone wrong"), but the fact of the matter is, tanks needed to fight tanks. Alot. See, say, examples of tactical episodes from:
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Traps-Survi ... 0891416706

[cthulhu]

Indirect fire infantry support weapons do not exist, even though in WW II light mortars were actually one the main tools of killing infantry, pinned down by fire.

Mortars didn't kill that many people mostly due to a never ending shortage of rounds (due to the difficulties of resupply). It's much easier to get more ammo for corps/divisional assets.

That decision wasn't bone headed. Why attack a tiger with a sherman? You outnumber them TWENTY FUCKING FOUR TO ONE!

Because otherwise you'll just be blown up from beyond your pathetic range of effective fire. I've seen thesises like this a lot, and sometimes in even more sweeping form (like "tanks should not fight tanks unless something gone wrong"), but the fact of the matter is, tanks needed to fight tanks. Alot. See, say, examples of tactical episodes from:
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Traps-Survi ... 0891416706

So where were the major US armor engagements in italy? I'll agree that there are many situations where it would have been great to have a 17 pdr in every operational Sherman, and indeed, that would have been greatly tactical advantageous.

However, I suspect that cost/benefit wise it wouldn't have made a difference to the strategic situation. You're delving down into tactical engagements, and yes, better tanks help, but that wasn't the US strategy, or the Russian strategy for that matter.

Edit: Also, funny fact that goes to the point I am making - the Soviets took the T34/85s away from the 1st Guards Mech and replaced them with... drum roll please... 75MM armed Shermans

[souran]

No. Anti-personnel missiles are still a snare and a delusion. Against most infantry you'd be better off firing a krak missile anyway because the higher strength and AP more than makes up for the lack of a small template.

The blast template is a little better now, because I think in 5th edition you always place the template and deviate it rather than missing outright. But sill, against marines you mathematically kill more of them with krak missiles. No, the reason Missile Launchers get love is that randomly some sources will let you save 10-20 points outfitting something with a missile launcher instead of a lascannon. And against anything with a toughness of 6 or less and Sv of 3+ or worse, there is no difference at all.

-Username17

No this is wrong.

The frag missle is only a delusion if you play a shitty BS 3 army. If you want to kill a bunch of crappy armored guardsmen a space marine with a frag missle is fucking fantastic.

Also, because you can switch round to round and the blast template by rule must attempt to cover the most guys possible (but not able to take out special weapons) if you can reliably screw people over with it its awesome.

IN the 1500 points you get for a tournment a bunch of space marine tac squads is what I would take with 1 terminators squad and then bullshit like dreadnoughts and devistators and something super cheap from the fast attack branch so you qualified for any mission type.

Now you cannot have both the cyclone missle launcher AND the assualt cannon in an affordable squad of terms anymore but still.

Anyway, the secret to 5th edition is the same as the secret to the last 2 editions.

Shooting is STILL better and retards STILL want to get into close combat. The fact that with shooting its usually easier to deny the enemy his save than in close combat, and in close combat he gets a chance to KILL YOU BACK ON YOUR TURN means that shooting is better as part of the structure of the game.

[Zinegata]

the T-34/85 MM is a completely different box and dice from the 76MM sherman gun. It is INSANELY better for a couple of reasons

A) Issuance of Tungsten penetrator rounds

B) HVAP rounds issued in 1994

If we're talking HVAP, then it must be noted that the 76.2mm was actually also issued with tungsten-penetrator HVAP in 1944. With the HVAP a 76.2mm gun could penetrate a Panther front plate - albeit at a slightly shorter range.

The problem is that while HVAP was standard kit for a T-34/85, a Sherman 76 (w) gunner was probably never issued with any. The 76.2mm HVAP was reserved almost exclusively for the Tank Destroyer outfits that almost never got used as intended.

That regular tanks were almost never issued with HVAP was a major reason for the supposed poor performance of the 76.2mm. By contrast, an M10 with HVAP was very capable of taking on German armor (in the rare cases they got to fight).

I think the best instance was during the Bulge - when one American Tank Destroyer (not one platoon. Not one company. One tank destroyer) hit seven tanks from an SS Panzer Division in under 30 minutes, got seven penetrations, and almost single-handedly wiped out an entire attack (Max Hasting's "Armageddon").

The 85mm was indeed better for HE, but let's not forget that the 76.2mm was just the easiest solution for the Americans. There was, in fact, plans to upgun the Sherman up to a 90mm gun, whose performance was closer to the 88mm used by the Germans.

That these simple upgrades were not made was simply a mistake, a fact that was tacitly admitted by Eisenhowever when he ordered no more 75mm Shermans to be delivered by late 1944 (despite the fact they could have upgunned the Shermans much earlier), and they only kept the 76.2mm/105mm Shermans after the war.

Heck, even the Brits - who started with one 17 pounder Sherman for every four Shermans, eventually doubled that figure. Upgunning tanks to be able to match the enemy's tanks simply made sense, and America could have done this far more easily with their huge resources than the Brits or Soviets could.

MG 42 was a good gun no doubt, but the germans got repeatedly gutted in close in fights - and yes, a prime complaint from germans was piss poor short range firepower due to a lack of semi automatic and automatic weapons.

The Germans did have the MP44, but it wasn't widely issued among the rifle squads. The Mauser was just awful for close-range fights.

I also wouldn't discount the value of mortars. Ambrose cites that mortars actually caused the most infantry casualties for the US in Normandy - the MG42s would pin a squad, while the mortars inflicted the losses.

Albeit it must be noted that a major reason for this is the German's lack of heavy tube artillery in the Normandy sector. The 3rd Fallschirmjaeger Division for instance, which was defending St Lo along with the 352nd Division, had only had 1/4 of the artillery as mandated by their TO&E. But as an "elite" paratroop outfit, the 3rd Fjg did have a lot more mortars and MG-42s than a "standard" German infantry outfit.

FatR->

I'm a bit leery about claiming there's no artillery in 40K, because there is. In fact Gaunt's Ghosts often make mention of it.

For instance, in Ghostmaker - a Chaos army of 250,000 men is wiped out in the jungles purely via orbital bombardment. That's entirely artillery doing the execution. In the previous novel First-And-Only, the Ghosts lost several hundred men to a blue-on-blue artillery incident, which was far more than they lost during the infantry assault.

Gaunt's Ghosts does tend to focus more on infantry vs infantry battles... but I'd also note that this is because Gaunt's unit is very often engaged in bitter streetfighting, or battles in rough terrain, where artillery is impractical. But if you read through the whole book - especially the big battles in the end where the Ghosts play a smaller role - the Imperium certainly knows how to use artillery.

[cthulhu]

The problem is that while HVAP was standard kit for a T-34/85, a Sherman 76 (w) gunner was probably never issued with any. The 76.2mm HVAP was reserved almost exclusively for the Tank Destroyer outfits that almost never got used as intended.

So why do you think the soviets took the T-34/85s away from the first guards mech and gave them 75MM shermans?

The capabilities of the 75MM round against the frontal armour of a tiger tank are almost irrelevant to an assessment of the M4A1 or M4A3's combat performance.

In offensive actions, tanks were killed by mechanical failures, ATGs (I'm lumping in direct fired artillery in this basket), assault guns (STuGs), infantry, indirect fired artillery, and tanks in that order. The reason the 76MM shermans are a noticeable improvement is because of the greatly improved suspension and much wider tracks, that reduce breakdowns and ground pressure leading to improved reliability and mobility.

German tank experts reported back to high command that easy eight shermans (w/HVSS suspension and the new tracks) could get places that they considered literally 'impossible' for tanks to reach. Naturally at that point it's fucking irrelevant if you have at a 75MM or a 76MM gun because there are no tanks there for you to shoot at!

The guards mechanized units cut over to the shermans because they where much more reliable and had a greater effective combat radius than the T34/85. They wanted to increase sustained penetration when a breakthrough of german lines was achieved. (The reason Guards Mech units existed at the end of the day).

That these simple upgrades were not made was simply a mistake, a fact that was tacitly admitted by Eisenhowever when he ordered no more 75mm Shermans to be delivered by late 1944 (despite the fact they could have upgunned the Shermans much earlier), and they only kept the 76.2mm/105mm Shermans after the war.

This happened in 1945. And yes, by that point I would expect to have the tracks fixed (a known issue since 1942), the vastly improved HVSS suspension (I'm coming out of winter into spring, terrain is going to be boggy, I need the better ground pressure), and the improved gun.

Note that patton refused to change during 1944.. because he valued the HE performance

PS. Not discounting Mortars - unique battlefield role that was impossible to fill with anything else at the time. However, Divisional artillery had more tubes with more ammo, fired more rounds and did more damage.. because it was closer to railheads and easier to resupply.

[Zinegata]

Because you may as well use all of those dumb lend-lease tanks?

That Soviet tankers have abysmal reviews of Western armor makes me think this wasn't a decision based on the Sherman being a better tank, but rather because the Soviets realized it was the only role the Sherman could perform and not get cooked .

Note that the Soviets actually threw in every tank they could get their hands into battle, regardless of actual battlefield viability. That's why KVs, Matildas, and Valentines were still in action as late as 1944.

Moreover - until the Bulge - Patton never actually had to face a lot of tank vs tank battles against heavy German armor, as he missed most of the bitter bocage fighting.

His big battles in the south in '44 were mainly against fortfications - which you took down via HE. Even so, the 75mm was totally inadequate against the Metz fortifications. That's why you have the 105mm variant and the 155mm SPGs.

That's why he ended up asking for infantry tanks too - heavily armored Jumbo Shermans which gave up a lot of its vaunted mobility, but with the capability of surviving several fort gun hits.

In short, he adopted his tanks for what he was actually facing. Which isn't stupid compared to McNair's bone-headedness.

[cthulhu]

Because you may as well use all of those dumb lend-lease tanks?

[..]makes me think this wasn't a decision based on the Sherman being a better tank, but rather because the Soviets realized it was the only role the Sherman could perform and not get cooked .

Note that the Soviets actually threw in every tank they could get their hands into battle, regardless of actual battlefield viability. That's why KVs, Matildas, and Valentines were still in action as late as 1944.

Guards mech units were the best equipped soviet units (typically, not always), and would usually also have Stavka reserve units assigned. The 1st Guards mech performed this role in a number of campaigns (including, for example, operation Neptune and was scheduled for follow through forces in operation jupiter if I remember correctly)

Incidentally, why do you think the soviets specifically requested the UK keep producing Valentines long after the UK wanted to close the line down and make other tanks instead (which they where promising to give to the soviets as well)?

That Soviet tankers have abysmal reviews of Western armor [...]

Also, this is wrong - soviet unit histories repeatedly reference that they liked the sherman. Here is a handy citation:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=IUL ... &q&f=false

[Zinegata]

You're confusing "poorly armed" with "equipped to the only role where the Sherman won't be massacred".

While the Soviets continued to throw stuff like KVs into frontline roles, they at least tried to pick roles where they were well suited - i.e. serving as slow-moving bunkers to support infantry assaults.

So putting a Sherman in an exploitation unit made sense - because any tank that can move fast with good reliability belongs to the exploitation role. But that doesn't mean that the Soviets are giving the Sherman a ringing endorsement - reviews from their tankers generally agree Lend-Lease tanks had incredibly shitty guns.

Besides which, it's worth noting that only 3 out of 10 Mech Guard Corps were armed with Shermans - again probably because the Soviets just wanted to use every tank they could get their hands on.

-----

Also, regarding the Valentine...

It actually had the best reviews out of all of British the lend-lease tanks. Most had shitty guns (though I think they got some 6-pounder versions, which were slightly better), but it was hugely reliable and well protected.

Compared to the Matilda (always breaking down), Churchill (always breaking down too), Lee (a death trap known as "grave for seven brothers"), various cruisers (none of them better than their own BTs and T-34s), the Valentine was seriously the only tank the British produced indigenously that wasn't total shit until the late-war Comet and post-war Centurion (neither of which were Lend-Leased, nor was the Firefly).

That's why they Soviets wanted the Valentines. They wanted more tanks. But if the Brits were gonna give them shitty tanks, they at least wanted the most reliable tank out of all the shitty ones.

Heck, Valentines actually served longer than any of the Lend-Lease tanks - as chassis for the Archer SPG due to its reliability. Except maybe for the Churchills which were meticulously maintained as AVREs by the Royal Engineers.

[cthulhu]

So putting a Sherman in an exploitation unit made sense - because any tank that can move fast with good reliability belongs to the exploitation role. But that doesn't mean that the Soviets are giving the Sherman a ringing endorsement - reviews from their tankers generally agree Lend-Lease tanks had incredibly shitty guns.

Again, the soviets DID give the Lend-Lease shermans a ringing endorsement - unit histories said 'thumbs up to this'

Besides which, it's worth noting that only 3 out of 10 Mech Guard Corps were armed with Shermans - again probably because the Soviets just wanted to use every tank they could get their hands on.

Or... the soviets didn't have any more shermans (actually the case). Partly it was unit standisation as well.

Re: Valetines - yes, it was a reliable tank. The 6 pdr is a great gun because with T rounds it can reliably penetrate a tiger too.

Compared to the Matilda (always breaking down), Churchill (always breaking down too), Lee (a death trap known as "grave for seven brothers"), various cruisers (none of them better than their own BTs and T-34s), the Valentine was seriously the only tank the British produced indigenously that wasn't total shit until the late-war Comet and post-war Centurion (neither of which were Lend-Leased, nor was the Firefly).

I love that you chose to omit the tank that UK was actually offering - the Cromwell.

Which is a good tank, was reliable and was retained in service after the war.

Edit: Actually, I guess it is a cruiser tank, I do you a diservice. Still, it's better than a fucking valentine, and has a 6 pdr always as opposed to the 2pdr on some valetines ;P

[Zinegata]

Again, the soviets DID give the Lend-Lease shermans a ringing endorsement - unit histories said 'thumbs up to this'

Unit histories praise the Sherman's reliability and speed. They are, however, enormously critical of its armor and gunpower.

And again, that's the key point - the Sherman's gunpower is lacking. It didn't have to be this way.

The Israelis managed to install the Panther 75mm on the Sherman and beat Pattons with it! And it didn't result in any degradation of its mobility - especially for ones with HVSS.

A post from SD.net pretty much sums up the 75mm stupidity:

Still, nothing about dedicated turreted open roof tank destroyers ever made any sense. The US thought it had to have an agility advantage, and totally missed the fact that nobody advanced tanks at top speed because that was obvious suicide. The Tank Destroyer Command though expected exactly that to happen. In reality even on the attack German tanks would often advance so slowly that commanders reported having trouble seeing if they were moving at all, until artillery fire was directed at them to poke them into action. Because the tank destroyers demanded agility they didn't get armor, and they resisted any call for a weapon heavier then 3in. Meanwhile they also fought to see that all 3in guns went on tank destroyers and that the Sherman remain armed with a 75mm, because it was not supposed to fight tanks. That was eating into the tank destroyer command turf!

The tank destroyers basically worked in North Africa and in 1944, but even with the vast numbers they had they didn’t even come close to what the command though was required, and they accomplished nothing which required a dedicated service arm. They never once fought as a brigade as intended and ended up parceled out to divisions who used them as tanks. Indeed the latter precluded the former. I mean really, this decision to make them a service arm is the same as if in the modern day we decided that rocket launchers kick so much bad-ass that we need to make them a completely different branch with its own badges and chain of command then the field artillery with 105mm and 155mm howitzers. You could come up with reasons to do it... but its stupid and leads to arbitrary riviarily.

Almost anything the tank destroyers ever did could have been accomplished by simply assigning regular anti tank battalions to US infantry and armored divisions as the Germans and most other people did. Instead a US division had to operate not knowing if it would have this capability or not since it wasn’t organic. That’s one of the reasons why the Buldge didn’t go so well, specific weapons details aside, the natural anti tank strength of US infantry divisions was simply low.

----

Re: Valetines - yes, it was a reliable tank. The 6 pdr is a great gun because with T rounds it can reliably penetrate a tiger too.

Again though, I'm uncertain if the 6 pounder version made it to Russia, and if it did they most likely didn't get the T-round. However, Valentines were a good tank for infantry support on the Eastern Front - even if it was limited to just MGing.

The Brits didn't use the 6 pounder Valentine for very long themselves. Albeit I do recall a lot of British Cromwell tankers getting pissed when they were told to switch to the 75mm.

[Koumei]

must attempt to cover the most guys possible

Not true. Flamer templates must be angled to hit as many enemies as possible (without touching your own guys), even if it means aiming it through impassable terrain (like solid walls that are infinitely high) and hitting enemies you have no way of knowing are there.

Blast templates have to be centred on a model, so the hole in the middle is actually over someone's base. If enemies are arranged in crop circle formation, you can't chuck the template in the middle and clip them all. For the small (missile launcher) ones, this does mean a squad could technically spread out at maximum distance (2" from each other) so that it can only hit one guy if it lands dead-on.

And for Frank's benefit, the way it works is this: centre the template, then roll 2d6 plus the Scatter die. If it's the Direct Hit (1/3 of the time) then it's precisely that: ignore the 2d6, it's a direct hit. Otherwise, add the dice together, subtract your BS (minimum 0) and move in the direction of the arrow. So for Space Marines, rolling a 2-4 also means Direct Hit.

For vehicles, if the hole in the middle is not over the model, halve the S of the blast. So a friggin Demolisher goes BOOM! and, if it scatters, all the vehicles in the formation go "hahaha immune".

For a 750 point army, the done thing is to take 2 minimum-size 0-upgrade Scout squads and a no-upgrades Commander for 250 points total, then 2 Land Raiders (250 points each), and watch as your opponent generally can't field enough anti-tank to handle them.

...also, the "40k-to-real-world" thing. As dumb as it is. Seriously, leaping from lasguns to Battle Cannons? What is the real-world comparison of being punched in the tit by a Space Marine? Or a Bolter round? Are grenades seriously only as deadly as bullets? What can we compare a melta gun to?

[FatR]

So why do you think the soviets took the T-34/85s away from the first guards mech and gave them 75MM shermans?

If you mean 1st Guards Mech Corps, I can't answer for sure, but judging by its war career, the likely possibility (assuming this is true, which I can't confirm or deny) is the unit simply not getting T-34/85 replacements, due to being deployed on the theatre viewed as secondary for the entire final period of the war. If you means guards mech units as a whole, this is just fucking not true, period.

But anyway, USSR was stuck in the position of relative industrial weakness, needing tanks right now, and high casualties-accelerated training-high casualties loop right from the beginning of the war, so it is undertandable why concentrating on numbers of AFVs was the only solution (and as soon as the situation became less immediately critical, work on heavy tanks and heavy assault guns had resumed). US had no need for zerg rush approach to tank building in the first place, and had plenty of opportunity to, at least, upgun Shermans or supplement them with heavier tanks before the campaign in Western Europe.

The capabilities of the 75MM round against the frontal armour of a tiger tank are almost irrelevant to an assessment of the M4A1 or M4A3's combat performance.

Or the frontal armor of a Panther, which was comparable (only side armor was greatly weaker). Or the frontal armor of many late-war German tank destroyers, which was comparable. And the frontal armor of late-war Pz.Kpfw IV, which was weaker, but still enough to make it imprevious to 75mm at all but the shortest distances (so the tank and gun crews at all fronts commonly mistook Pz.IVs for Tigers).
And so this was really damn relevant.

In offensive actions, tanks were killed by mechanical failures, ATGs (I'm lumping in direct fired artillery in this basket), assault guns (STuGs), infantry, indirect fired artillery, and tanks in that order.

This is a popular meme, that is not, however, true (in fact, this is a particularly untrue form of said meme). It is not supported neither by looking at actual events of the war's decisive battles (Kursk and Normandy are particularly full of examples of tank-on-tank combat), nor by evolution of post-war tanks. Nor by evolution of tanks (and tank destroyers/assault guns) during the war, for that matter. Arranging for enemy tank to be killed off by your artillery was the desirable outcome, not the outcome that actually happened all the time - particularly in key battles - even if in the long run, towed artillery accounted for most of the tank kills during WWII. And infantry was only a factor as far as it not allowed the enemy infantry to overrun artillery positions and solidify gains, actuall kills by infantry were in single percents of total even after introduction of first rocket launchers.
And that Allies managed to negate relative weakness of their tanks through other factors, most importantly numerical superiority in everything, does not change the fact, that this weakness existed and impacted operations significantly.

[cthulhu]

Four points:

1) The post war evolution of tanks changed because precision munitions, area denial weapons, and the air war makes towed ATGs impossible to use. Also, optics has got so much better than the concealment advantages are minimal. Assault guns where heavily used in the war because they are cheaper to make. The soviets put bigger guns on them faster because that was easier. Making an SU-85 was way easier than making a T-34/85.

Today, cheaper is not that significant a factor so there is not an assault gun to be seen. It's not even remotely comparable. Looking to today to draw insights about WWII is looking at a very different battlefield and trying to back fit the lessons.

2) So we're conceding that the main threat (in general) to tanks was ATGs. I'll come back to strategic battles next.

Towed guns killed the most tanks because there where a metric fuckton of ATGs in theatre because their was (as you point out) a shortage of industrial capacity. Wherever you went you'd find ATGs. There where lots of ATGs around.

It was even more noticeable in Italy where the allies where mostly punching infantry units - lots of ATGs, not many tanks.

3)

That the 76MM was unquestionably amazing in tank battles? Really? What about Arracourt? 2:1 kill ratio in favour of the americans, and they had 75MM shermans. Shit, those shermans where completely unusable. Incidently, if you add in operational loses to the german side you're looking at 5:1 kill ratio.

That's fucking amazing for a completely unusable tank. I guess maybe it wasn't unusable in major armour actions?

The lessons of Arracourt, Normady, Kursk, Italy, Anzio - it's the same lesson every time. Strip their infantry screen away with defence in depth, artillery and HMGs, then raped the unsupported armour with a broom stick.

This works every time.

4) I'm pretty sure they actually killed more tanks at Kursk with ATGs too by the by, because Kursk was the battle where the soviets showed they understood combined arms and defence in Depth.

Certainly the soviets had a metric fuckton more ATGs thank tanks - and the soviets had specifically beefed up the defensive sectors with ATGs, HMGs and minefields - tanks really only got used on the counter punches. German unit accounts note that the main problem was that their infantry would get stripped away by HMG fire and artilery and they where excessively vunerable to ATGs and infantry assaults.

So the biggest threat to the germans when they where attacking was ATGs.

I'm going by my memory of Glantz book about the battle. He states that the major innovation was soviet defence in depth doctrine in which a backbone of ATGs would be supported by a mobile reserve force of assault guns and tanks was the key, which reinforces the pre-eminence of the ATG as the primary threat vector in WWII.

I'm not saying that tank on tank never happened - just ATG on tank was much more common. Which is was. Which you can see from the knock-out stats. Even the Kursk big battle didn't produce huge tank on tank losses. Combined knockouts where what? 450 knocked out? Some of which where lost to airpower, ATGs, infantry, driving into Anti Tank ditches and other causes?

Anyway, if you have any evidence to support your assertion that ATGs are irrelevant I'd love to hear it, everything I've read indicates that they where the predominate anti-tank weapon of the war.

[Zinegata]

1 & 2) Nope, ATGs were already dying out even during WW2. ATGs are too big to be man-handled, often too big to be hidden properly (especially with 88mms and ups), and offer zero protection against artillery and infantry.

The towed tube artillery (which you really should classify as a totally different category) however always remains effective - if only because dumping high explosives in an area is always a good way of clearing it with enemies.

These are two very seperate categories. You cannot lump these two weapons systems together. Towed artillery was highly effective. ATGs were, on the whole, pretty damn bad.

Moreover, that still does not address the problem of what happens when the Allies don't *have* artillery closeby.

3) Arracourt is a terrible example, because it was not a mainly tank vs tank battle. It was mainly American P-47s raining fire down on Panzers charging in the open.

Moreover, it was also one of the few battles where a whole tank destroyer battalion armed with HVAP 76.2mm guns actually got to play. Again, read the post from SD.net: American infantry Divisions basically had no integral anti-tank element. They had to pray that the Tank Destroyers arrived in time.

They did at Arracourt.

In fact, it was the performance of the TDs and their 3inch guns, and the complete ineffectiveness of the 75mm at Arracourt, that convinced 3rd Army to start upgunning tanks. (Later reversed when they hit the Sigfried line, but again, that's because Patton wasn't facing tanks anymore).

4) Incorrect about ATGs at Kurks. The key moment that turned the battle against the Germans was when Zhukov organized several divisions worth of tube artillery (again, NOT the same as ATGs) and had them open fire on the SS spearheads. It actually caused relatively few tank losses, but with a wall of fire in front of them and the attack going badly everywhere else (and the Soviets also counter-attacking with their own tank reserves), the Germans finally lost their nerve and called it quits.

The main Russian ATG used at Kursk was the piddly 45mm. Whose gunners were basically told "You can't kill any German Panzer you meet! Just de-track it and slow it down! Oh, and don't expect to survive!"

[cthulhu]

1 & 2) Nope, ATGs were already dying out even during WW2. ATGs are too big to be man-handled, often too big to be hidden properly (especially with 88mms and ups), and offer zero protection against artillery and infantry.

WRONG - the most common soviet ATGs (ZiS-3) could be man handled, so could the real soviet ATGs, so could the 6 and 17 pdr. Additionally the ATG versions of the 88MM flak COULD be man handled - this was a significant limitation of the flak chassis. Low profile and decent mobility was key for the ATG.

Also, when you say 'dying out' have you actually looked at total numbers produced? They massively outnumber tanks. MASSIVELY.

The towed tube artillery (which you really should classify as a totally different category) however always remains effective - if only because dumping high explosives in an area is always a good way of clearing it with enemies.

WRONG Soviets used the same guns in both roles.

These are two very seperate categories. You cannot lump these two weapons systems together. Towed artillery was highly effective. ATGs were, on the whole, pretty damn bad.

WRONG The ZiS-3 was used as an ATG and indirect fire artillery. Saying they are separate categories when the artillery and ATG piece with the highest volume of war time production are actually the same gun (the ZiS-3) is just farcical.

Moreover, that still does not address the problem of what happens when the Allies don't *have* artillery closeby.

WRONG ... they did? All the time? That was the point of the massive clusters of ZiS-3's the soviets deployed at the divisional, regimental and fucking battalion level. BATTALION LEVEL MATE

What the fuck do you think they issued ZiS-3's at the battalion level for? Picking their noses? (Edit: Actually, second thoughts indicate that they may have only issued the 76MM USV at that level.. but some units got the 57MM ZiS-2 in 1941 at battalion level, so point still stands)

Plus this is a totally fucking moronic point - the british had many, many, many more 6 pounder ATGs than they had tanks. Fuck, the US GAVE them more 6 pounder ATGs than the british had cruiser tanks. conculsion: You where much, much, much, much more likely to have an ATG ready to hand.

3) Arracourt is a terrible example, because it was not a mainly tank vs tank battle. It was mainly American P-47s raining fire down on Panzers charging in the open.

And kursk ws mostly panzers attacking soviet defence in depth positions manned by infantry divisions. Pro tip: Combined arms is central to the war.

4) Incorrect about ATGs at Kurks. The key moment that turned the battle against the Germans was when Zhukov organized several divisions worth of tube artillery (again, NOT the same as ATGs)

Wow, you don't know anything about the soviet forces in WW2. The entire northern component of the attack bogged down in soviet defence in depth positions. The southern one is much more spicy... but okay I guess.

Also, that tube artillery? Also issued to independent ATG battalions as... guess what ATGs? Does that make it the same as ATGs.. I think so.

The ZiS-3 is, was, and always has been a dual use piece of hardware. Guess what gun they produced the most? The fucking ZiS-3

It was built on a fucking ATG gun trail! It was issued to independent ATG units! It was put into production over the USV-22 due to superior AP, lower production costs, being all around better! It has a AP round that was issued in large numbers! It's a fucking ATG FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

The main Russian ATG used at Kursk was the piddly 45mm. Whose gunners were basically told "You can't kill any German Panzer you meet! Just de-track it and slow it down! Oh, and don't expect to survive!"

WRONG x a billion. Wow, that isn't even close to true. The combined production of all 45MM ATG varients (which could knock out a Panzer IV, so that statement is wrong anyway), amounted to less than half the production of soviet ZiS-3 76MM guns, less than a 1/3rd once you add in all the 76MM guns that were not ZiS-3s,

Finally, I'm ignoring the 85MM AA gun that was routinely issued with AP ammo so it could be used as an ATG. Both it's ubquity and success in this role (including at.. drum role please, kursk) was one of the reasons that the T-34/85 was made! Fuck, the turret on the T-34 was engineered to fit the D-5 off that AA gun before anyone had officially decided, because they just assumed that it would be the D-5 because it was awesome.

[Lokathor]

So uh... what's the story with Tyranid? Does the fact that they have no literal tank-type units make them better considering the fact that everyone uses anti-tank army lists all the time?

[Zinegata]

WRONG - the most common soviet ATGs (ZiS-3) could be man handled, so could the real soviet ATGs, so could the 6 and 17 pdr. Additionally the ATG versions of the 88MM flak COULD be man handled - this was a significant limitation of the flak chassis. Low profile and decent mobility was key for the ATG.

Are you interested in real history, or are you just some idiot with a massive hard-on for ATGs?

The ZiS 3 weighs like 2000 pounds. That is seriously the weight of ten guys.

The ZiS and the 88 Flak CANNOT be "man handled". The only way you can mandhandle those guns is if you have a dozen guys. And they can't "manhandle" that thing for more than a few hundred meters before dropping from exhaustion.

This is like saying a car can be "manhandled" because you can get a football team to push it for you.

WRONG Soviets used the same guns in both roles.

WRONG The ZiS-3 was used as an ATG and indirect fire artillery. Saying they are separate categories when the artillery and ATG piece with the highest volume of war time production are actually the same gun (the ZiS-3) is just farcical.

One multi-role gun does not mean every ATG can be used in the tube artillery role. In fact many ATGs are almost impossible to use in the indirect fire role because you can't point the gun up. The 2 pounder wasn't even issued with an HE shell for indirect fire, for instance.

Moreover, the vast majority of the time the ZiS-3 was, in fact, used as tube artillery in the indirect-fire role. Using it as an AT gun was more often than not a last-resort thing.

Why do you think ZiS-armed units are called artillery units as opposed to anti-tank units?

Saying that ATG = Towed artillery by showing one example and ignoring pretty much every other artillery piece used in WW2 is just plain dishonesty. And I can't see any reason why you're even attempting to muddle the issue when a clear line exists between tube artillery and true anti-tank guns, even in the Soviet's own TO&E!

The ZiS 3 is a howitzer. It is artillery. It is not an "ATG". Even fucking wikipedia knows this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-tank_guns wherein the ZiS 3 is not even listed as an anti-tank gun.

It is completely useless to discuss anything with someone who cannot distinguish between an ATG with standard tube artillery.

tl;dr: Tube artillery is awesome. ATGs were not. Saying ATGs are awesome by claiming ATGs = Artillery is being intellectually dishonest, plain and simple.

WRONG ... they did? All the time?

Ah yes. Let's ignore all of the actual instances where artillery support was, in fact, not available to the Soviet forces because of a variety of issues. Like ammo issues. Or communications breakdown. Or the guns getting taken out by Stukas. Or the guns existing on paper but not actually being issued.

Which all actually happened and is part of the historical record.

Go learn how battles were actually fought, instead of fellating over paper TO&Es and doctrine.

Until then there's no use talking to someone who thinks that having a battalion of howitzers on paper for every Division means that the Soviets were fortunate enough to never have to fight a battle without artillery support.

[Zinegata]

So uh... what's the story with Tyranid? Does the fact that they have no literal tank-type units make them better considering the fact that everyone uses anti-tank army lists all the time?

Not really. Some big 'nids have high toughness scores, and the main way to hurt them is to use high-strength anti-tank weapons against them.

[cthulhu]

I think the quote below is your fundamental problem

The ZiS 3 is a howitzer. It is artillery. It is not a dedicated ATG.

This is a very fundamental misunderstanding which probably the source of much confusion on your part.

The ZiS-3 is a typical called a 'gun' or a 'cannon.' It's muzzle velocity is to high, it's barrel is too long, and its direct fire capability is to great for it be called an howitzer.



The soviets did issue a 76.2 MM howitzer at regimental though, maybe you are confused?



You can clearly see the differences - the smaller howitzer has pathetic AT performance due to the low velocity round. Despite issuing hollow change (today would be called HEAT) rounds, the howitzers had very poor performance.

There also weren't that many of them. Combined production of all marks is about 20% of total ZiS-3 production.

Go learn how battles were actually fought, instead of fellating over paper TO&Es and doctrine. Until then there's no use talking to someone who thinks that having a battalion of howitzers on paper for every Division means that the Soviets were fortunate enough to never have to fight a battle without artillery support.

I think it's no use talking to someone who thinks the ZiS-3 is a howitzer. I suggest reading Glantz' book on the battle of Kursk, and his discussion about soviet defence in depth doctrine, which included the deployment of ATG's at a density of 70 per kilometre across the front.

Obviously of course, the soviets routinely fought at much lower levels than that, Kursk is a special case. But I forgot, I'm supposed to look at how battles where actually fought, rather than citing a book by the foremost historian who writes in English on the period and about the battle you've been using at a reference point to me!

Snap.

[Zinegata]

Cthulu, are you seriously trying to lie to my face, or are you simply that big of a fucking moron?

Even wikipedia lists the ZiS-3 alongside other artillery:

Divisional guns 76 mm divisional gun M1902/30 | 76 mm divisional gun M1936 (F-22) | 76 mm divisional gun M1939 (USV) | 76 mm divisional gun M1942 (ZiS-3) | 107 mm divisional gun M1940 (M-60) | 122 mm howitzer M1909/37 | 122 mm howitzer M1910/30 | 122 mm howitzer M1938 (M-30) | 152 mm mortar M1931 (NM)

All of these are indirect fire artillery. And notice all of the other howitzers?

So again, claiming that the ZiS-3 is an ATG is simply a blatant lie.

And I'm ignoring your bullshit about the definition of "howitzer", because you know damn well that the Soviets use different terminology. In the US army, the ZiS-3 would be classified a howitzer - just like all of its other "Divisional Guns" like the 105mm Howitzer and the 155mm Howitzer.

So again, really, are you playing semantic games, or are you that much of a fucking idiot? Either way, you're a waste of time.

(I also don't give a shit about what you think you read. Because even if the book is good it's useless if it's interpreted by a liar or a moron)

[cthulhu]

Cthulu, are you seriously trying to lie to my face, or are you simply that big of a fucking moron?

Even wikipedia lists the ZiS-3 alongside other artillery:

Divisional guns 76 mm divisional gun M1902/30 | 76 mm divisional gun M1936 (F-22) | 76 mm divisional gun M1939 (USV) | 76 mm divisional gun M1942 (ZiS-3) | 107 mm divisional gun M1940 (M-60) | 122 mm howitzer M1909/37 | 122 mm howitzer M1910/30 | 122 mm howitzer M1938 (M-30) | 152 mm mortar M1931 (NM)

All of these are indirect fire artillery. And notice all of the other howitzers?

To quote your source:

76-mm divisional gun M1942 (ZiS-3)
Type: Anti-tank field gun
Place of origin: USSR

I assume that was unintentional. Or was that an intentional omission so you could call me a liar?

So again, claiming that the ZiS-3 is an ATG is simply a blatant lie.

Your source calls it an 'ATFG'

Close enough.

On this basis, you are either

A) the moron for failing to read your own reference material; or

B) Intentionally misrepresenting your own source material by lying.

Sorry, its just too funny not to call you on it.

[Koumei]

So uh... what's the story with Tyranid? Does the fact that they have no literal tank-type units make them better considering the fact that everyone uses anti-tank army lists all the time?

Sort of: any anti-tank weapon is still good against the MCs. Poison weapons still affect the MCs just fine, and even lighter weapons can still hurt them (for instance, Bolters are S4 and thus even Armour 11 is immune to them. They can still score lucky Wounds on T7 MCs).

Let's put a comparison here: 10 Tac Marines with Missile Launcher, Plasma Gun, 8 Bolters.

Armour 11 vehicle: ~2 useful hits, ~1 Glancing or maybe Penetrating Hit.

T7 Carnifex: ~10 Bolter hits, 2 stronger (S 7-8) hits, 2 Bolter Wounds & 1 better Wound that ignores saves, and it probably passes 1 or both Armour saves for the Bolters.

Basically, they're easier to chip away at with regular weaponry, but on the other hand, a Vanquisher round can happily transform a Land Raider into an Explosion in one shot, and will just take 1 Wound off a Carnifex.

But you still have to slog your way to the enemy if you're meleenids, or gamble with Derp Striking and Outflanking. And your entire army is susceptible to Lash/Pavane and all that stuff. Or the Wolf of the Wolf Wolf power that blows units away.

On the other hand, there are some pretty decent nid lists with zero (0) MCs in them, that make Spess Mehrins go "Derp, why I took all those lascannons? Know what I wish I had heaps of? Heavy Bolters." Or one that only has MCs in the Fast slots - Harpies (big Gargoyles, decent ranged weapons, and they can drop spores).

tl;dr: If you field MCs, they're similar to tanks, except can take the occasional Bolter Wound and aren't 1-shotted by Meltas (certainly Wounded though). If you field none, then lololol, enemy wasted resources.

[cthulhu]

Another awesome bit in Zingeta's source to (Emphasis mine):

ZiS-3 had good anti-armour capabilities, it could knock out any German light and medium tank with its armour-piercing round. The appearance of the Tiger I and later the Panther, however, made the lives of ZiS-3 crews much harder.

A battery of ZiS-3 consisted of four guns, with three batteries combined into a division, or battalion. Independent anti-tank regiments consisted of six batteries with no divisions. In addition to the gun batteries there was a staff battery which included a fire control section.

It's just to funny. Period peice about the usage of those regiments translated into english (russian army journal, 1943)

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/ ... itank.html

There is no more powerful or deadly weapon in the struggle against tanks than the antitank gun, which can by its intensive and accurate fire frustrate the attack of great masses of tanks. This weapon is the basic means for the defense of troops, communications, and defensive objectives against tanks.

Fuck what. Again, I think it's clear that Zingeta is 100% correct, and ATGs are just irrelevant. Or you know.. that's not true.

Pro Tip: If you're going to quote a source, try and find a source that doesn't repeatedly contradict your own point. Like that the ZiS-3 wasn't deliberately used as an ATG. Which it was. Like I said. But that was a 'lie' because I am a 'moron'

[Zinegata]

I assume that was unintentional. Or was that an intentional omission so you could call me a liar?

No, this is you clearly being both a fucking moron AND a liar now.

Let's read the actual description shall we?

The 76-mm divisional gun M1942 (ZiS-3) (Russian: 76-мм дивизионная пушка обр. 1942 г. (ЗиС-3)) was a Soviet 76.2-mm divisional field gun used during World War II. ZiS stands for Zavod imeni Stalina (Stalin plant), the official title of Artillery Factory No. 92, which constructed this gun first.

In fact, what is the official name of the gun?

The result of this test was quite clear - ZiS-3 was adopted by the Red Army as divisional field gun model 1942 (full official name).

Because again, the thing was mainly an artillery piece. Not an anti-tank gun.

Why is it classified as an "ATFG" in the description, when it's classified as a divisional artillery gun everywhere else? I don't know. But anyone with half a brain knows that if it's classified an anti-tank gun once in the article, and a divisional arty piece everywhere else, the former is probably a typo or a misclassification of some sort.

Again, dancing around semantics just shows that you are both a moron AND a liar for trying to claim ATGs = Tube artillery.

Also, I just checked Glantz. Even he calls the ZiS 3 regiments artillery.

[cthulhu]

So, it's wrong when it addresses the guns role in anti tank warfare, or the fact that it was issued to independant anti tank regiments, but right everywhere else?

Awesome.

PS. I'm not claiming that the ZiS-3 was only used as an ATG. I thought it was pretty clear from the statement 'dual use' that it had, you know, TWO uses.

Edit: Wait, it's not classified as an ATG just once in the article either. Maybe you should read it?