WH40K: Fifth Edition

[cthulhu]

Also, fuck this, let's bust out the TOEs

645th Tank Destroyer Artillery Regiment (IPTAP)

In 1944 Moniushko (2005) joined the 1645th Tank Destroyer Artillery Regiment (IPTAP). This unit was part of the Stavka Reserve and was attached to the 13th Army in the 1st Ukrainian Front.

1645th Tank Destroyer Artillery Regiment

6 x Batteries

2 x Platoons

2 x 76.2 mm ZIS-3 field gun and truck
2 x light or medium machine guns (one per field gun)

HOLY SHIT MA, IT'S AN ANTI TANK REGIMENT WITH.. ZiS-3s

Jesus. Deployment and use

Five of the six batteries of the IPTAP were camouflaged in a harvested wheat field just behind the infantry lines (Moniushko, 2005). Each gun was in a entrenchment under a haystack. The sixth battery was deployed around the regimental HQ. Moniushko's gun was on a gently sloping hill facing the enemy. In one gun position there was a small farm (house and shed) to the left of Moniushko's gun and in another a wide hollow starting 50 m in front of the gun (these might have been same position).

Throughout Aug 1944 the Germans attacked constantly with large numbers of tanks; in one attack they had 120 tanks in the sector facing the 1645th IPTAP ( Moniushko, 2005). The Russians were happy with an exchange of guns for tanks. Due to the design of their entrenchments the 1645th IPTAP lost relatively few personnel in the 1.5 months they fought in the Bridgehead, however, they had to replace their guns three times over.

The German attacks started with a short but heavy artillery barrage (Moniushko, 2005). As Pz IVs and small numbers of infantry advanced, the heavy German AFVs (Ferdinands and Tiger Is) would take up position on hills 1 - 1.5 km from the Russian lines. At that range the Russian guns could not penetrate their heavy armour, so the gunners held their fire. Only when the Pz IVs got close did the Russian anti-tank guns open up. Each Russian gun would get one or two shots off at the German medium tanks before a German heavy would destroy it.

In one incident, in the position with the wide hollow starting about 50 m in front of the gun, Moniushko (2005) mentions having a German medium tank across the hollow in his sights. Suddenly a Tiger lurched out of the hollow just in front of the gun. The first armour-piercing round from the ZIS-3 ricocheted off the Tiger's frontal armour. The second shot - sub-calibre and fired at point blank range - hit the bottom of the turret and destroyed the tiger. The tank crew bailed but were mowed down by the machine gunner attached to Moniushko's gun.

Typically when doing this shit they'd only have two guys in the trench with the gun, because you're not betting on having to reload. The rest of the crew would hide in another slit trench.

This is what I mean by man handlable btw:

On 22 Mar 1945 the Russian infantry broke into Neisse city ( Moniushko, 2005). The guns of Moniushko's battery were ordered to act independently in support of the infantry. Neisse had 3-4 story buildings with narrow streets. There was a small square with a lawn in the centre with streets radiating out from the square. The river Neisse was near the left (east) side of the square and a single span bridge crossed at that point. A 1 m high parapet provided some protection to anyone approaching the bridge. Moniushko's gun, plus supporting infantry arrived at the river at dusk. Moniushko dragged his gun over the parapet, but the Germans blew the bridge before he reached it.

[Zinegata]

Last post against a certified liar.

Anti-tank Field gun was mentioned once in the whole article. Anti-tank gun shows up twice in the article - but it refers to the 57mm anti-tank gun and the 45mm gun, not the ZiS-3.

I searched using the term "Anti-tank" just to be sure.

What it does make mention multiple times is the use of the ZiS 3 in the anti-tank role. But only once in the article is it ever called an anti-tank gun.

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'

Okay, now you're being a lying shit and a moron.

When did I ever claim the ZiS was never used as an ATG?

Again, my actual words instead of your contrived BS:

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.

Note again that while there were divisions of ZiS-3 used as arty, only a few specialized anti-tank regiments were ever formed. So again, how am I denying that the ZiS was used as an ATG?

All I'm demonstrating is that the ZiS 3 is MAINLY an arty gun.

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.

I said this:

The towed tube artillery (which you really should classify as a totally different category) however always remains effective

You replied this:

WRONG Soviets used the same guns in both roles.

You tried to refute "ATGs and Towed artillery are two different things" with "But the Soviets had a gun that does both!"

What are you, a moron?

Selective memory, or outright lying. Either way, you're a waste of time and most likely a troll.

[cthulhu]

What? This is just fucking bullshit. It's not just one gun you asshole. Let's go back to your wikipedia source, and look at the other guns you are claiming are just artillery pieces


The F-22 issued as an ATG:

The F-22 was also used by anti-tank artillery brigades (24 pieces), from 1942 by tank destroyer brigades with 16 pieces, and by light artillery brigades (60-72 pieces).

The USV:

USV was an improvement over its predecessor, the F-22. However it was still too big and heavy and had the same inconvenient placement of sights and elevation controls on different sides of the barrel, making the gun less effective in anti-tank role. Those shortcomings led to its replacement by lighter and easier to produce ZiS-3.

Mhm, interesting, replaced due to inefficiencies in the AT role you say? It was also issued as an ATG, but that's not in the wikipedia article. Even more ironically, the germans captured both of these guns and used them against the americans in italy.. as an ATG.

The 107MM gun

Despite being developed as a divisional gun, the M-60 was never used by Red Army rifle divisions. In 1941, M-60s served in anti-tank artillery brigades; according to the official organization, these consisted of two regiments, each with a battalion of M-60 (12 pieces) and two battalions of 85 mm anti-aircraft guns, with both types of weapons employed as heavy anti-tank guns. In practice, most of the brigades never received their 107 mm guns. These brigades were disbanded in late 1941 and the surviving M-60s were used in independent 12-gun battalions

All the fucking divisional guns that where not howitzers (and thus impossible to use as dual use guns) where used as ATGs. The 107 MM (A DIVISIONAL GUN) was ONLY used as an ATG. Thought it was actually equipped and capable for indirect fire.

Also here we see the delicious use of the 85 MM AA gun being used.. exclusively as an ATG. Of course, in Zingeta world the fact it was issued to AT units specifically to be used as an ATG is irrelevant, wasn't an intended usage and indeed was a 'last ditch' effort.

What

The

Christ

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)

No, Wikipedia lists the ZiS-3 along a range of other highly successful dual use pieces and howitzers. The reason it bundles them together is because they where issued as divisional assets. Usually.

Fuck

Off.

Edit: Even funnier - regimental commanders would be assigned ZiS-3 to use in a direct or indirect fire role, and would typically make a deliberate decision depending on what they where doing to do so.

[cthulhu]

Thinking about it, if your complaint is simply that the majority (heck, probably 75%+) of 76MM divisional guns in the soviet army where primarily used for indirect fire, then fine

All I'm really saying is:

A) ATGs where extensively used by all sides in the war, and accounted for the majority of tank kills during the war (second to mechanical failure). ATGs had a significant impact on all major engagements because of this, though rarely a decisive one.

B) ATGs are a critical part of any combined arms operation in WWII

C) The 76MM guns (All variants) where routinely and deliberately used in an ATG role by the soviets, and they where quite effective at doing so.

D) Soviet defence in depth doctrine made extensive use of ATGs.

[Zinegata]

Thinking about it, if your complaint is simply that the majority (heck, probably 75%+) of 76MM divisional guns in the soviet army where primarily used for indirect fire, then fine

Yes. Thank you!

That, and you can seperate the kills between indirect fire, and direct fire even with the ZiS-3.

Because when the ZiS-3 is used primarily as an ATG, it goes to a dedicated anti-tank regiment. Most ZiS-3 however, stayed with an artillery division - where its use as an anti-tank gun is a last-ditch thing. (Much like how a British 25 pounder is a very powerful AT gun, but the Brits used it mainly for indirect fire)

I believe that if you take this into account and actually split the kills properly, indirect artillery fire is actually the highest tank-killer, not direct-fire ATG.

Assertions that you are a moron and lying are withdrawn.

A) ATGs where extensively used by all sides in the war, and accounted for the majority of tank kills during the war (second to mechanical failure). ATGs had a significant impact on all major engagements because of this, though rarely a decisive one.

B) ATGs are a critical part of any combined arms operation in WWII

C) The 76MM guns (All variants) where routinely and deliberately used in an ATG role by the soviets, and they where quite effective at doing so.

I'm not going to dispute the above if you base it entirely on the Eastern Front - except for letter B.

ATGs were heavily produced by the Soviets because they were cheaper than making a TD, not necessarily because they were better than a TD. Man-portable AT weapons also made them less necessary for the Western allies, but the Soviets didn't really have proper man-portable AT weapons.

For the Americans though, the ATGs were a failure, largely because they often only had the 57mm anti-tank gun. Their main tank killers were really tube artillery, and airpower.

[Starmaker]

ZiS-3 was awesome. It was used both by the anti-tank regiments and artillery divisions because it was very easy to produce. Grabin, the designer, ordered a few of the prototypes secretly made (ZiS-3 = 78mm barrel + 57mm base + muzzle brake; the muzzle brake was produced in the experimental department for secrecy) and displayed them to the military inspection, who went lolwut and presumably reported him. Grabin was (in his own words) ordered to phone the Special Department Chief and put through to Stalin who basically told him to make moar guns ASAP, which meant he was given free reign of the factory (because no one is stupid enough to harass the guy who's following Stalin's order).

So, in three months (from Aug to Nov), Grabin modified the design so that the new ZiS-3 could be produced on an assembly line (the first Soviet artillery weapon to be built on an assembly line, in fact) and consisted of 40% less parts. This, in addition to its non-suckage and the possibility of one-man operation, made it the most produced Soviet field gun. In Feb 1942 when Nazis no longer threatened Moscow, someone remembered the gun hasn't been officially tested (more than a thousand had been built and put to good use by that time) and performed a formal test. This is why it's a "model 1942". And when it started to kind of suck against well-armored tanks, AP and HE ammo was used.

There are some army supply stats in the Russian Wikipedia which show a 50/50 split of 48000 guns supplied to AT regiments and field artillery. Since the total number produced was 103000, the stats, unless plain shat out by a retarded editor, likely refer to a particular modification of ZiS-3, and even if we assume that the rest went to artillery, 25% of ZiS'es used as ATGs is not a statistical fluke.

(I assume the retarded editor did not mistake another gun for ZiS-3 because no other gun was built from 1942 to 1945 in numbers this high).

Also: 37 deg max elevation (27 deg in some mods) and you call it a howitzer?

[cthulhu]

That, and you can seperate the kills between indirect fire, and direct fire even with the ZiS-3.

This is unlikely - you'd have to get absurdly lucky to get a top deck direct hit with a HE round, and it won't kill some tanks (it might make the crew shit themselves and bail out, but that's recoverable) - what it does do is strip infantry and wreck repair opportunities etc, and you can get lucky mobility kills by making it shed it's tracks from a near miss.

Realistically though you needed to go to 152MM guns and larger for indirect fire to concern tankers. 76MM round is effective and stripping infantry through.

The biggest advantage that indirect weapons had against tanks was surpressing their infantry - both at Kursk and Anzio german tankers noticed that life was practically impossible once you'd lost your pack of crunchies.

I believe that if you take this into account and actually split the kills properly, indirect artillery fire is actually the highest tank-killer, not direct-fire ATG.

Nah, the ATGs kill most holds for the Germans defending in Russia for example, and they didn't have dual role guns. They did have an awesome array of 75MM guns built natively and based on upgunned captured soviet 76MMs.

The British for example did only use the 25 pounder direct fire when they where in trouble, and they had the same experience - ATGs killed the most german tanks in italy.

North Africa is a bit weird due to the massive technology disparities at various times. I'm not sure what the stats are like their. Certainly, Matildas only died to artillery fired direct!

I'm not going to dispute the above if you base it entirely on the Eastern Front - except for letter B.

ATGs were heavily produced by the Soviets because they were cheaper than making a TD, not necessarily because they were better than a TD. Man-portable AT weapons also made them less necessary for the Western allies, but the Soviets didn't really have proper man-portable AT weapons.

Oh fuck yes - a hezter is better than any truck towed ATG is ever going to be in a million years, no question. That said, a truck towed ATG is much cheaper than a Hetzer, and a hetzer was cheap. For the germans certainly a Pak 75/40 was like a 1/10th the price of a panzer, if I remember my costs correctly, and a Pak 75 is a REALLY good gun.

There is a second advantage you're selling short though - German tankers noted that when buttoned up it was almost impossible to see an ATG until it had fired several times, and by that point you where often dead. They actually liked fresh snow falls because then the gun's muzzle blast would mark the snow black.

This is a powerful advantage on the defense, because often you can set up that critical side shot by having interlocking fields of fire without a great keyhole or shoot and scoot position.

For the Americans though, the ATGs were a failure, largely because they often only had the 57mm anti-tank gun. Their main tank killers were really tube artillery, and airpower.

The americans and the british got good use out of the 6 pounder in an ATG role - the americans called a 6pounder the M... something when they made it privately.

[Zinegata]

This is unlikely - you'd have to get absurdly lucky to get a top deck direct hit with a HE round, and it won't kill some tanks (it might make the crew shit themselves and bail out, but that's recoverable) - what it does do is strip infantry and wreck repair opportunities etc, and you can get lucky mobility kills by making it shed it's tracks from a near miss.

Tube artillery isn't good for "hard kills", but as you said "maintenance" is statistically the tank's worst enemy - and a lot of these maintenance problems were in all likelihood caused by tube artillery damage.

Tube artillery doesn't need to kill tanks outright. It doesn't need to scare the crew to the point they bail out. It just needs to damage the tank enough to make the crew turn the tank the around and head back to the depot to check on the damage. Just rock the tank enough to damage the periscope and that tanker is probably gonna turn for home.

This is really how the Americans handled enemy tanks - which is drop tons of arty on them and get mobility kills/damages. What's interesting in battles such as Mortain is that the Americans did not even have ATGs or bazookas to use against Panzers in any appreciable number - they beat off the German Panzers purely via tube artillery fire and the occasional fighter-bomber.

Hence - at least against the American Army - the reason why you want to bring infantry and artillery to support your Panzers isn't because the infantry and artillery will kill off the American ATG crews. The reason why you should bring the infantry along is so that you can kill that American FO with a radio who's raining death on your buddies.

And I think this was really what seperated the American army from the Soviets - they can get a platoon to direct the artillery of an entire Division or even Corps and have them hit specific buildings and landmarks.

I dunno if the Soviets ever reached this level of capability. The German Panzer forces initially had this close level of cooperation with the Stukas, but my impression of the Soviets is that their artillery was always coordinated centrally at the high command level, as opposed to FOs near the front.

Realistically though you needed to go to 152MM guns and larger for indirect fire to concern tankers. 76MM round is effective and stripping infantry through.

Not necessarily. The small tanks - i.e. Panzer III - are still quite vulnerable to 76.2mm HE. Even at Kursk there were still large numbers of these lighter tanks which could be destroyed outright by the ZiS-3's HE.

Not to mention all of those open-topped tank destroyers which have serious issues even against mortars.

Nah, the ATGs kill most holds for the Germans defending in Russia for example, and they didn't have dual role guns. They did have an awesome array of 75MM guns built natively and based on upgunned captured soviet 76MMs.

I'm inclined to agree that the Germans inflicted most of their kills via ATGs, yes, but largely because their tube artillery was lacking .

And because of the Allies' distressing tendency to lemming-charge their tanks in the open at 88mm flak guns until they figured out that tanks need infantry support (yes, against the Germans the infantry is there to kill that 88 Flak crew).

North Africa is a bit weird due to the massive technology disparities at various times. I'm not sure what the stats are like their. Certainly, Matildas only died to artillery fired direct!

Depends. The Germans certainly relied enormously on their 88 Flaks to inflict heavy losses on the Brits.

But I haven't seen a lot of accounts wherein the Brits used direct-fire against German Panzers. The 25 pounder was certainly capable of being an ATG monster, but most accounts I've read discouraged the issuance of the AP shell needed to kill Panzers.

More often than not, it seems that the Brits won by simply making the Germans run out of ammo, fuel, and serviceable tanks (which decreased steadily due to break downs and arty damage).

There is a second advantage you're selling short though - German tankers noted that when buttoned up it was almost impossible to see an ATG until it had fired several times, and by that point you where often dead. They actually liked fresh snow falls because then the gun's muzzle blast would mark the snow black.

This is a powerful advantage on the defense, because often you can set up that critical side shot by having interlocking fields of fire without a great keyhole or shoot and scoot position.

Not all ATGs are easily hidden however - especially guns that are 75mm and up. In contrast, most TDs (including the Hetzer) had pretty low profiles - those tanks were even shorter than the common infantry man.

That's why I said that ATGs started to die off by the end of the war. The small ones (37mm, 57mm, 45mm, 50mm), which could be easily hidden, didn't have enough power to kill the new tanks. While the bigger ones were better off mounted in a TD. People continued to produce them during the war, but due to wartime expediency, not effectiveness.

However, by the end of the war you had man-portable anti-tank weapons, which could now take the place of the light ATGs. While the heavy ATGs were better off simply mounted in a TD chassis (and there is no longer a war going on, so they can focus more on quality systems instead of just mass-production).

The americans and the british got good use out of the 6 pounder in an ATG role - the americans called a 6pounder the M... something when they made it privately.

The Americans and Brits technically used the same gun, but the American 57mm was far inferior to the British 6 pounder. It was never officially issued with any ammo other than the stock AP - which is only adequate for dealing with Panzer IIIs.

I've seen accounts where American 57mm gunners head over to their British counterparts to ask for some of the better AP rounds, which could take on Panthers and such, but this was an irregular supply at best.

Frankly, an American 57mm gun crew facing a tank would be better off not shooting, remain hidden in their position, and call in artillery and airpower.

[cthulhu]

Tube artillery isn't good for "hard kills", but as you said "maintenance" is statistically the tank's worst enemy - and a lot of these maintenance problems were in all likelihood caused by tube artillery damage.

I think you are seriously underrating the effect of 'stripping' infantry off armoured attacks - once that happens a tankers life is impossible. He cannot see anything at all, and everyone can see him.

Hence - at least against the American Army - the reason why you want to bring infantry and artillery to support your Panzers isn't because the infantry and artillery will kill off the American ATG crews. The reason why you should bring the infantry along is so that you can kill that American FO with a radio who's raining death on your buddies.

It's almost impossible to kill an FO, because they tended to hang back a bit and one guy is mightly hard to see. You are 100% correct that the soviets never got close to the americans in terms of artillery effectiveness.

I'm inclined to agree that the Germans inflicted most of their kills via ATGs, yes, but largely because their tube artillery was lacking .

And because of the Allies' distressing tendency to lemming-charge their tanks in the open at 88mm flak guns until they figured out that tanks need infantry support (yes, against the Germans the infantry is there to kill that 88 Flak crew).

Most of those kills where not 88 MM flaks - their was just a tendancy to identify everything as an 88MM flak. The reputation was generated in the same was as 'every tank is a tiger.' Classic example is the famous attack on an artillery battery firing indirectly shown in band of brothers. They where not 88MM flak guns, because those cannot fire indirectly!

Most of the '88MM' flak reports in Italy where actually captured soviet F-22's that the germans had modified to use their 75MM rounds.

Not all ATGs are easily hidden however - especially guns that are 75mm and up. In contrast, most TDs (including the Hetzer) had pretty low profiles - those tanks were even shorter than the common infantry man.

That's why I said that ATGs started to die off by the end of the war. The small ones (37mm, 57mm, 45mm, 50mm), which could be easily hidden, didn't have enough power to kill the new tanks. While the bigger ones were better off mounted in a TD. People continued to produce them during the war, but due to wartime expediency, not effectiveness.

It actually most depends on the gun mount - even the 'big' guns could be hidden very effectively on the right carriage. The problem is height and the size of the gunshield.

Check out the Flak 88MM



v.s. the ATG



However the log barrel 75MM is highly concealable - you could literally dig a slit trench behind a shrub. It's also, very, very dangerous.

However, by the end of the war you had man-portable anti-tank weapons, which could now take the place of the light ATGs. While the heavy ATGs were better off simply mounted in a TD chassis (and there is no longer a war going on, so they can focus more on quality systems instead of just mass-production).

I think you over estimate the effectiveness of the bazooka, the panzerfaust and the PIAT in particular. They where only effective if you could get quite close to a tank and often finess a side shot - which requires you having stripped their infantry. This was useful for the americans because of their massive artillery poundings that they inflicted on any armoured assault, but wasn't great for the germans.

[cthulhu]

Also you should get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Mis ... _to_Berlin and give me a game sometime if you love WWII tactical combat.

Modelling is very good except for the underperforming soviet 76 and 85 MM rounds (well commented on), can do the africa krops one instead too

Another good PaK position shot,s howing how low the profile is on these things

[Zinegata]

I think you are seriously underrating the effect of 'stripping' infantry off armoured attacks - once that happens a tankers life is impossible. He cannot see anything at all, and everyone can see him.

Well, that's why a lot of tank commanders fight "unbuttoned" with their head poking out of the hatch .

It's also worth noting that it's kinda hard for infantry to serve as "eyes and ears" for tanks when the latter buttons up. Only a few tanks are equipped with an external telephone, which lets the infantry outside talk to the tankers inside while under heavy fire. The Sherman is one of the few tanks that have this excellent feature.

What happens more often is that infantry and tankers talk to each other before approaching a possible enemy position, and try to coordinate their attacks. Much like that scene in Band of Brothers wherein Sgt Martin's platoon spots a Tiger, and informs a British Sherman tank commander what he's up against. Unfortunately, in that case (which was based on real events), the Sherman ignored the infantry's advice, chugged up the road anyway, and got itself blown up.

It's almost impossible to kill an FO, because they tended to hang back a bit and one guy is mightly hard to see. You are 100% correct that the soviets never got close to the americans in terms of artillery effectiveness.

You don't necessarily have to kill the FO though. Just make sure they're too busy to actually call in artillery. That was a major problem for the Americans during the early stages of the Bulge - most of their FO positions were overrun due to the surprise attack. Even if the FO wasn't killed, chances are they had lost their equipment.

Most of those kills where not 88 MM flaks - their was just a tendancy to identify everything as an 88MM flak. The reputation was generated in the same was as 'every tank is a tiger.'

Not in the Italian or Normandy campaign perhaps, but in the Western Desert campaign the 88mm gun was the most prominent ATG in the Afrika Korp's inventory. I've read accounts of lone 88 flak batteries wiping out the better part of entire British tank brigades during Operation Crusader and the Battle of Gazala.

The 50mm ATG also killed quite a few tanks, but it was really the 88mm that was Rommel's prime ATG in the desert.

It actually most depends on the gun mount - even the 'big' guns could be hidden very effectively on the right carriage. The problem is height and the size of the gunshield.

The problem even with the correct carriage is the setup time - the British 17 pounder for instance takes quite some time to setup and camouflage properly (more than hour, from what I recall). And if you need to shift the gun's position, you often need to call in a big truck which is easily spotted.

By contrast, you can more often than not man-handle the lighter ATGs into position - American paratroopers for instance were issued with 37mm and 57mm guns that their gunners could man-handle into firing position. Or they could use a much smaller vehicle to move it around - like a jeep or a Bren carrier.

Classic example is the famous attack on an artillery battery firing indirectly shown in band of brothers. They where not 88MM flak guns, because those cannot fire indirectly!

The guns in Band of Brothers was actually a 105mm battery. And yes, Allied soldiers often misidentified the 88mm and the Mk IV.

However, the 88mm flak was actually used in the indirect fire role in Normandy according to some sources due to the artillery shortages (particularly for the 3rd Fjg).

Not surprisingly, it performed extremely poorly in that capacity.

I think you over estimate the effectiveness of the bazooka, the panzerfaust and the PIAT in particular. They where only effective if you could get quite close to a tank and often finess a side shot - which requires you having stripped their infantry. This was useful for the americans because of their massive artillery poundings that they inflicted on any armoured assault, but wasn't great for the germans.

Not really. I compare the bazooka, panzerfaust and the PIAT to the 57mm guns and lower. By war's end - except for the 6 pounder with special ammo - none of these guns can effectively engage armor except at suicidally close ranges, and via a side shot. So you might as well get the man-portable version of a weapon with the same limitations.

What actually eventually replaced the heavy ATG was the long-ranged ATGM, i.e. the Milan. Or man-portable ATGMs like the Javelin.

Also you should get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Mis ... _to_Berlin and give me a game sometime if you love WWII tactical combat.

Modelling is very good except for the underperforming soviet 76 and 85 MM rounds (well commented on), can do the africa krops one instead too

Another good PaK position shot,s howing how low the profile is on these things

I've played this before, but I generally prefer Steel Panthers WW2.

I still have to finish my glorious Polish Long Campaign (1939 - 1945 as the Poles).

[Koumei]

Oh god, I keep checking this thread in the hope of more bitching about how fucking stupid 40k is, and all I see is more discussion about penises. This time with pictures.

[Zinegata]

Oh god, I keep checking this thread in the hope of more bitching about how fucking stupid 40k is, and all I see is more discussion about penises. This time with pictures.

But anti-tank guns are pretty and their entire existence revolves around penetration*!

*Armor penetration of course. But this pun is too lame not to use.

[cthulhu]

Oh god, I keep checking this thread in the hope of more bitching about how fucking stupid 40k is, and all I see is more discussion about penises. This time with pictures.

Honestly, what else is there to be said?

[PhoneLobster]

Why is this a WWII thread?

[Koumei]

Because apparently penises rusty old cannons are more interesting than complaining about the faults of 40k at great length.

Fuck it. Let's talk about the latest shit from Forgeworld:

A Land Raider variant at 300 points that has the "Fuck your Rending/Lance/Melta" rule like a Thunderhawk/Monolith, "only" carries 5 models, has two sponsons (each with a twin-linked Multi-Melta) and the main gun is a fucking Thunderfire Cannon.

A Necron MC that is a giant centipede with a special rule I like to call "Fuck you, Nids and Dark Eldar!" as anything that "Always wounds on X+" (Poison being the main one, though there's also Sniper weapons and Agonisers. But note: all DE Splinter weapons are Poison 4+, and it's the main thing they bring to the table now. Poison 4+ is easy and cheap to get on approximately every nid creature) now only wounds on a 6.

So the second is noteworthy only because it has a rule that is explicitly a "Fuck you" to specific armies and their main strengths (new armies to boot) and the first is noteworthy for the stupid fucking weaponry, and the "Fuck you" to special rules and the armies that literally need them in order to possibly penetrate.

[Zinegata]

... Bad stuff from Forge World is new?

Wait, how much do these new models cost? So we can add "overpriced" on top of being bad.

[souran]

Actually, that new land raider is the best land raider variant I have yet seen.

It actually provides a tank that I might want to tank while playing marines.

Considering that land raiders are the only tanks in their list that are worth taking because all their other tanks suffer from "we have awesome infantry so our tanks must suck" syndrome.

Multi-melta = kill tough shit. Thundercannon thingy appears to be a good way to mow down everything else.

[Koumei]

The Redeemer is a fantastic Land Raider. 10 points cheaper, Twin Ass Cannons, 2 Flamestorms (AP 3 and no cover? Yes please! - note the Grey Knight versions are AP 3, No Cover and No Invulnerable, meaning you need a 2+ Armour save to stand a chance) and good carry space.

Then there's the Terminus Ultra (3x Twin Lascannon, 2x Lascannon, no carry space and if it rolls all 1s before re-rolls, it takes a Glancing Hit as the batteries overload).

And one note: I forgot, all weapons (barring Destroyer hits) ALSO roll at -1 on the Vehicle Damage table. So Melta Guns seriously have a best-case scenario of rolling a single 6 to pen for 14, a Glance, then getting an exciting -1-2+1 (AP 1) = -2, so "You need to roll another 4 results of 5 or 6 before this thing is reduced to no moving, no guns, or 5 for the Wrecked if it's Spearhead".

Also, I don't know what you're smoking: Whirlwinds, Vindicators and regular Dreads are lame. Land Speeders can be put to good (cheap) use though, and Predators are worth their points (they're not something you build an army around, but for padding out a list they're fine) and Razorbacks are fucking awesome as transports. Then there's the Holy Shit It's An Ironclad. Or Librarian Dreads, the Mortis, Furioso, Death Company Dread, Storm Raven, Baal Predator...

They have options.

On the other hand, you have to pay like 10,000 pounds for the lump of shitty resin, and even then you'll just be told "Hahaha no, you can't field Forgeworld shit in a non-Apocalypse game, silly Space Marine."

And yes, if you take it into Apocalypse, it takes an auto-penning shot at +1 damage from any Destroyer weapon, and then detonates, being a big point sink that your opponent laughs at.

[souran]

The Redeemer is a fantastic Land Raider. 10 points cheaper, Twin Ass Cannons, 2 Flamestorms (AP 3 and no cover? Yes please! - note the Grey Knight versions are AP 3, No Cover and No Invulnerable, meaning you need a 2+ Armour save to stand a chance) and good carry space.

Redeemer isn't bad either, flame template weapons are not my thing thought, because the template requires you to be within charge range and thats just a stupid thing to be.

Then there's the Terminus Ultra (3x Twin Lascannon, 2x Lascannon, no carry space and if it rolls all 1s before re-rolls, it takes a Glancing Hit as the batteries overload).

I have not seen this variant. Is it forge world as well?

Also, I don't know what you're smoking: Whirlwinds, Vindicators and regular Dreads are lame.

Whirlwinds can be at least worth their points, and in epic they are a great mobile artility piece that really works with how the space marines fight in epic. In regular 40k though it is a waste of points.

Vindicators are only worth it for their gigantic template against orcs/nids but its short range makes it a terrible investment.

Dreads are actually one of the few vehicles that can really kick ass, however, the reason they kick ass is because you don't have to spend that much to get one and the best use I see for them is supporting troops like terminators. They are not comparable to the tanks other forces get though. My point is that dreadnoughts are useful for the way marines fight, even if they are not amazing in and of themselves.

Land Speeders can be put to good (cheap) use though, and Predators are worth their points (they're not something you build an army around, but for padding out a list they're fine) and Razorbacks are fucking awesome as transports. Then there's the Holy Shit It's An Ironclad. Or Librarian Dreads, the Mortis, Furioso, Death Company Dread, Storm Raven, Baal Predator...

Landspeeders are great, when did I say anything agianst land speeder. They are an amazing way to add flying heavy bolters to your army and considering that the heavy bolter with BS 4 makes mince meat of most armies they can really save your ass by flying to where just a few more shots will could wipe out a unit. However, they are not tanks.

However, the preadator is a crappy tank. There no denying it. At least you can load it up with lascannons, get the first turn and try to bring down a toughie in the others guys army but really they are crappy. Baal is a
little better but thats only because its more like an IFV than a tank.

I agree with your assesment of the specalty dradnoughts, they just keep getting better and better, but they still are not tanks.

Also, the Razorback is a very good vehcile but its not really a tank, again, what makes the razorback good is it an IFV, basically a big moving machine gun platform.

Even then, the razorback suffers, even more than preadator, from the "space marine tanks are easier to kill than space marines" problem that plagues space marine vehicles.

The simple fact is that most of the space marine vehicles do not support their mission priorities or fighting style. The only vehicle that does is the land raider, and its basic loadout is somewhat lackluster I think we can agree.

Not to derail the thread again, but an elite and rapid strike strikeforce, has armor that is only hardened in its front armor zone. And from the side it can be seriously damage by intermediate strength (5-6) weapons! Not only that but its tough front armor is not even that strong.

That is a crappy choice for a force that is supposedly entirely mechanized. As for razorback/rhinos marines are much safer outside of it than inside it.

[Koumei]

What constitutes a tank in your books? Razorbacks have the [Tank] subtype for the most literal reading, the loosest definition of "has an armour rating (vehicle)" fits, and it fits my personal standard of "a big lump of metal that goes BROOM BROOM and has a turret".

That said, of all the armies, it seems that there are like three tanks that actually look like TANKS: the Pred, the Chimera and the Le Mann Russ. Land Raiders and all look like funny shaped bricks with treads, even if they are awesome.

Terminus Ultra is... ah snap, that's in an Apocalypse book, so w/e. With that many lascannons, it is worth the effort to spend a Destroyer weapon or two blowing it up on turn 1.

I wouldn't sweat the "In charge range" thing on Land Raiders: oh no, they hit against your rear armour of 14! And with those frag launchers, the Terminators (or whatever) sitting inside it can just charge whoever it is roasting.

[Zinegata]

2 Flamestorms (AP 3 and no cover?

That is pretty good.

[Zinegata]

OOT again, but you make like this link cthulu:

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf

Merry Xmas!

[cthulhu]

OOT again, but you make like this link cthulu:

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf

Merry Xmas!

You're never going to escape the fact that ATG's killed the most tanks. Heck, the document notes that the germans would use overwatch ATG's to kill tanks on the offensive, not relying on their own tanks!

[FatR]

You're never going to escape the fact that ATG's killed the most tanks. Heck, the document notes that the germans would use overwatch ATG's to kill tanks on the offensive, not relying on their own tanks!

"On the negative side, the towed tank destroyer had proved to be a failure. Whereas self-propelled tank destroyers scored the most kills, towed battalions suffered the heavier losses: in the first critical week of the campaign, First Army lost seventy-seven tank destroyers, sixty-five of which were towed.
At five thousand pounds, the towed three-inch gun was five times heavier than the old 37-mm gun, was extremely difficult to manhandle, proved highly vulnerable to all enemy fire, and still could not destroy enemy tanks with certainty.
Any lingering support for the towed tank destroyer evaporated in
the chaos of the Ardennes campaign, following which all towed battalions
were scheduled for conversion to self-propelled weapons." p. 63
"In the minds of higher commanders, tanks and tank destroyers became increasingly interchangeable as the European war drew to a close." p. 63
(Well American higher commanders were slowpokes, as Germans reached the similar conclusion in 1942 and Soviets a bit later.)

So the thesis that AFVs (as you can see, even in US Army, which failed to grasp the idea of placing both good armor and good gun on the same vehilce for far too long, the division between tanks tank destroyers was evaporating in practice by the end of the war) didn't need to engage enemy armor is obviously false.