Where is my assault gun in 40K?
>>47352665
Destroyer Tank Hunters and Vindicators
>>47352665
Autocannons aren't it, that's for.
They are the middle ground between a anti tank as they have low velocity.
>>47352731
>>47352716
>Destroyer Tank Hunters
First post has it.
Also most of the superheavies
>>47352776
Nids, Yup. He's fucked.
>>47352787
>Destroyer Tank Hunters
Yeah, You don't get what a assault gun and anti tank gun is.
The difference is the velocity and firing rate.
>>47352665
>>47352818
Isnt OP's pic of a STUG with the long-barreled 75mm gun?
If you want to call it a tank destryer rather than an assault gun fair enough. Vindicator still fits though. As would a Medusa used in the direct-fire role (especially if it had closed crew compartment - of course then it COULDNT fire indirectly so meh.)
.
>>47352665
>>47352665
Nowhere, because the game was created by people specialising in fantasy and for them infantry is all you ever need.
![DSCF0280[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/K3QS8Q1.jpg "DSCF0280[1].jpg")
>>47352665
Because 40k is grim-derp, and only Guard get "tanks". All of which look like they're stuck in interwar year design, where "MORE GUNS" and "MORE SPONSONS AND TURRETS" seem to actually work. In reality, it made the inside of the tank a confusing mess.
Also, because the vehicle rules in 40k are fucking terrible.
>>47353217
too true, mate.
![pug_armour_col[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3yzc3jW.jpg "pug_armour_col[1].jpg")
the Pug could work as one
>>47352818
40k also doesn't distinguish the differences in shells... Because it's such a shitty system. There are no "anti-tank" shells, or "high explosive" shells. Just this weird ass in-between round they fire. If 40k was to actually have decent vehicle combat rules, the first step would be to make all main guns on a tank (e.g. Battlecannons, demolishers, etc) have multiple statlines based upon the shell they're firing. Like how the Hammerhead does it with the submunition round. The next step would be to come up with a better armor/strength system with greater ranges than Armor 10 to 14, and strength 1 to 10.
>>47353289
The rules for different shells are in IA1.
>>47353289
So, you want to play Bolt Action?
Tell me GW wouldn't put an ONTOS lookalike in 40k though.
>>47353647
Hydra flak tank with the guns pointing forwards
>>47353647
this
>>47353728
or the manticore
>>47352731
>dem undrilled barrels
>Assault gun
Salamander Light Tanks, fixed guns, smaller calibers for light vehicles or infantry.
>Tank Destroyers
Destroyer Tank Hunters.
>>47353647
Fond memories of those little fuckers from Wargame:ALB. Stuck a couple in a forest once and saw them route an entire mob of Mechanised Infantry with sustained fire. Shit was hilarious.
Similar memories involving Wiesels as well.
>>47352665
Basalisk, especially the Armageddon pattern. While traditionally used as artillery they are perfectly serviceable assault guns.
>>47352818
>The difference is the velocity and firing rate.
No, the difference is that an assault gun is a gun or a howitzer mounted on an armoured vehicle in a fixed position, while an anti-tank gun is just the gun on some sort of carriage which is not self-propelled.
>>47357825
Kind of looks like an ISU-152.
>>47357857
Funny note, assault guns proved to be very effective at knocking out heavy armor. A 155mm in direct fire could fuck up a panther.
>>47353289
That's what we need, more rules. Lets give all lasguns different power settings, etc.
>>47357923
It's not so impressive when you consider there's one T-70 with its 45mm gun that took out two panthers.
>>47357957
Which in turn isn't that impressive when you consider how many Panthers caught fire for no readily apparent reason...
>>47358238
After post war studies both the Allies and the Soviets found out that almost WW2 german tanks are really just "good" at best.
come to imperial armor my son
we have so much to show you
>>47358600
I seem to remember some US study that found the 17pdr. British gun to be insufficient at punching through a Panther.
In terms of the basic shit, the sides were not that different. Shermans, Cromwells, T-34s and Panzer IVs were pretty equal. Some were better in some things than others, but all were medium tanks with roughly similar guns. All sides has shitty light(er) tanks and all sides had strong heavy tanks.
Big problem for Germany was that it didn't have resources to compete with the US and Soviet production capacity so they had to rely on quality over quantity. But at the same time they were being crippled by politics. Engineers were not allowed to make what the military needed, they had to make what the party wanted. Both the Tiger and the Panther got way heavier than they were suppose to because of Hitler's orders, which caused a lot of the problems they faced. And when the army requested more StuGs with short 75's (which was perfectly fine for vast majority of situations), all the resources went into wonder weapons, because no way can a superior weapon be defeated by a lesser weapon, just like the superior Aryan race will defeat the inferior sub-humans.
>>47352665
>>47352787
Do you even Thunderer siege tank faggots?
>>47353647
>dem undrilled barrels
>>47358908
>Big problem for Germany was that it didn't have resources to compete with the US and Soviet production capacity
Incorrect. Germany had more steel production than the Soviet Union. The problem was inefficiencies in production and corruption.
>>47352915
>>47359014
Ant regiments need not apply.
>>47357927
Fuck you. There are a brazillion different close combat weapons but somehow having different tank shells is too much detail for you?
>>47359261
the different russes all shoot different types of shells, plus in IA vol 1 there are rules for certain tanks to have alternate shell types
embrace the armored battlegroup my friend
>>47359206
Ok.
So you got more steel than the US. Now what? Build a wall with it? You need rubber, nickel, oil, etc. All manner of materials. Oil especially was in short supply. Your wonder weapons won't be doing shit without juice to run them.
>>47353473
>Why do you even play 40k if you want good rules, get out!
>>47359305
We power our machines with ground Jew you ignorant fuck.
>>47359206
Plus the aforementioned diverting of resources into developing giant bomber squadron magnets like the Ratte.
>>47359261
>There are a brazillion different close combat weapons
Yes, and how many of them have several different profiles? There's a brazillion different ranged weapons too, if you weren't aware.
>>47359367
Oh get real. You're weirdly defensive about this.
Different ammo for tanks would not even be in the top half of things that are tedious to keep track off in 40k.
It's not like it's more work to remember an extra ammo type on a vehicle that already has several different weapons and options already.
>>47359467
You're weirdly aggressive about this.
You yourself said 40k has tedious amounts of rules and you want to add more to it. Go play armoured company if you're so in love with different tanks ammos. Nobody's stopping you. Or better yet, go play any number of historical wargames.
>>47352665
Banned by Clinton
>>47357882
The Soviets really needed to THIN.
>>47359608
>>47359305
>So you got more steel than the US
I didn't say that. I said the Soviet Union, you blind shit-for-brains.
Germany had both high energy and steel production. Despite this, their tank output was below what it should have been. The reason for this is what you can see in the pic. Does this look conducive to mass production?
>>47360051
How about this? If you need to put marks on the tank to tell you just exactly what you've done, something's wrong.
>>47353936
Strictly speaking the Hydra and Manticore are a SPAAG and MRLS, respectively.
>>47360079
Compare it to this. See how much more the factory is set up for mass production? Note the grooves in he ground.
>>47360110
And this. You can tell that the Soviet production methods were geared for mass production, but were a bit unsafe, and certainly unpleasant to work in.
>>47353728
Hydra is more inspired by pic related than an Ontos desu
IG has a lot of Soviet Army aesthetics, Chimera is basically a BMP
>>47360145
And to take the same point in production from the American side. Do note the turret basket, it's an overlooked feature but absolutely priceless in actual use.
>>47360145
I always wondered why they didn't use zeks for factory labor during the war. i guess it made more sense to send them to the front.
>>47360182
Hydra is closer to a quad barreled Tunguska than a ZSU.
>>47360051
>>47360079
>>47360110
>>47360145
>>47360185
Anon, "resource" is more than just steel. Factories, production capabilities, materials, personnel, etc. etc. Call it bad management, bad priorities, whatever. Bottom line was that Germany was not putting out tens of thousands of tanks the way US and USSR were. And if they had, without oil the run them all, all they would have had was the prettiest parking lots of tanks.
>>47360145
An interesting video that supports this argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ The relevant speaker begins at around 26:17
>>47360576
>Anon, "resource" is more than just steel.
Germany had the RESOURCES of all sorts to produce more tanks than it did historically. The reason it didn't is because it didn't go to the lengths the US and USSR did to promote mass production. I just posted all these pictures to show you this, but no, you're too fucking retarded to understand this.
The fuel shortages were at their worst later in the war. Germany had been at war for 5 years by that point, and had been rearming to a decent degree for several years before that.
>>47360628
The guy speaking at the start of this whole thing just got awarded France's Legion of Honor today.
>>47360884
Didn't help that they didn't switch to a war economy until several years after the war started, despite having shortages pre-war due to the massive rearmament.
>>47360929
That's half the issue, yes.
>>47357882
>>47359637
That welding job makes me unreasonably angry.
>>47352665
assault cannons
str 6 ap 4 heavy 4 rending. basically the kind of machine guns you'd mount on a blackhawk
>>47361701
That's nothing like an assault gun, anon.
>>47361761
oh, was the assault gun related to OP's pic? in that case he probably wants a leman russ with a battle cannon.
>>47361801
Why do you speak when you have no knowledge of what you're talking about?
>>47362007
literally just to piss you off.
>>47362053
No, I'm honestly curious. What motivates you to do it?
>>47360884
Are you telling me that if Germany had forgone all ideology and tampering from higher-ups, and let their factories and engineers really get into squeezing every penny, they could have competed with the production output of the US and the USSR? Try to remember, that the US was not only making tanks for themselves, but for the Russians and Brits as well, and even then they had to cut back because they were making too much. Was Germany really capable of making the amount of vehicles to compete with this AND the production in the USSR?
>The fuel shortages were at their worst later in the war.
Shortage, yes. But even the Germans knew when invading Russia that if they don't get their oil fields, they'll be running out of juice, and that's what ended happening. Surely someone there crunched the numbers on fuel consumption, production and stores and could produce a number on how long they got to go before it runs out.
>>47362323
Germany could have, with better engineering, have had a serious production advantage from '38-'41 when the US wasn't really in the war in any way.
Your point about the US is solid. Germany simply couldn't match the productivity of the US.
>>47362323
Did I say anything of the sort? I said they'd be a far sight better than they were historically. Considering the fact that even the choice of the manufacturers left out the two companies with any real mass production expertise, the whole thing was laden with problems from the very start. Even so, production doubled from the years 1942 and 1943. It nearly doubled again in 1944. All the while, the Western Allies were bombing the factories, sources of materials, and transportation. The Germans certainly could have produced more than they did. Would that be enough to match the US or the Soviets 1:1? Probably not.
>>47362580
And my point was that on top of the politics, Germans could have never competed with both the US and the USSR in quantity and would have had to rely on better quality vehicles. Of course they could have simplified and streamlined the fuck out of their production lines (hence the political aspect fucking them over), but they simply could not have made tanks in the numbers US and USSR were making them together, not without making such shitty tanks there's no point in even making them.
>>47362643
>And my point was that on top of the politics,
It isn't about the politics, it's the fact that German production practices proved to be the antithesis of mass production. Had that not been the case, you would have seen German tank production be significantly higher than you did historically.
>and would have had to rely on better quality vehicles
I'd like to point out that until mid 1943 or so, the Soviets had superior tanks to the Germans. Significantly so. Just comparing statistics, a Pz. III with a 50mm gun, even the later high velocity 50s, was no match for the T-34 or KV-1. Hell, even in the invasion of France, the German tanks were outmatched by just about everything the French had barring the leftover stocks of WW1-era FT17s.
>>47363107
>It isn't about the politics
So what is it that kept German factories from going full mass production and designing better tanks with less waste?
>>47363214
That is a bit harder to nail down. Mostly, I'd put it down to two or three factors, all boiling down to a bias against doing true mass production and more towards a desire of the best possible tanks.
The first of these is the "tinkering" mindset of the German high command. The Germans, in contrast to the Americans and Soviets, constantly were changing the specifications of their tanks as they identified problems or whenever someone had a bright idea. The American and Soviet way of making these upgrades was to do so in big blocks. Rather than make the change immediately, which slows production each time you do it, they'd just write them down, and at some point implement them all at once. The Soviets, for example, didn't add a three man turret to the T-34 until February 1944, after two and a half long years of combat. The Americans were much the same way, with modifications occurring after hundreds or thousands of tanks were produced, not just a handful.
Then, we have the German fascination with Wunderwaffe. This contributed to the problem above, but also led to such problems as the road wheels on the Panther. While the capabilities provided by them were fantastic, they proved to be somewhat unreliable, particularly in the mud and snow. And then, of course, the resources, time, and design teams wasted on flights of fancy.
And then there is quite simply the fact that Nazi Germany was corrupt as fuck, and many of the industrialists were more concerned with profit than winning the war. This certainly wasn't helped by the fact that the Nazi Party officials often encouraged this or took part in it themselves.
>>47360576
Didn't the krauts figure out a way to turn coal into a passable substitute for petroleum?
>>47363500
Yes. The use of synthetic oil was crucial to the German war effort. Even so, there were shortages.
>>47363435
Another thing to note about Allied tanks, especially American made ones, was that there was an insane amount of interchangeability between different vehicle's parts. You could gut a Lee to fix a Sherman or salvage stuff from an A2 to fix an A3, a Priest, or even most Jacksons.
With German tanks...you have some shared parts between the Panther and Tiger II, but other than that the only things with shared parts were between tanks and AFVs built on the same chassis. They had plans to make some with shared parts, like the theoretical Panzer III/IV, but the concept didn't really catch on for them until the war was almost over with each type of vehicle having its own supply line to supply the maintenance companies.
>>47363578
Much like how the US rubber shortage, courtesy of Japan, pushed the development of vulcanized rubber?
>>47363619
>You could gut a Lee to fix a Sherman or salvage stuff from an A2 to fix an A3, a Priest, or even most Jacksons.
It's because they shared so many features. The M3's hull was based on the M2 for ease of manufacture. The M4's hull was a modified M3 hull, for ease of manufacture. The M36 itself was based on the M10's hull, which was based on the M4, but had a number of changes. This doesn't count the M36B1, which was a conversion of several M4A3 hulls. The Priest was based off the M3's hull.
As for the differences between the Sherman variants, there were very few differences between them. The most significant difference is the M4A1's cast hull as opposed to the welded hulls on everything else. The real difference was the engine installed in each variant. Two variants (IIRC) had lengthened hulls to accommodate larger engines. The interiors you could pretty much mix and match. This did happen often in the repair depots.
>>47357882
Love the 2nd edition-esque paintjob on this one.
>>47361330
>>47364376
The fit and finish on Soviet tanks was fucking terrible, as were the ergonomics and reliability. They make a whole lot of them though.
>>47353277
Makes me wanna play Generals
>>47360628
Fuck this is great.
Saved.
>>47361330
What is better?
>Single, state-of-the-art high tech tank that can fight off five enemy tanks alone
>Fifteen cheap, quick-to-build and easy to repair on field tanks
And then ask yourself who won that war
>>47363500
They did even before war. But the requrements for fuel vs their maximum production capacity was... well, let's say they would have to build twice as much refineries to cover just for aircrafts.
Said that, their technique was fucking great in terms of efficiency, but they had simply very, very high needs. That's why Romanian petrol was so useful.
>>47364456
The video linked earlier explains exactly why.
Soviets did the math and figured their tanks would last about 6 months in the field, about 14 hours during actual engagements. It was deemed actually spending time on building their tanks properly was a waste of time, and thus cut production cost in half.
Those shit wield and fits are a strategic choice. Nazis are just gonna blow it up anyway.
>>47365220
Though do keep in mind the TOTAL production capabilities were also extremely different.
If the allies had had even just twice as many people, etc as Germany, then it would've been more like 3 cheap tanks to the one Panther V, with very different results.
They were good stuff, it's just that german strategies were bad and they were massively, massively, MASSIVELY outnumbered by half the fucking world.
>>47365258
Even today a lot of russian tech has that "lower quality" to it. Even in aircraft. But the looser tolerances only marginally impact the vehicle's performance. Granted that means it's less good, but it's also a mere fraction of the cost, and not always as failure-prone either.
If you can survive being a mm out of alignment, that's a lot better than what the perfect alignment was bringing you.
>>47360628
This is a brilliant lecture. Thanks anon.
>>47364376
Wasn't there some bit about an old German tanker looking at some miniatures and noting that the paintjobs were way too elaborate than what they had in the field? I also remember some video where they fixed a Panzer IV, I believe, in the field and fitted new skirts to it, and one dude just takes an airbrush and waves it around the sideskirt before the thing rolls out.
Then there's the late war Panther with its paintjob consisting of a rust red primer and a few khaki stripes, because fuck you, get out there and kill some commies.
>>47365407
>>47352726
>They are the middle ground between a anti tank as they have low velocity.
What? The StuG in the OP has virtually the same 7.5cm kwk 40 as the later PzIV models. Or, like, the SU-85 and SU-100. You seem to be falsely conflating "assault gun" and "howitzer".
>>47365407
>Even today a lot of Russian tech has that "lower quality" to it. Even in aircraft. But the looser tolerances only marginally impact the vehicle's performance.
Nobody buys Russian aircraft or cars for a reason. The reliability is far worse then western counterparts.
>>47365886
>aircraft or cars
Guns, on the other hand...
>>47365892
In '72 maybe. These days the only people that buy Russian guns have zero choices. Hell, even in '72 they mostly got ubiquitous by literally giving them away.
So, ADmech.
This tank was hand forged by the tech priests of mars within the mines of marsia.
Assault guns suck.
>>47366073
Said the person who had three of his tanks wiped out by a single assault gun.
>>47352665
What's the rate of fire compared to normal tanks and assault guns and anit tank guns?
>>47366650
AT guns > Assault guns > tanks usually due to design constraints of tank turrets being small, casemate being bigger and open air gunshield being the most free.
>>47366650
>>47366756
Wut? It a gun.The rate of fire as fast as the crew can load the gun and fire it. Maybe the size of the shell can hinder the speed a bit, enabling a small 37mm to load faster than a 105mm, but there's not special design in the gun itself that gives it a higher rate of fire over another. I'm sure a StuG III with the short 75 fires as fast as one with the long 75.
>>47366885
>The rate of fire as fast as the crew can load the gun and fire it.
That was the point he was making.
>>47366885
>The rate of fire as fast as the crew can load the gun and fire it.
Which depends on whether the gun is mounted in a tank, an assault gun or as a towed anti tank gun.
>>47366926
Was it? I mean, say we have a Pak 40 (AT gun), a StuG III with long 75 (assault gun) and a Panzer IV with a long 75 (tank). What makes the Pak so much faster to load than the long 75 on the Panzer IV? It's basically the same gun.
What if you had a Pak 44 (AT gun), Elefant (assault gun) and an early Panzer III (tank), would the Pak still be faster firing than the Panzer III?
>>47367111
Do we have any hard numbers on this or is this just speculation.
>>47367177
For my part just common sense speculation, but one could probably find studies on it? I've certainly read tales of how cramped some AFVs are, for example.
>>47367326
I'm sure they are. But remember, they do try and design them for maximum efficiency. You got the shell right there on hand, while an AT gun might store them out of arms reach. There are guns that do have shells handy, like the British 2pdr., which has a container mounted on the gun holding several shells right there for the picking.
>>47365864
Technically the one on the StuG is a PaK*, because StuGs are infantry support vehicles. But it's basically the same gun, yeah.
*"Panzerabwehrkanone". Tank removal gun, or to be annoyingly literal, tank-away-cannon.
>>47365820
Late war eastern front (and western to a degree, less armour overall there though) yeah, paint job quality plummeted, with tanks being sent out with barely anything but primer on.
>>47368344
>Technically the one on the StuG is a PaK*,
It's the 7.5cm StuK 40 in a StuG
>>47366885
The size and weight of the projectile matters hugely. The British postwar analysis discovered the primary factor affecting rate of fire was the amount of room the loader had to work with.
>>47367177
The Soviet 100mm field gun had a rate of fire from 6-8 rpm, while the SU-100 had a rate of fire of around 4.
>>47368363
I am apparently thinking of the various jagdpanzers. Good catch.
>>47364456
Soviet tanks had used wet welding which German factories were unable to replicate. Often the fail point would be either side of the weld because the weld was stronger than the surrounding metal. Comparatively, german tanks were far less likely to have quality welds. Panthers somewhat infamously tended to break apart under heavy impact, even if the armour wasn't defeated. Initial reliability of the T-34 and KV-1 was poor, but this was broadly true of everything in the Eastern front at the onset of Barbarossa, and over time Soviet reliability improved to near-American levels, versus rapidly deteriorating german reliability.
Their tanks were tiny, though, no argument there.
>>47352818
So how does the muzzel velocity of a laser factor into which it is?
>>47352818
I think you're trying to differ between an assault gun and a tank hunter/panzerjaeger/tank destroyer. And the answer to that is it's purely doctrinal, usually guns with greater capacity for explosive filler were used for assault guns but that's about all you can say.
None of the human arms and armor of 40k make sense.
>>47355766
>superior rifled tank guns.
Britbong detected.
Best tonk guns are smoothbore.
>>47367370
The AT gun might store shells out of immediate reach, but the AT gun will also have much more room for the crew to maneuver themselves.
>>47367370
while yes, they do attempt to design for efficiency and ease of operation. Certain concession must sometimes be made. Turrets are small, AFVs are cramped and you still have to contend with the rest of the crew in the vehicle as well as smoke and fumes from firing, vibration from movement and the engines. Working and maneuvering around the breech and recoil guard to get to ammunition beyond the rounds you have immediately prepped and available. with increased space comes increased ease of movement and ease of operation. When you aren't constantly hitting your elbows on shit or having to finagle rounds around obstructions while loading you can do your duty faster. And that's not even considerign factors like say, the Firefly, where the brits crammed an oversized 17 pounder into a Sherman turret. And to do do, had to turn the whole thing sideways.
For instance this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaFkFcYcMvw at ~8:10 shows a great example of concessions made to efficiency and usability for the sake of engineering an cramming all the necessary crap into a turret.
And if you want a non-modified example just look at his Hetzer video. I realize, the dude is tall. But, the difficulty he has in moving around the tank and how much he clearly dislikes its layout clearly shows in this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4JVBp2JOgE
>>47370839
>but the AT gun will also have much more room for the crew to maneuver themselves.
Take a look at this. The relevant clip is at 30 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK0jaWmTIWM
Compare that to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns5NJVa_XKo
You can definitely see that they have plenty of room to work with, and are essentially taking the same amount of time to load rounds as it would take if someone was passing them the rounds, except the guy passing you rounds is always going to be in the same position. And there's a wall between you and him so you don't blow up if the ammunition does. You can achieve higher rates of fire if you want to be a bit riskier. For example, let's say you're about to come into contact with enemy armor. With a round already in the breach, the loader holds another in his hands. That way, you can put out a lot of fire really quickly. Remember, these guys are required to outpace autoloaders. If they can't, they don't pass training.
>>47371420
With AT guns you have to take into consideration that they're direct fire weapons, so if they're firing in a combat situation, there's likely enemies out there shooting at them. So the crew has to not only work fast, but not get shot while doing it. Tank crews are safe from small arms fire and don't have to worry about that.
>>47369831
There's no particular benefit to smoothbore aside from less work, it's just usually considered a waste because most ammo is fin-stabilised so it doesn't also need to be spin stabilised. Brit tanks still use lots of HESH, so they kept the rifling.
>>47371550
>There's no particular benefit to smoothbore aside from less work,
Barrel life. This is actually important.
>>47371515
True, but if you are using an AT gun correctly you are ambushing and you shouldn't need more than a shot or two. Visibility from tanks is awful. And not every AT gun crew shoots like those useless fuckwits in Fury.
>>47368744
Basically this. There is a huge number of possible designations and what they actually mean depends entirely on who you ask. German tank destroyers tend to be things like the Hetzer, a casemate mounted antitank gun on a tank chassis with a fully enclosed roof. US tank destroyers are basically tanks without the armour and open topped turrets.
>>47371751
One or two shots will just deal with a tank or two. You still got all the enemy infantry to worry about.
>>47371882
>One or two shots will just deal with a tank or two.
This is not quite true in the early war. You had French and Russian tanks taking dozens of hits without a single penetration.
>>47372136
I'm not the one claiming that an AT gun only has to fire one or two shots and it's in the clear for the rest of the day. I'm just saying that if we assume that all it takes from it is one or two shots to deal with the problem, you're only blowing up two vehicles tops. That's all.
>>47372338
Yeah, yeah, just saying.
>>47371515
You also have a non-battlefield consideration that nobody has taken into account yet. A PaK40 AT gun cost 12,000 Reichsmarks per unit, while a PZ IV cost 103,462 Reichsmarks per unit. Meaning you could field 8 PaK 40's for the cost of a single PZ IV and still have money to train and equip infantry support to spare. The biggest factor in deciding Tank vs. TD vs. AT Gun really comes down to cost, ease of construction and availability of trained manpower to use the equipment.
>>47374083
>The biggest factor in deciding Tank vs. TD vs. AT Gun really comes down to cost, ease of construction and availability of trained manpower to use the equipment.
You forget the massive advantage that is mobility and small arms protection. Check the loss rates in the Tank Destroyer Battalions in the Battle of the Bulge. Towed guns were FAR less effective than Gun Motor Carriages. The reason for this- they couldn't relocate when they were maneuvered upon, and could easily be suppressed by infantry.
You can look the rates up for youreself, I'm off to dinner.
>>47371570
Barrel life is around 1,500 rounds for both guns, more with high-quality propellant. I'm sure it took more work to get the rifling to be appropriately resilient, but the L30 and M256 are going to be near-identical in practise, with major differences arising from ammunition type and fire control.
>>47358908
YOURE FORGETTING THE ETERNAL ANGLOs BOMBING CAMPAIGNS
>>47374151
Towed guns were far more useful on the defensive where they're capable of lying in ambush. Tanks were generally most afraid of AT guns instead of tanks or tank hunters, because AT guns were so much easier to hide.
>>47374083
Cost doesn't affect rate of fire, which is what the discussion was about.
>>47374203
>Towed guns were far more useful on the defensive where they're capable of lying in ambush.
Considering that the Battle of the Bulge was in large part defensive actions and ambushes, and that towed guns had loss ratios of less than 1:1? Hell no. There's a reason the Army decided to switch from towed guns to entirely GMCs after the Bulge.
>>47374505
Are you sure on that? Tank destroyers as a concept started to fade as a doctrinal emphasis later in the war, with increased focus on multirole tanks and bazookas. And the Bulge wasn't the sole place AT guns were used: There's a lot of testimony from eastern front tankers on both sides that AT guns were the things to watch for. The soviets in particular defeated significantly tougher tanks primarily with AT guns; overlapping kill zones covered by multiple gun teams lying in ambush to ensure they always had side shots were part of the defence-in-depth at Kursk, for example.
My understanding is primarily that AT guns did well where tanks were prevalent and ranges were long, and badly where infantry and light vehicles were prevalent and cover was high. The Bulge would certainly fit the latter, though I fully admit I have no documents with me at present.
>>47374914
>Are you sure on that?
It's a matter of historical record.
>Tank destroyers as a concept started to fade as a doctrinal emphasis later in the war
Not really. What faded as a concept was the strict adherence to Tank Destroyer doctrine, as there were no massive armored thrusts to counter in the Western Front, with the exception of the Bulge. Thus, instead of being kept back in reserve to counter enemy armor, the battalions were divided up and sent to reinforce various units at the front. Tank destroyers themselves were certainly not going anywhere. Once again, the US Army had no intention of fully motorizing/mechanizing their tank destroyer battalions until the Bulge happened. Afterwards, they wanted them badly, and it isn't hard to see why. Post-war, they slowly distanced themselves from it, as now tanks could carry heavier weaponry. However, the lineage lives on in dedicated ATGM carriers, such as the M901.
>overlapping kill zones covered by multiple gun teams lying in ambush to ensure they always had side shots were part of the defence-in-depth at Kursk, for example.
And how is this any less useful with Gun Motor Carriages? I'd argue that the GMC's ability to fall back strengthens a defense-in-depth. Because, you know, they don't die, and live to fight another day. Once again, I urge you to actually look the loss ratios up.
>My understanding is primarily that AT guns did well where tanks were prevalent and ranges were long
An anti-tank gun is a very static object, practically useless in a war of maneuver. When maneuvered upon, an anti-tank gun dies, as it can't retreat. When terrain dictates that such maneuvers are impossible, such as in the wide open expanses of the North African desert or some parts of Russia, anti-tank guns have a limited use. As you said, they're lower profile, and easier to hide. However, they are inherently inferior to tank destroyers in a war of maneuver. The Americans learned that lesson quite well.
>>47375699
>It's a matter of historical record.
If you're going to assert things can you start providing examples? I don't know your sources and going "look it up" just means "go do archival research", which is a ridiculous burden to impose on someone.
In any case, antitank guns, so far as I am aware, gave good accounts of themselves in most non-american armies, which would key with lower mobility as the americans were very aggressive in terms of manuever.
>Not really. What faded as a concept was the strict adherence to Tank Destroyer doctrine,
I'm not sure this matches up either, given there was a request for solely 76mm shermans, a dramatic increase in the amount of bazookas issued, and no further development of tank destroyers as a concept postwar.
>And how is this any less useful with Gun Motor Carriages?
Concealment is significantly harder, and mechanical requirement is much higher. And seriously, do you want me to look up the loss ratio for the bulge or kursk? AT guns versus what? Solely tank engagements or mixed engagements? Operating in what role? This is a ridiculous order, cite something if you're reliant on it to this degree.
>An anti-tank gun is a very static object, practically useless in a war of maneuver...such as in the wide open expanses of the North African desert or some parts of Russia, anti-tank guns have a limited use.
This is the complete opposite of my reading of either of those theatres. Antitank guns were considered incredibly useful by both the Brits and the Soviets, even in the desert and western Russia. I'm sure it was an issue for America, but America, or at least significant elements of it, were conducting a dash towards Germany that other armies weren't to nearly the same degree.
>>47378116
I mean, to be clear, this is an opinion I believe is backed up by many historians as well as historical record; Zaloga doesn't appear to share the withering opinion you hold of AT guns, and there are many cases where antitank guns defeated tanks in places they should be "useless", including North Africa. Antitank guns played important roles in both battles of El Alamein. The Indian 5th Brigade destroyed some 20 tanks with properly dug-in antitank guns during the first battle; according to your logic these should have all been immediately destroyed after the opening volley. You seem to be heavily skewed towards the American perspective, but even then, more American tanks were destroyed by AT guns than enemy armour.
>>47378116
>If you're going to assert things can you start providing examples? I don't know your sources and going "look it up" just means "go do archival research", which is a ridiculous burden to impose on someone.
I expect you to at least do the most basic of google searches. Since you are incapable of doing even that, here.
Zaloga's US Tank and Tank Destroyer Battalions in the ETO 1944-45 page 75
"The Ardennes doomed the towed battalions. The initial Ardennes fighting made it quite clear that the towed anti-tank gun battalions were extremely ineffective when fighting German armor on their own. One study concluded that the loss ratio in these circumstances was about 3:1 in favor of the attacking tanks. When integrated into an infantry defensive position, the towed anti-tank guns were barely adequate with an exchange ratio of 1:1.3 in favor of the guns. In contrast, the self-propelled M10 3in. tank destroyers had a favorable exchange ratio of 1:6 when integrated into an infantry defense. The study noted that the towed 3in. guns were successful in only two out of nine defensive actions while the M10 tank destroyer battalions were successful in 14 of 16 defensive actions against German tanks. The First Army report noted that tank destroyer battalion losses totaled 119, of which 86 were towed guns, a remarkable disproportion that glaringly revealed the vulnerability of the towed guns. The report concluded "It is clear that during the battle of the Ardennes, the self-propelled battalion again proved its superiority over the towed battalion for both offensive and defensive action."
And from earlier on that same page a quote from a 2ID officer
"I want the self propelled guns rather than the towed 3in. guns because the towed guns are too heavy and sluggish. You can't get them up to the front... I just couldn't do it in the daytime with the 3in/ towed gun. I can get the 57s up pretty well, but you can always get self-propelled guns up better than towed ones."
>>47378116
>I'm not sure this matches up either,
Because you have no clue of what you're talking about. Let's think here for a moment, okay? The biggest point of the GMCs was to give a unit a good deal of anti-tank punch and be able to respond to attacks by armor. Thusly, the sacrificed armor protection for speed and a bigger gun. This can be seen throughout the entire war. The 75mm Gun Motor Carriage M3 was a big gun mounted on a halftrack. The M10 used a modification of a gun that had been in service for decades and used ammunition that already existed. The M18 was the one with the 76mm M1 originally. The Shermans were armed with a shortened version of it. The Hellcat also had a shitload of mobility. The M36 used a larger gun than anything else other than the Pershing, and I'm sure we can all agree it was certainly more mobile than it. Further, this 90mm gun was far and away better than the 76, more than capable of punching through anything it faced, even at extended ranges. Post war, they no longer had to make the choice between armor, armament, and mobility. Hence, tank destroyers fell by the wayside for a time.
So in short, you're full of absolute and complete shit.
>Concealment is significantly harder
But not overly much. And you actually have a chance at surviving.
> mechanical requirement is much higher.
That's the price of effectiveness. Do note that the Soviets took an absolute thrashing in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY. Anti-tank guns AND tanks.
>This is the complete opposite of my reading of either of those theatres.
Try reading what I said again. Because the open nature of the terrain precluded effective maneuvering on the anti-tank guns, their smaller size made them usable. This suckered the Americans into not motorizing all of their tank destroyer battalions. Quite a big mistake, as I'm sure you see.
And at the stage you're going to use one battle as justification for a stance on the entire war and resort to insults in the place of argument, I'm out. Have a great day, and better luck writing any reports that're due.
>>47378756
>Try reading what I said again. Because the open nature of the terrain precluded effective maneuvering on the anti-tank guns, their smaller size made them usable. This suckered the Americans...
Then that's on them, dude. Different stuff works better in different conditions, just check out, for example, how useless light tanks became in Europe, versus their continued utility in the bad ground and steep climbs of italy.
>>47378905
>And at the stage you're going to use one battle as justification for a stance on the entire war
Are you being serious right now? This dynamic doesn't just disappear because it's not in the Bulge. Read the second quote if you want proof of just one aspect which makes GMCs the better platform.
>and resort to insults in the place of argument
Can you read? Do your eyes work? Do they just gloss over every argument I've laid out?
>>47378957
>how useless light tanks became in Europe, versus their continued utility in the bad ground and steep climbs of italy.
But they didn't. You'd have to back up that assertion with arguments.
Light tanks were found EXTREMELY useful in the ETO. In many cases, it was because they were light, and could traverse terrain other tanks couldn't. This includes, crucially, bridges. Other areas in which this mobility excelled was supporting other units, both infantry and mechanized cavalry. I've literally got 3 pdfs open on the subject right here, written by the Army immediately after WW2.
>>47374166
fuck off back to /int/
Can someone explain to me what an assault gun is? I took a look through google but nothing is really giving me a grasp on it. Does the ammo have a feed or is each shell (bullet?) manually loaded and fired?
I can't tell if it is trying to be a bigger machine gun or a smaller (more penetrating?) tank gun.
In either case, I'm guessing the 40k autocannon doesn't fit the bill.
>>47380376
An assault gun is essentially a sort of infantry support weapon on a motorized carriage. It utilizes a large caliber round, thus requiring a cannon to fire. Many might argue that the assault gun also means that it lacks a turret, and that the gun is mounted in a casement on the hull itself. What separates it from tanks or tank destroyers is really doctrinal use.
The archetypal example is the Sturmgeschutz, literally "assault gun", of World War 2. It's what you can see in the OP pic. That particular example, as you can tell by the title, is the StuG III, which was essentially a Pz. III's chassis with the top replaced by a casement. This was done so you could put a larger gun on the vehicle. Bigger gun generally means more explosives inside the shells, which means they're better at supporting infantry.
>>47380376
>>47380540
Lots of them used a big gun (a direct fire projectile weapon) or a howitzer (a indirect fire artillery cannon) or gun-howitzers (things made from the ground up to be used as either.)
Another good example is this. The SU-76 is a self-propelled gun based on a simplified T-70 scout tank chassis with, rather then a turret, an armored box on top that held a 76mm divisional gun, a weapon used for light artillery and anti-tank work.
The T-70 was hot garbage. The armor was too light and it's weapon was useless at engaging most targets. The 76mm gun is too light to provide meaningful artillery support. Together, however, they work pretty well. Rather then firing long, indirect attacks at positions the SU-76 lets you drive the gun up to 500 meters away and shoot explosive shells into strong points and bunkers with direct, accurate fire.
>>47381585
>>47381585
>Lots of them used a big gun (a direct fire projectile weapon) or a howitzer (a indirect fire artillery cannon) or gun-howitzers (things made from the ground up to be used as either.)
Just so you don't confuse some, I'm going to clarify that generally speaking the assault gun was used in the direct fire role, even if they had a howitzer mounted. A howitzer is a cannon nonetheless.
>>47381641
That's true. It's not that they couldn't (though the limited elevation of the gun means they couldn't perform the same kind of fire missions as a true self-propelled artillery) it's more that the primary advantage of the assault gun is the ability to bring the mountain to Mohammad. By going close enough to perform direct fire they are far, far more accurate.
>>47381641
Didn't they use M10's as artillery at some point? I remember reading that they found the shells to be somewhat effective in certain situations and they dug these slopes where the tank would be at an angle, giving the gun higher elevation and thus longer range.
>>47384462
Hell, I read the diary of a Churchill tank commander and his squadron used their guns as light artillery pieces on a couple of occasions. They'd sit up on a hill overlooking whatever needed blasting, point the gun upwards and just blaze away until the fumes made them all physically ill. Then they'd get back in and do it all again!
>>47352818
The stug 3 you posted is a tank destroyer. Only early versions of the stug 3 were assault guns in the classical sense. Other late war assault guns would be the StuH42 and the Brummbaer.
In 40k you got the vindicator to fulfill a similar role while the destroyer is your classical casemate tank destoryer like the later versions of the stug were.
>>47357825
Thats more like a Nashorn/Wespe kind of tank. Assault guns need armor.
>>47358600
>out that almost WW2 german tanks are really just "good" at best.
And good is still better than "mediocre" or even "bad"
>>47360884
>The fuel shortages were at their worst later in the war.
With thousands of additonal tanks earlier in the war you can assume that they might have run out of fuel way earlier...
>>47362323
I hope you realize that germany is a medium sized country while the USA is almost a whole continent?
>>47367177
>What makes the Pak so much faster to load than the long 75 on the Panzer IV? It's basically the same gun.
Game balance in most games :3
>>47367326
You won't get reliable numbers because it entirely depends on the training and skill of the crew, especially the loader.
>>47374203
And once they were spotted they were eliminated rather quickly.
>>47374151
There's also a psychological benefit to having an armored vehicle, even if it's just an M10 or whatever. Zaloga discussed this in Armored Thunderbolt and IIRC referenced fleeing infantry that turned around upon the arrival of a tank destroyer unit?
>>47385094
As I said, Germany couldn't have competed with the numbers of the US and USSR and had to rely on quality instead. That was the point of my whole argument.
>>47384462
>Didn't they use M10's as artillery at some point?
Yes. A lot of the men and officers, including my grandfather, who made up the tank destroyer units were originally artillerymen. Since they weren't always up at the front, one of them figured they could use them in the indirect fire role. They worked fairly decently in this role, especially because their rounds wouldn't fuck up a road, unlike heavier artillery.
>>47385059
>The stug 3 you posted is a tank destroyer. Only early versions of the stug 3 were assault guns in the classical sense.
I'm going to call bullshit on that. The designation of assault gun mostly is based off of intended use. Despite the fact they had a gun which could kill tanks, they were assault guns, not TDs.
>>47385086
With thousands of tanks earlier in the war you can assume they'd probably have done a bit of a better job. Imagine Barbarossa occurring with twice the tanks. That's really just a year's worth of production at the time, and only a tiny fraction of tanks produced in a given year later in the war.
>>47387295
>their rounds wouldn't fuck up a road, unlike heavier artillery.
Yeah that was it. I remember their rounds were better at something than traditional artillery, but I couldn't remember what it was.
