What's the deal here, they just wait until a tank comes round the corner, fire a shell to take it out, the remaining tanks in the column then stop, accompanying infantry dismounts and fans out....
Then the antitank crew are just supposed to die?
They're posing for a photograph.
>>29837736
I think that's why they made the transition to self propelled AT guns.
I have that concern too.
>>29837736
Why are you assuming that the AT gun is all alone and that the tank isn't? I'm sure the entire British Army consisted of more than one 6 pounder at any one time.
Colour picture
>>29837750
this.
Also, you don't just leave your AT guns undefended. British policy with the 6-pounder was to have a dude with a Bren gun attached to the crew for point defence, and besides AT units were always subservient to front-line battalions anyway.
In your scenario, the ideal for the ambush would be the AT stops the lead vehicle and blocks the way, MGs with overlapping fields of fire hose down enemy infantry, and then everyone fucking doubles it out of there.
>>29837736
Why the fuck do you assume that an AT gun would be out there alone, instead of being part of an AT platoon / company attached to an infantry battalion or similiar? Why? Are you fucking stupid?
Op is being a faggot. They should have thought before asking such a dumb question.
>>29837843
>American kids get out of school
>retarded threads start popping up
Every day.
>>29837736
>column of tanks barreling through trench
>first one lit up by AT gun
>Enemy soldiers: Hey everybody, let's get our meat-and-blood bags out of these armored squad cars with massive cannons attached, because we can't move them or see shit!
How is this strategy a failure on the part of the AT crew?
>>29837784
then you shoot the next tank
Then you pick it up and run the fuck out if you are outnumbered
Really we should have these things today, man mobile assault guns
>>29837956
quick, get on the phone to Mike Sparks, he'll tell you how the reason the US abandoned towed AT guns as well as the M113 is due to OPERATIONAL COWARDICE BY INCOMPETENT OFFICERS WHO CASHIERED ME OUT OF THE NATIONAL GUARD JUST BECAUSE I WANTED THE WHOLE DIVISION MOUNTED IN M113 AEROGAVINS BY THE WAY DID I MENTION I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE TANKS THAT FLY BASED ON THE M113 PLATFORM???????
>>29837736
"Jokes on you, Jerry, the next one is loaded with buckshot!" [kills a platoon in one blast]
>>29837766
colored to the back of the bus, please.
>>29838095
What if we retrofitted M113s with antitank guns
>>29838144
Don't even have to kill them. The mere sound of racking the AT gun will make them flee.
>>29840257
>>29837736
Fun fact: Wittmans shennanigans at villers bocage ended with him walking home due to a 6 pounder wrecking his shit.
>>29840397
>wrecking his shit
It jammed the turret ring and destroyed a few other components of the vehicle. It'd say it was less a matter of "his shit getting wrecked" and more a matter of a couple out of dozens of shells managing to get lucky and disabling his vehicle.
Please don't pretend that the 6-pounder was an adequate towed anti-tank gun, because as far as the Western Allies were concerned in 1944, such a thing did not exist.
It's sort of semi-mobile gun, theoretically you could use it with good success.
In practice, they did die all the fucking time, thats why they just started using other shit.
>>29840129
Fund it.
It won't even cost that much, and it would maintain operational logistics by sharing a common hull.
>>29837736
You don't take roads while traversing contested territory
>AT gun is low profile and hard to spot
>enemy tank drives through the hedgerow
>flat side armor is exposed to AT gun
>tank gets rekt
>>29837750
You are correct, sir.
Ain't no breech in that bitch.
So would the tanks be screened by the infantry or would the tanks take point?
>>29843980
Whats more fragile, infantry or tanks?
>>29842566
>an adequate towed anti-tank gun, because as far as the Western Allies were concerned in 1944, such a thing did not exist.
17 pounder.
and the germans were barely any better off with their 50mm and 75mm pak40. the 88mm pak43 was a heavy sob.
>>29842566
The towed 17lber disagrees
>>29844025
tank.
You don't send the tank first unless you like surprises. Infantry ALWAYS goes first.
>>29844088
>>29844093
Actually, this is fair. I'll take it.
That being said, the PaK40 far out performed the 57mm M1 (obviously) as well as the 3" M5 by virtue of both combat performance and flexibility.
The US focused on putting (arguably under powered) guns on SP mounts since the beginning of the war and kinda let the towed end of things fall out of favor. The 76mm and 90mm were great upgrades, but they never saw any real success in their towed configuration, at least not against tanks.
The Brits kinda had the opposite issue, spending ages seeing what that could slap the 17pdr onto. Archer was a good start, and Achilles was a solid conversion, although it shared all the same issues as the standard M10 (sans questionable gun performance). The Challenger was one of those great british stopgap measures until the Firefly was ready, and once it was they performed very well (although with all the issues of putting such a big gun on an M4). Then you get to the wonderful Comet, heralding in the age of the MBT along with the Panther, M26, T-34-85, etc...
Meanwhile, the Germans were putting PaK 40s on SP mounts since 1942. Stug III F/8s and Panzer IV F2 (yes yes, I know the L/43 did't perform the same as the L/48) were rolling around for ages. Of course, the Germans put such an emphasis on SP mounts that the L/70 never really saw use as a towed gun, which is really the only true equivalent to the 17pdr, so it's hard to draw parallels there.
>>29844097
Maybe in ww1
>>29844196
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%9395)
The point of taking point (pun not intended) is to see if there are any threats along that route, not to just take the first hit. Tanks are blind, especially in an urban environment. Infantry goes ahead to find threats, tanks move up to destroy them; it doesn't work real well the other way around.
>>29842566
>Please don't pretend that the 6-pounder was an adequate towed anti-tank gun,
>because as far as the Western Allies were concerned in 1944, such a thing did not exist.
SS-Hauptsturmführer Paznerkommandant Michael Whittmann disagrees.
He hated the Anti-tank gun more than any tank, their ability to fire from no where in well camouflaged positions made them psychologically traumatizing for tank crews.
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=_vqwwU3XdogC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=Michael+Wittmann+anti+tank+guns&source=bl&ots=aLb1ZcEOfk&sig=oc4gW4jKDuQlMkNvsxpVM9zjPcI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjeyZHa1MLMAhUE9WMKHXywCH0Q6AEISDAK#v=onepage&q=Michael%20Wittmann%20anti%20tank%20guns&f=false
>>29837956
>>29840129
They're called ATGMs.
>>29837956
We have anti-armor missiles now. Man portable, and very effective.
Anti tank guns never worked alone.
They where in six gun batteries.
The gun in the road would disable/ destroy the first tank. The rest of the tank troop would go into the German version of anbush front, guns on either side of the one in the road would have track up flank on shots at the rest of the troop.
The assigned infantry company would protect the gunners from the pesky panzergrgnaderes with the customary highly disciplined and accurate rifle and machine gun fire.
By the time the following platoon of German tanks arrived the guns would be hooked up and gone to the alternat position.
The battery 2IC is off looking for the next position.
Wash, rince, repeat. Until you get into open country where the tanks can spread out and flank you.
>>29844196
Armored vehicles, despite all the complex sensors they now have, are almost blind in certain environments lad.
They have no peripheral vision per se, and remember it's 4-5 people trying to operate one machine.
Remember the Russian & VC anti-tank suicide squads?
>>29844189
The american 76 never had bad performance nothing in the war could stop it from the side and only 2 tanks could possibly stop it from the front.
