DAK, can they build Anti tank infantry yet?

[Commander Raymond]

Title. Have they added an infantry unit that has an anti tank weapon like every other faction yet? The call in only anti tank made me pause playing this, just checking in to see if its changed yet.

[-SIBERIANWOLF-]

nah they nerfed the marder for a change

[PADDY MAIN S.A.S]

Within the infantry company you can access Bazooka infantry for USA and Anti tank rifles in British. You will not get it out of the gate early play.?

[bassius]

you get 1 squad each 5 mins! Are you saying that's not enough for us in DAK gang? lolll

[Trem]

Originally posted by 7th:

Within the infantry company you can access Bazooka infantry for USA and Anti tank rifles in British. You will not get it out of the gate early play.?

DAK

[VeeDemo]

At the moment, no. The closest option, although I personally do not view it as partically viable as a purely anti armour option, is the Panzerpioneer grenade launcher. The smoke they bring is very good, and they can do decent enough work against infantry and light vehicles... but I wouldnt trust them to properly fight anything heavier than a Humber, and only with multiple. Not exactly a enticing option. As a Brit player, I do not find DAK infantry much of a threat to my armour... the Marder and the super heavy AT gun team, however...

[Commander Raymond]

Originally posted by VeeDemo:

At the moment, no. The closest option, although I personally do not view it as partically viable as a purely anti armour option, is the Panzerpioneer grenade launcher. The smoke they bring is very good, and they can do decent enough work against infantry and light vehicles... but I wouldnt trust them to properly fight anything heavier than a Humber, and only with multiple. Not exactly a enticing option. As a Brit player, I do not find DAK infantry much of a threat to my armour... the Marder and the super heavy AT gun team, however...

this is the answer. Thanks for actually reading the question and answering it appropriately.

My issue is ever faction in COH history has had a dedicated anti tank unit that can be built in a building. DAK is the first that doesn't have that and has to rely on a call in which is really silly in my opinion.

[VeeDemo]

Honestly? The Panzerjagers also arent that scary, although they provide a good hinder ability with their tear gas shot, although I've had issues with the ability properly being cast - the gunner often does a stutter-stumble dance thing and then gets killed before firing

[Stryderunknown]

DAK's historical strength was being Mechanised Cavalry, which is why it's strong when it comes to armour but can be weak early game with infantry and support. It's really meant for hit and run tactics, rather than holding ground defensively. Don't get me wrong, players can and will prove they can defend using them, but it's just not their strength by design.

I'd assume (and could be wrong) if you play multiplayer and pick DAK, you should be using them to push objectives not hold them, thats something another teammate (who's already been clued in not dumped on) should do if they've picked faction/division with a defensive strength.

[Ice Robertson]

I'm just glad they have anti tank guns, God help them if they didn't.

[Commander Raymond]

Originally posted by Stryderunknown:

DAK's historical strength was being Mechanised Cavalry, which is why it's strong when it comes to armour but can be weak early game with infantry and support. It's really meant for hit and run tactics, rather than holding ground defensively. Don't get me wrong, players can and will prove they can defend using them, but it's just not their strength by design.

I'd assume (and could be wrong) if you play multiplayer and pick DAK, you should be using them to push objectives not hold them, thats something another teammate (who's already been clued in not dumped on) should do if they've picked faction/division with a defensive strength.

cant use historical as an excuse for this game considering how many things arnt eve close to historical in terms of units

[-REBELYELL-]

good point, given a black prince was never built and only designed in 1944, so double unhistorical for african theater...

[Katitoff]

Originally posted by -REBELYELL-:

good point, given a black prince was never built and only designed in 1944, so double unhistorical for african theater...

CoH2 introduced Pershing so.... CoH1 was all over the place.

In hindsight, I'd rather have fun game then historical accuracy, immersion is there and that's what counts.

As long as they won't go too wild.

Black prince might be "too modern", but its still churchill at its core.

[bassius]

Originally posted by Stryderunknown:

DAK's historical strength was being Mechanised Cavalry, which is why it's strong when it comes to armour but can be weak early game with infantry and support. It's really meant for hit and run tactics, rather than holding ground defensively. Don't get me wrong, players can and will prove they can defend using them, but it's just not their strength by design.

I'd assume (and could be wrong) if you play multiplayer and pick DAK, you should be using them to push objectives not hold them, thats something another teammate (who's already been clued in not dumped on) should do if they've picked faction/division with a defensive strength.

so you are saying DAK didn't have any regular infantry AT like panzerfaust ?

yeah right

[Stryderunknown]

Originally posted by bassius:

Originally posted by Stryderunknown:

DAK's historical strength was being Mechanised Cavalry, which is why it's strong when it comes to armour but can be weak early game with infantry and support. It's really meant for hit and run tactics, rather than holding ground defensively. Don't get me wrong, players can and will prove they can defend using them, but it's just not their strength by design.

I'd assume (and could be wrong) if you play multiplayer and pick DAK, you should be using them to push objectives not hold them, thats something another teammate (who's already been clued in not dumped on) should do if they've picked faction/division with a defensive strength.

so you are saying DAK didn't have any regular infantry AT like panzerfaust ?

yeah right

Not quite what I was saying. I was actually referring to why they are Mid/End game strong but weak early on.

(count the number of vehicles they can have vs allies etc)

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

Originally posted by bassius:

Originally posted by Stryderunknown:

DAK's historical strength was being Mechanised Cavalry, which is why it's strong when it comes to armour but can be weak early game with infantry and support. It's really meant for hit and run tactics, rather than holding ground defensively. Don't get me wrong, players can and will prove they can defend using them, but it's just not their strength by design.

I'd assume (and could be wrong) if you play multiplayer and pick DAK, you should be using them to push objectives not hold them, thats something another teammate (who's already been clued in not dumped on) should do if they've picked faction/division with a defensive strength.

so you are saying DAK didn't have any regular infantry AT like panzerfaust ?

yeah right

I actually don't think they did have a rocket propelled weapon. Panzerfaust and schrek were later war. I think the Bazooka which came before the panzerschrek was first deployed to Tunisia against the afrika corp in it's last battles.

What they did have were these:

Panzerbüchse 38 & 39 - AT Rifle - But from what I can tell there were not that many around per regiment (2000 men of so). Maybe 39 per regiment.

sPZb 41 I think may have been used in North Africa with the DAK as well??
A very small wheeled AT gun similar in size to the one the wehr paratroopers get. They used squeezebore tech and tungsten core ammo. After 500 or so shots the barrel was toast. I believe they stopped being used due to a shortage of tungsten. I think I saw a number somewhere around that their were 11 per division! (10-15 thousand men iirc).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.8_cm_sPzB_41

But I don't think they had many of the above. So I think it's fitting they kind of come in from support company in the rear as needed in coh3.

The only other thing you might have is some of those Hafthohlladung magnetic grenades the DAK get in company of heroes early on.

I guess their may have been Rifle Grenades designed to destroy tanks as well that the DAK used?

Then of course apart from the infantry you have various vehicle and towed AT gun pieces. The 88 being the stand out of the characteristic long ranges of desert warfare.

The problem with the DAK in coh3 is that they are pitted against more modern forces in terms of tanks and AT. So they made them mobile quick raiding forces which fits their historical MO kinda anyways. So I am fine with them being a little hard up for AT. They are probably the hardest faction to play I think. The lack of early MG and AT mean you really have to be a good player to get to the later stages which also kind of lag behind the other sides in terms of raw power. The DAKS most powerful "accessible" weapons being static late game. The DAK's powerful off map tanks obviously requiring great skill to keep alive for a build up compared to the other sides which can plan and buy them any time.

Basically you lose your first off map AT grenadiers squad and have to rely on AT guns early and you are really going to struggle. Because you have a mobile force without mobile AT then. But again this reflects the various stages of desert warfare. Your either digging in on the hard defensive or going hundreds of miles on the offensive in one sitting. Static or highly mobile.