Defence: AT Guns or Tanks?

[Derf]

Do AT Guns offer a meaningful advantage for defensive missions, compared to thanks using the same gun?

For example, i would expect the cost and ‘’manpower’ to be lower for AT Guns, whilst having a higher rate of fire, and possibly slightly better accuracy.

The downside is obviously that AT Guns have no armour, machine guns, or quick movement, but I can mitigate those in defence missions, hence why I’m wondering if AT Guns offer an upside, particularly in terms of RoF and CP.

[someone]

more stealth, especially when hidden in a bush or smoke
very resistant to AP but will die to HE

costs less MP and CP and you can use those extra resources for other things

[Metal Izanagi]

Dunno about costs because I don't really play in a way where that's important, but AT guns are definitely more accurate, and can usually turn faster. Most importantly...most tanks don't get a gun of the caliber that the biggest AT guns you can field have. The Tiger is an outlier in that regard, and has its own downsides that make bringing dedicated AT guns useful.

AT guns also have a lower profile than tanks, and can be wedged into places that tanks just can't fit while still able to elevate the gun in a way that allows for a good shot.

[Derf]

Looking good so far. What about Rate of Fire for the same gun in-and-out of a tank?

[Urk_da_WAAAGH!]

They are indeed good enough if you position them properly but the added cost of researching the AT guns tree beside the tank tree doesn't make it worth honestly.

I would wish for a research tree that you unlock the AT gun with said caliber and then the tank becomes available (all with a slightly reduced research cost of course) but that would make more rewarding to use/research them

[General WVPM]

Cheap static defence: AT gun
Strong mobile defence: tank (destroyer)

[TrafficCone]

In addition to cost and stealth for AT, their lower profile makes them harder to hit and sometimes the AT variant of a gun will be better than the tank version due to not having to deal with size limitations. So if the gun says its the same on a tank and AT, it's good to double check the pen values because the AT variant might be higher.

[Derf]

Surely all that extra elbow room allows for a higher rate of fire? :)

[Metal Izanagi]

Originally posted by Derf:

Surely all that extra elbow room allows for a higher rate of fire? :)

Depends on if you have a full crew and what veterancy level they are. A high-efficiency crew can definitely load AT shells faster than a tank can. The main downside is that if you flub your first shot with an AT gun that leaves the gun and crew incredibly vulnerable to counterattack because unlike a tank they can't scoot out of the way, and if a shell lands anywhere near the gun it'll either kill the crew, send them flying or knock the gun out. HE shells are good against AT guns because they'll kill the crew and unless you get a really lucky hit they won't damage the gun much, but an AP shell will trash an AT gun pretty badly and can still kill crew members.

[Pit Swamper]

Erwin Rommel, who shaped tank warfare in the modern age, always said that his Panzers never got credit for killing AT gunnery, people only cared about Tank kills, but he said guns were always the hardest to fight as they dug in and prepared camouflage. I prefer them in this game as they have less inclination to Derp like Tanks do, They physically can not decide to turn themselves 180 and present their back to the enemy, like your own Tanks will while tracking a lone nearby infantryman....

[Saxhorn]

I recognise the quote but I don't think that was Erwin Rommell. I think it was Otto Cassius or one of the other German tank "aces".

Something along the lines of to become ace you killed enemy tanks but the actual tank crews considered AT guns to be a far greater threat because they were used in ambush, almost always got the first shot off and therefore they usually got the first rounds hitting the target.

They were very hard to spot before firing but the backblast of dust and smoke usually revealed their position after they had fired.

[Saxhorn]

As for in game......

I think something important was missed out in the discussion.

AT guns usually are using AP (or equivalent like APHE etc) to fire at a tank. The tank is usually using HE to fire back at the AT gun.

The range of an AP round is usually 10 or 20m more than the range of HE for the same calibre weapon. I'm talking 50mm and above below this calibre range is equal (I'm pretty sure it is).

Tank versus tank both are firing the same AP ammo at each other so the range advantage is gone.

Weapon for weapon the AT gun will outrange the tank for the first and maybe second shot if you set it up in a good long range location with plenty of infantry spotting "forwards" for the AT gun.

Then the tank either needs to move into HE range giving the AT gun a free shot or retreat. The AI never retreats but in PvP players can and do.

Players with the tank can also load an APHE round and fire straight into the gun shield of the AT gun. This probably won't outright destroy the gun or kill all the crew with a single shot but after two or three hits the AT gun won't be firing back anymore even if it isn't a smoking wreck. Then you can move the tank a bit closer and use HEAT or HE to totally destroy the AT gun.

The question becomes can you destroy the tank before it destroys the AT gun.
Assuming you are actually paying attention the answer is usually yes or at least track the tank so it becomes a sitting duck.

The AI bot in Conquest will never use APHE to shoot at an AT gun so it always moves closer so it can use HE.

This gives you (at best) a couple of shots to track the tank BEFORE it gets in HE range. If you can do that the AI won't shoot back with the tank (unless tank gun is bigger than AT gun range) but other weapons will engage your AT gun.

This requires you to direct control the gun and when lots of units are on the field this becomes impossible to do for every AT gun. Humans are slow.

The problem with Conquest as opposed to PvP is the matter of sheer numbers. In PvP the enemy gets exactly the same MP as you (within capture points all being equal etc). Since an AT gun is always cheaper than a tank (with the same sized gun) even if you lose the AT gun as long as the tank is knocked out you won the fight on an MP level.

In Conquest knocking out 1 tank is irrelevant in the overall battle. The AI probably has enough MP to bring another 10 tanks to the battle. So you don't want to lose the AT gun killing just one tank in return. You simply won't have enough AT guns to win trading 1 for 1.

You can field more AT guns than tanks because they are cheaper but honestly I find a good mix of AT guns and tanks is best.

I prefer the bigger is better idea. The longer range on the bigger guns is far better. If you can shoot further than the enemy then you've got a huge advantage and you need to use it.

I find range to be especially useful on defence battles where you can place minefields to achieve a mobility kill and then clean the vehicle up from the side at whatever range you want. It is usually easier to move a tank or SP AT gun (Hetzer SU76 etc) to do this than an AT gun. Hence the mix of tanks and AT guns.

Gun calibre for gun calibre I'm sure an AT gun fires slightly faster than a tank. The difference is only small but if the round hits and penetrates the tank is stunned and you get a free second shot (based on the reload speed of your AT gun). Get enough hits fast enough and the tank isn't ever going to shoot back.

This is where the veterancy of the crews starts to factor in. I'm pretty sure veteran tank crew get stunned for less time. I'm also sure a veteran AT gun crews fires faster and more accurately.

[Derf]

Excellent, thanks for the responses everyone. Conclusion is that AT Guns offer a meaningful advantage over usage of Tanks in defence missions, so long as they are used appropriately.

I’d always thought that keeping a tank in reserve is also necessary, ideally a tank destroyer or medium tank with decent gun. This is to plug any emergency gaps or go hunting for enemy tanks when needed.

[zzirSnipzz]

Originally posted by Pit Swamper:

Erwin Rommel, who shaped tank warfare in the modern age, always said that his Panzers never got credit for killing AT gunnery, people only cared about Tank kills, but he said guns were always the hardest to fight as they dug in and prepared camouflage. I prefer them in this game as they have less inclination to Derp like Tanks do, They physically can not decide to turn themselves 180 and present their back to the enemy, like your own Tanks will while tracking a lone nearby infantryman.... [/quote
Defence of Outpost snipe proved the worth of Anti-tank guns and more Tanks in ww2 were knocked out by AT guns that Tank on tank