tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post7993533394284034925..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: Anti-Tank Defense ManualPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-65783584902593108332015-08-08T14:58:44.837-04:002015-08-08T14:58:44.837-04:00a) That's why the manual instructs only specia...a) That's why the manual instructs only specially designated guns to open fire. Presumably the benefits of scrambling the enemy formation a little outweighed the benefits of having your own AT guns shot at.<br /><br />b) ZiS-3s were small enough to be wheeled around by their crews into cover. I agree though, I expect the first line of defense to be more mobile.<br /><br />c) Minefields without gun cover buy time. A few tanks will lose tracks, the engineers will come, those tanks will be salvaged and the armour will be on its way. A minefield with gun cover is a nightmare where any vehicle that stops is basically a total loss since there's no way to recover it before it's shot to pieces, and good luck clearing the mines under direct fire.<br />Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-51123856012594260672015-08-08T11:47:44.409-04:002015-08-08T11:47:44.409-04:00Interesting. My observations/questions:
a) Wouldn...Interesting. My observations/questions:<br /><br />a) Wouldn't having the AT guns open up at long range just reveal their positions and allow counterbattery fire? I would have thought you'd want to let the attacking AFV close to "can't miss/sure penetration" range, and then open up. The advantage of an AT gun over a tank is that the former is harder to see plus the AT gun can pump out rounds much faster. Plinking the tanks at long ranges wouldn't seem to do much good.<br /><br />b) Likewise, I wonder about medium-caliber and higher AT guns in the first line of defense being vulnerable to indirect fire and initial bombardment. Wouldn't a "infantry and small AT" first-line be more appropriate, so that you don't have artillery-vulnerable targets in that first line? The idea is that the first line of defense separates the attacking AFV from its infantry (the infantry gets bogged down) while the enemy AFV go through. The only medium-caliber AT weapons I'd want in the first line would be SP AT weapons (more indirect fire resistant due to their armor, and able to "shoot and scoot") <br /><br />Once stripped of its infantry support, the enemy AFV hit the minefields and more lethal AT defenses in the second and third lines. <br /><br />Due to the enemy's artillery initial bombardment and support, t's hard to construct a first line of defense that will hold up to a serious attack. Even the first line of defense at Kursk were penetrated by the Germans in relatively short time (like in a day or so). It's the second and third and deeper lines that should stop the attacker.<br /><br />c) Minefields--at least when the Soviets were the ones attacking, the reason they would strive to go *through* minefields when exploiting forces encountered blocking forces is that they realized "where the mines are, the enemly isn't (at least not in strength)". They thought the Germans used mines to cover weak areas of the front which had very little in the way of defending forces behind the minefields. Interesting they insisted that mines and AT obstacles be covered. Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-91365297840917930792015-08-08T02:27:21.433-04:002015-08-08T02:27:21.433-04:00Once again some very interesting and useful inform...Once again some very interesting and useful information. Thanks:)Steve J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12143308117853983963noreply@blogger.com