Using panzerjaegers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SP:WaW Training Center



Message

Mangudai -> Using panzerjaegers (6/8/2004 6:35:19 AM)

My question is how to use panzerjaegers (marders, etc) effectively. Someone mentioned a while ago that they lose a lot of accuracy when moving, my testing bears this out.
Here are some possibilities.

1. Sneak and peak like a tank, pop a shot then go back to hiding. Since you have to move, your accuracy goes to hell.

2. Set them in stationary overlooking positions, similar to the way you use AT guns. This way you have an AT gun with large size, low durability, and you waste its mobility.

3. Overwatch a hilltop while your troops advance. Preferably you should use a whole platoon of jaegers for this, that way if a sherman pops up on the hill it gets a chance to become an ace by killing all of your jaegers.

4. Set ambushes to intercept the enemies travel. That way when your opfire fails and you lose the jaeger, at least you have the comfort of knowing that it cost less than a real tank.

Ok, I'm being sarcastic. I have found that they deal with Stuarts reasonably well [8|]. Maybe the lesson is only use them in '42 or earlier. Is anyone here an afficionado, and if so how do you employ them?



rbrunsman -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/8/2004 6:48:07 AM)

Sure they lose accuracy, BUT, they are cheaper (generally) than tanks and they pack as big or bigger punch.

I never use them on overwatch. I leave them in hiding, pop out when they are unlikely to get op fired upon. Blast away then GET BACK into hiding.

They key is to remember this: shot #1 costs you 1 movement point (or MP), shot #2 costs you 1/4 of your maximum MPs, shot #3 costs you another 1/4. After that you don't lose any more MPs so you can continue to shoot without movement penalties. Keep track of how many movement points you're going to have left and get into cover at the end of your turn. It's easy (in theory).

My favorites are Nashorns (highly accurate) and Hellcats (highly accurate AND 46 MPs!). In the early years, that little 47mm German PzJ is really good too. They're the only thing that can take out Matildas. You mix the PzJs in with Stugs. Use your Stugs to draw off enemy Op Fire and then follow up with your thin skinned PzJs.

rb



Mangudai -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/8/2004 6:57:51 AM)

Thanks rbrunsman. Is this the case for all vehicles?

quote:

They key is to remember this: shot #1 costs you 1 movement point (or MP), shot #2 costs you 1/4 of your maximum MPs, shot #3 costs you another 1/4. After that you don't lose any more MPs so you can continue to shoot without movement penalties. Keep track of how many movement points you're going to have left and get into cover at the end of your turn. It's easy (in theory).




I do like the hellcats, they seem to shoot well even after they've moved, even at long range. If nashorns can do the same thing, I'll have to try them out.



Hunpecked -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/8/2004 7:50:49 PM)

When playing the Germans I seldom buy Panzerjaegers, but if the scenario provides them I generally use them defensively, as in choice #2 above. True, they're more visible than AT guns, but they're also less vulnerable to artillery and small arms fire. Last month in the third scenario of the Stalingrad Campaign, a couple of well-sited Marder II's knocked out some T-34's that had survived my Panzer IIIL fire.

In the advance they go in after my recon and before my tanks; better something should happen to the cheap jaegers than to my precious Panzers. [:)]



FNG -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/8/2004 8:51:08 PM)

When I use TDs I tend to employ them against vehicles that have already been suppressed. Shoot the hell out of the target with inf squads (fire once, then select another unit to decrease op fire accuracy, fire once, rinse & repeat) then pop-up with the TD, bang, bang, hide again.

Works well until you encounter the unspotted AFV [;)]



rbrunsman -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/8/2004 9:23:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mangudai

Thanks rbrunsman. Is this the case for all vehicles?



Yes, it is.

Nashorns shouldn't be moved as much as Hellcats.



Toivo -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/8/2004 10:44:53 PM)

Hey,

I play germans mostly and have found StuG III Ausf G with 48 cal gun to be decent tankdestroyer, especially in 1942 just like it was historically. Main problem is ammo usually. Being multifunctional vechile with several MGs I really like it even in 1944.
Couldn't say I use different tactics for TDs than for tanks, still have to keep 'em from being exposed to flanking fire and avoid driving them on hilltops for target-practise.

Have used Marders, Hetzer and Nashorn/Hornisse less often, Ferdinands/Elephants and Jagdpanthers are ofcourse different story but as they were rare I'd rather not use them.

Regards



Poopyhead -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/9/2004 1:41:59 AM)

Historically, Tank Destroyers (TD)/Panzerjaeger(Pj)/Samokyana Ustanikova (SU) were a logical development. Leg infantry had horse drawn Anti-tank guns (ATG), motorized infantry had their ATG's hooked to their trucks and the mech infantry/armor had their ATG's mounted on a tank chassis so that they could keep pace. During WW II, most tank designs were insufficient and the turrets could not absorb the recoil of a high powered gun. These guns were mounted on an older tank chassis with no turret and in the beginning of the war an open canopy. Due to these factors and others not well reflected in SPWAW, the TD's were defensive in nature (like ATG's). Guderian thought that Panzerjaeger and Sturmgeschuetz were a waste of a panzer chassis.
My usual order of march is recon unit, tanks, tank destroyers, mech infantry, self-propelled artillery and mechanized flak. When you take an objective (VH), some of the infantry dismount and dig in and some of the TD's provide defensive firepower. In the advance, if the tanks get into trouble, the TD's are right there. If you are assigned a defensive mission, you can use TD's, but ATG's are usually cheaper, unless you follow my advise from the "Now for something completely different" thread, and choose never to defend, but always to attack.



Toivo -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/9/2004 10:03:27 AM)

I'm pretty much with Guderian there, early war TDs are not for my taste either. Marder II/III got decent gun but can be only used in defensive position - either in delay/defend or to protect flanks/rear of armored spearhead.

What are pros and cons with TDs and ATGs?

TD can relocate fast and still shoot after moving although accuracy will suffer.
TD is indeed just ATG mounted on panzer chassis which means it can go off the sky in one direct hit.
TDs are more expensive than ATGs.

ATGs can live pretty well if deployed as platoon where all guns cover each other.
In early war, you can get 88 flak act as ATG - no TD got such gun mounted at this period.

So my choise would be StuG III since 1942 to 1944 as it can act both as infantry support unit and TD. But if you don't watch your ammo you will be empty in the middle of advance[:(]

One serious problem with TDs and with StuG aswell is ofcourse their turret - once they get immobilized you better bail out.



Poopyhead -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/9/2004 4:25:44 PM)

Actually, Guderian wanted to stop production of the Stug's altogether, but the artillery branch of the Wehrmacht wouldn't hear it. Stug's were the only way for an artilleryman to earn the Knight's Cross.



Losqualo -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/9/2004 4:55:23 PM)

Don't forget that in Germany there were two differnt classes of TD's: Panzerjäger and Jagdpanzer.

Panzerjäger were pretty much what you mentioned (PzJg I, Marder, Nashorn, ...) with all the pro's and con's.

Jagdpanzer on the other side were a whole new class with vehicles like the Jagdtiger, Jagdpanther, Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV and such. Because of their heavy armor they had a different roll: to ambush and then to counterattack. Pretty much like the StuG, but better suited for anti tank warfare.

The funny thing is that Germany built defensive TD's while attacking, and offensive TD's while being more and more in defense...



Toivo -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/9/2004 6:16:38 PM)

Well I definately wouldn't be with Guderian on this one. StuG's had pretty high ratio of kills in WW2 and best panzer ace, Michael Wittman got his first victory with it too, didn't he?
Works for mechanizm of blitzkrieg pretty well in game atleast.

As for Pzjäger and Jagdpanzer - difference was obvious but didn't think about they were named differently, that's something new.

And still I'd say any TD suits better for defense. I just ran few tests with 6 Ferdinands delaying vs 24 and 48 T-34's - they didn't even scratch paint of these elephants because on 800 meters every shot was direct hit. But I recall from earlier try at Prokhorovka how they became pretty useless while advancing because of their weight (got stuck on soft ground), lack of MG and fact that accuracy of TD's suffers while moving.

This goes ofcourse for H2H, game.



Poopyhead -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/9/2004 6:52:58 PM)

Guderian knew that you don't win a war with great defensive weapons. The Jagdpanther was the best of this branch of the AFV tree. But once tanks were capable of defending themselves, the evolution of these vehicles came to an end.



Belisarius -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/9/2004 7:37:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

Actually, Guderian wanted to stop production of the Stug's altogether, but the artillery branch of the Wehrmacht wouldn't hear it. Stug's were the only way for an artilleryman to earn the Knight's Cross.


Yes, and no. He wanted to stop the StuG production when they switched to the PzIV chassi. For every StuG produced, it meant one PzIV less, and in all honesty the PzIV would be a better choice. I don't think he was too upset about the PzIII StuGs, except that they also took resources from PzIV production.

Question: Weren't the PaK crews subordinated the artillery, like the StuG crews?



Mangudai -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/9/2004 7:51:47 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mangudai

Thanks rbrunsman. Is this the case for all vehicles?


Yes, it is.


Infantry too?



Frank W. -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/9/2004 8:07:48 PM)

>>>>>>>>Yes, and no. He wanted to stop the StuG production when they switched to the PzIV chassi. For every StuG produced, it meant one PzIV less, and in all honesty the PzIV would be a better choice. I don't think he was too upset about the PzIII StuGs, except that they also took resources from PzIV production.

mhh.. perhaps he only was upset that he hadn´t control over STUGS as they belonged to the artillery not to the armored branch.

and guderian was generalinspekteur ( english ? ) of the armored forces. he wanted to control the armor of the artillery, too but was refused.



Frank W. -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/9/2004 8:10:01 PM)

best tank killers: M10,M18,M36 and SU 85.

german ones had mostly some drawbacks made them not as good as the
above. exept that the M series was open topped they were good.



Poopyhead -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/9/2004 8:41:28 PM)

I'll thumb through Guderian's autobiography (Panzer Leader) again tonight, but the first time I read it, I kind of got the opinion that he thought these things were abortions. Things that we take for granted today, that a tank should have a radio, that the tank commander should be in the turret, etc. were innovations that Guderian helped make. Perhaps he was a bit too protective of his panzers. You have to realize that assault guns and tank destroyers were cheaper and easier to make and that some Generals wanted Hitler to switch all panzer production to Stugs and Jagdpanzers. This is perhaps why Guderian was so adamant in his opinions.



Losqualo -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/9/2004 10:12:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

Yes, and no. He wanted to stop the StuG production when they switched to the PzIV chassi. For every StuG produced, it meant one PzIV less, and in all honesty the PzIV would be a better choice. I don't think he was too upset about the PzIII StuGs, except that they also took resources from PzIV production.


And as we know today, he might have been wrong, by looking only at the production. For the material and work that went into the production of the superstructure and turret of one Panzer IV you could have built two superstructures for a StuG IV. But don't ask me where to get the second hull. [;)]



Losqualo -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/9/2004 10:16:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

best tank killers: M10,M18,M36 and SU 85.

german ones had mostly some drawbacks made them not as good as the
above. exept that the M series was open topped they were good.


Didn't they have a rotating turret (M-Series)?
So the question for me is (I wanted to ask that for a long time) what qualifies them as TD's (In the German sense = turretless) apart from naming them TD's? Wouldn't you count them as tanks?



Frank W. -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/10/2004 1:56:06 AM)

quote:


Didn't they have a rotating turret (M-Series)?
So the question for me is (I wanted to ask that for a long time) what qualifies them as TD's (In the German sense = turretless) apart from naming them TD's? Wouldn't you count them as tanks?


american doctrine qualifies them.

also the differences to tanks:

weaker armor, fast, but hard hitting.

while the germans used big vehicles with
much armor like the j.tiger or j.panther.
but also the small ones like marder.

i think the american vehicles are most suited for
hit and run tactics. german light ones for ambushes
etc. ( not good in move + fire ) or the heavy ones
shotting from long range covered postitions.



Poopyhead -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/10/2004 4:51:52 PM)

Okay, according to Panzer Leader, in 1943 Guderian wanted all assault guns, panzerjaeger and jagdpanzers replaced by real tanks (panzer IV or Panthers) in every panzer division. He wanted the assault guns and tank destroyer types to replace every ATG in the infantry units (I read that Rommel wanted 18 ATG's for every one of his infantry battalions in 1942, so you can use that as a guide.). His original orders were modified so that he only controlled heavy (schwere) assault guns, like the Ferdinand and the Elefant (which he thought were of limited use). Some of these vehicles were very dangerous (Jagdpanther), but the basic idea went away. There is no tank destroyer version of the Abrams.



Losqualo -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/10/2004 6:04:37 PM)

I can understand his wish to replace StuGs and TD's in Panzerdivisions, but there weren't enough tanks to replace losses, so they had to fill them up with StuGs and TD's.
I think basically Guderian just wanted more tanks to be produced, even if that would mean less StuGs and TD's in production.



Poopyhead -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/10/2004 6:51:51 PM)

Yes, he also wanted 400 tanks in every panzer division and that no new units should be created until all of the existing units were filled. Perhaps Hitler was the first to say, "I agreed with that, before I disagreed with it."



Hunpecked -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/10/2004 10:38:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Losqualo

I think basically Guderian just wanted more tanks to be produced, even if that would mean less StuGs and TD's in production.


As I understand Guderian in "Panzer Leader", he had three main problems with AG's and TD's:

1) Overall, tanks were more effective. TD's might be adequate on defense, but they couldn't match the flexibility of tanks in attack, counterattack, and mobile defense. As useful as AG's could be in some roles, they couldn't win the war; only tanks could do that.

2) AG's/TD's took resources from the production of tanks. Production of the early StuG III, for example, reduced production of the Panzer III, the Wehrmacht's MBT at the time. Presumably the lines could have switched to Panzer IV production later, but didn't. The Nashorn used a hybrid Pz III/Pz IV chassis; the line could have made Panzer IV instead. Jagdpanzer IV and Sturmpanzer IV production competed directly with Panzer IV output. The situation was the same with Jadgpanther and Panther.

On the other hand Guderian was all in favor of the Hetzer (Jagdpanzer 38t) because it was based on the obsolete Czech chassis; I assume it was impractical to convert these plants to Panzer IV or Panther production, so no reduction of tank output was required.

3) Although AG's/TD's were at first glance cheaper than tanks, the problems caused by proliferation of vehicle types (development costs, incompatible spare parts, training of mantenance personnel, subcomponent procurement, multiple production lines, etc.) actually made it more expensive to field a wide variety of AFVs, as compared to a few main types. Had the Wehrmacht concentrated on development and production of fewer (but more effective) AFV types, economies of scale and higher field availability rates might have made up the differences in production.



Losqualo -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/11/2004 1:11:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hunpecked

As I understand Guderian in "Panzer Leader", he had three main problems with AG's and TD's:

1) Overall, tanks were more effective. TD's might be adequate on defense, but they couldn't match the flexibility of tanks in attack, counterattack, and mobile defense. As useful as AG's could be in some roles, they couldn't win the war; only tanks could do that.


I second that

quote:

2) AG's/TD's took resources from the production of tanks. Production of the early StuG III, for example, reduced production of the Panzer III, the Wehrmacht's MBT at the time. Presumably the lines could have switched to Panzer IV production later, but didn't. The Nashorn used a hybrid Pz III/Pz IV chassis; the line could have made Panzer IV instead. Jagdpanzer IV and Sturmpanzer IV production competed directly with Panzer IV output. The situation was the same with Jadgpanther and Panther.


On the other hand, StuG's and TD's were cheaper to produce. Theres a number going around, I can't confirm it, that for every Tiger I produced, Germany could have built 4 Jagdpanzer IV's. I don't want to speculate about the outcoming, but I think that Jagdpanzer IV's would have helped more in the defense of Germany...

quote:

3) Although AG's/TD's were at first glance cheaper than tanks, the problems caused by proliferation of vehicle types (development costs, incompatible spare parts, training of mantenance personnel, subcomponent procurement, multiple production lines, etc.) actually made it more expensive to field a wide variety of AFVs, as compared to a few main types. Had the Wehrmacht concentrated on development and production of fewer (but more effective) AFV types, economies of scale and higher field availability rates might have made up the differences in production.


Second that too, with one little doubt: If the OKW (="our Leader") hadn't allowed such developments as the "Elefant", "Maus" and others, that resources could have been more productive by concentrating on developments on the "main" chassis. I don't know Guderian's thoughts about that though



Tequila -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/11/2004 6:20:53 AM)

Yea there's a lot to be said for keeping your line of AFVs as simple as possible like the USSR did. As the saying goes, "quantity has a quality all its own" and that's quite true of the T34 chassis used for their MBT and TDs. It doesn't have to be the best, just versitle and easy to produce. Hard to compete against 2000 T34s produced every month from Tankograd :) Amazing how long afterwards the T34/85 and SU-100 were still in existence.



Frank W. -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/11/2004 4:57:06 PM)

PZ IV were used by arabs ( syrians ) in the 6 day war still- [;)]



Maciste -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/11/2004 7:46:53 PM)

And the Israeli force used a mixed force of Shermans, Crusaders and even some elderly H-35 french tanks! Though I may be mistaking the 6 days war with some other Arab-Israeli war before...



Hunpecked -> Panzer IV vs Jagdpanzer IV (6/11/2004 8:50:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Losqualo

On the other hand, StuG's and TD's were cheaper to produce.


Well, as I mentioned in my third point above, you don't get the full picture just by comparing unit costs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Losqualo

Theres a number going around, I can't confirm it, that for every Tiger I produced, Germany could have built 4 Jagdpanzer IV's.


I found this on the Achtung Panzer! site: "[Re: StuG] Cost of single Ausf G was 82500RM making it cheaper than both PzKpfw III Ausf M at 103163RM and PzKpfw IV Ausf F2 at 115962RM. It is interesting to see that almost four Ausf Gs could be purchased for the cost of single King Tiger."

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/stug.htm

The StuG/Tiger II comparison strikes me as a kind of apples/oranges thing. Data for the JPz IV/Pz IV would be more relevant, since the latter two were competing for the same chassis. In 1944-45 Germany built approximately 3500 Panzer IV and nearly 2000 JPz IV, plus several hundred other Panzer IV-based vehicles. This raises the question of whether Speer could have come up with 2500 or so extra Panzer IV turrets if given the resources that would otherwise have gone into superstructures and chassis modifications for the variant vehicles. I have no information on this, but it wouldn't surprise me if chassis diversion to TD's had left Germany with surplus Panzer IV turret capacity in 1944.

BTW, the same site mentions that Guderian tried to kill or at least curtail production of the JPz IV, because its chassis was needed for Pz IV production, and because the StuG and the Hetzer (which went into production before the JPz IV) filled the same role.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2