Towed AT guns

[gokkel]

I was wondering if anyone has made good experiences in the campaign with the towed AT guns, as compared to self propelled AT units.

Personally I feel they are generally not too attractive for the following reasons:

-While they are more mobile than in PC 1, they still have relatively low mobility if you want to use them to move and shoot in the same turn - they can only attack after moving just two tiles as compared to 4-5 tiles of AT vehicles.
-They are compareable in cost to AT vehicles (a 5 cm Pak 38 with horse transport costs 10 more than a self-propelled 5 cm Pak 38(Sf))
-They have lower ground defense than AT vehicles; they are soft targets, but many tanks in my campaign so far (currently at Kharkov 42) have similar or even higher soft attack than hard attack values. They are also more vulnerable to most enemy artillery, and of course infantry.

The only niche situations I can think of where they could be very useful:

-Attacking into a hard target covered by heavy artillery only providing AT, but no soft support (not sure how common this scenario is)
-Attacking enemy hard target AT vehicles (seems good, though it overlaps with Tactical Bombers in that role)

[janscas]

Basically early war towed AT are better.

Late war self propelled AT units perform better + the war becomes more and more mobile.

[dalfrede]

Towed AT are defensive weapons.
Late war towed AT is cheaper than SPAT, you can save slots with towed, and place more in the scenario.
In the historical path they are useful, in fictional not as much.

[Kolaris]

I feel that they're a bit too expensive, and the initiative penalty for moving is particularly frustrating on them. They have a very limited range where they can engage offensively, but when something falls into their web you still can't attack it without casualties most of the time.

[OldFocker]

I only use them for entrenched defence. In attack SP guns are superior and can keep up!