Slitherine

Anybody know why this works differently from artillery support?

It's mostly for balance purposes, in the same way that fighter aircraft do not support each other.

Artillery offers support because it is only 'suppression' damage, while AT and Fighter support are high damaging support types.

mrman0123 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 9:50 pm Anybody know why this works differently from artillery support?

Because design reasons.

Get hold of an AT hero and put him in a tank. This completely changes how the AI deals with your armored fist. Hint: it doesn't.

If AT supported AT it would be impossible to crack a good defensive setup.

The real question is: why doesn't artillery support work the same as AT support? This is where logic fails.

Pakfront


Basic Soviet Pakfront doctrine:

A platoon of German tanks enters an area defended by camouflaged Soviet anti-tank artillery. Radio is used to co-ordinate simultaneous fire upon a single vehicle, hopefully resulting in a "catastrophic kill"

yes but then they r all exposed and by the time they reload and manuveur to lock their now individual unit sights on a new rapidly moving target which r now not subject to all firing on one, the remaining tanks will decimate the now exposed AT, providing of course they don't panic and retreat. these tanks would also be backed up by infantry with quad machine guns and mortars, something a new type of game missing infantry unit should have,

that's also what happens when you outrun your recon

Pakfront is a OoBWW2 specialization :

Pakfront doesn't really fit here though, because it is about individual guns from an AT-unit working together. A unit in Panzer Corps (1 or 2) isn't a single gun, it is a full unit of said guns. Two AT-units next to each other would be two seperate entities, a Pakfront would happen inside a unit, not between two seperate units. If anything Pakfront could be something an AT-unit can get through awards, call it coordinated strike or whatever.

I'd say there is no issue with AT not supporting AT while artillery supports artillery. AT is a specialised weapon against tanks, commanders wouldn't see the need to rush an AT-unit to an enemy tank attack against AT-units, because the unit that is getting attacked is already specialised on dealing with such an attack. That's different when it comes to artillery. Artillery is a long-range weapon, it is not supposed to get into a situation where enemy ground-units may reach it. Therefore other artillery nearby might get involved to protect the rather defenseless artillery from a close-range attack.

Greetings!

This rule incongruency bothered me so much last year I stopped playing.
Started playing again in the SCW campaign.

viewtopic.php?f=464&t=98994

Not sure if tooltips were revised.

George_Parr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 7:51 am Pakfront doesn't really fit here though, because it is about individual guns from an AT-unit working together. A unit in Panzer Corps (1 or 2) isn't a single gun, it is a full unit of said guns. Two AT-units next to each other would be two seperate entities, a Pakfront would happen inside a unit, not between two seperate units. If anything Pakfront could be something an AT-unit can get through awards, call it coordinated strike or whatever.

I'd say there is no issue with AT not supporting AT while artillery supports artillery. AT is a specialised weapon against tanks, commanders wouldn't see the need to rush an AT-unit to an enemy tank attack against AT-units, because the unit that is getting attacked is already specialised on dealing with such an attack. That's different when it comes to artillery. Artillery is a long-range weapon, it is not supposed to get into a situation where enemy ground-units may reach it. Therefore other artillery nearby might get involved to protect the rather defenseless artillery from a close-range attack.

This tactic was so effective that the Soviets copied it, often using multiple "Pakfronts" as a complement to minefields, anti-tank ditches and other obstacles to channel enemy tanks on anti-tank guns. The Soviets also developed a variant of this tactic in which all guns fired simultaneously on a particularly large or very well armoured tank. Combined impacts guarantee instant destruction. This technique was particularly effective against Unit Commander Armor (as it caused definite destruction that minimized the chances of command escaping) and against Heavy Armor (such as Tiger I) which would otherwise have required dozens of separate hits to be destroyed.

jeannot le lapin wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:15 pm

George_Parr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 7:51 am Pakfront doesn't really fit here though, because it is about individual guns from an AT-unit working together. A unit in Panzer Corps (1 or 2) isn't a single gun, it is a full unit of said guns. Two AT-units next to each other would be two seperate entities, a Pakfront would happen inside a unit, not between two seperate units. If anything Pakfront could be something an AT-unit can get through awards, call it coordinated strike or whatever.

I'd say there is no issue with AT not supporting AT while artillery supports artillery. AT is a specialised weapon against tanks, commanders wouldn't see the need to rush an AT-unit to an enemy tank attack against AT-units, because the unit that is getting attacked is already specialised on dealing with such an attack. That's different when it comes to artillery. Artillery is a long-range weapon, it is not supposed to get into a situation where enemy ground-units may reach it. Therefore other artillery nearby might get involved to protect the rather defenseless artillery from a close-range attack.

This tactic was so effective that the Soviets copied it, often using multiple "Pakfronts" as a complement to minefields, anti-tank ditches and other obstacles to channel enemy tanks on anti-tank guns. The Soviets also developed a variant of this tactic in which all guns fired simultaneously on a particularly large or very well armoured tank. Combined impacts guarantee instant destruction. This technique was particularly effective against Unit Commander Armor (as it caused definite destruction that minimized the chances of command escaping) and against Heavy Armor (such as Tiger I) which would otherwise have required dozens of separate hits to be destroyed.

Yes, but what does that have to do with what I was saying?

Pakfronts are a tactic used by one unit, having its guns focus on specific targets. It is not something that involves multiple units working together, which is what AT giving support to AT would be.

George_Parr wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:35 pm

jeannot le lapin wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:15 pm

George_Parr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 7:51 am Pakfront doesn't really fit here though, because it is about individual guns from an AT-unit working together. A unit in Panzer Corps (1 or 2) isn't a single gun, it is a full unit of said guns. Two AT-units next to each other would be two seperate entities, a Pakfront would happen inside a unit, not between two seperate units. If anything Pakfront could be something an AT-unit can get through awards, call it coordinated strike or whatever.

I'd say there is no issue with AT not supporting AT while artillery supports artillery. AT is a specialised weapon against tanks, commanders wouldn't see the need to rush an AT-unit to an enemy tank attack against AT-units, because the unit that is getting attacked is already specialised on dealing with such an attack. That's different when it comes to artillery. Artillery is a long-range weapon, it is not supposed to get into a situation where enemy ground-units may reach it. Therefore other artillery nearby might get involved to protect the rather defenseless artillery from a close-range attack.

This tactic was so effective that the Soviets copied it, often using multiple "Pakfronts" as a complement to minefields, anti-tank ditches and other obstacles to channel enemy tanks on anti-tank guns. The Soviets also developed a variant of this tactic in which all guns fired simultaneously on a particularly large or very well armoured tank. Combined impacts guarantee instant destruction. This technique was particularly effective against Unit Commander Armor (as it caused definite destruction that minimized the chances of command escaping) and against Heavy Armor (such as Tiger I) which would otherwise have required dozens of separate hits to be destroyed.

Yes, but what does that have to do with what I was saying?

Pakfronts are a tactic used by one unit, having its guns focus on specific targets. It is not something that involves multiple units working together, which is what AT giving support to AT would be.

It is not my conception of the Pakfront: several anti-tank units can be grouped under the command of a single officer...

Pakfront is a compound of 2 parts: Pak and front. One unit is not enough to build a front, several units are needed to build an effective front.

jeannot le lapin wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:10 pm

George_Parr wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 2:35 pm

jeannot le lapin wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:15 pm
This tactic was so effective that the Soviets copied it, often using multiple "Pakfronts" as a complement to minefields, anti-tank ditches and other obstacles to channel enemy tanks on anti-tank guns. The Soviets also developed a variant of this tactic in which all guns fired simultaneously on a particularly large or very well armoured tank. Combined impacts guarantee instant destruction. This technique was particularly effective against Unit Commander Armor (as it caused definite destruction that minimized the chances of command escaping) and against Heavy Armor (such as Tiger I) which would otherwise have required dozens of separate hits to be destroyed.

Yes, but what does that have to do with what I was saying?

Pakfronts are a tactic used by one unit, having its guns focus on specific targets. It is not something that involves multiple units working together, which is what AT giving support to AT would be.

It is not my conception of the Pakfront: several anti-tank units can be grouped under the command of a single officer...

Pakfront is a compound of 2 parts: Pak and front. One unit is not enough to build a front, several units are needed to build an effective front.

Um, yes, one unit is enough to form a front. The word Front has quite a few different meanings, many of which don't have much to do with a large scale.

In fact, the Pakfronts were created to coordinate the fire inside a unit. Instead of every gun acting on its own, one officer would command up to ten guns and coordinate their fire. The Germans tended to have three companies of AT-guns forming one anti-tank Abteilung, plus one additional company assigned to every infantry regiment, so up to six companies in total for a division. These companies tended to have around 10-12 guns each, depending on the year and structure of the units. This means a Pakfront made use of one company, or sometimes just one or two of its platoons.

Pakfronts are exclusively used inside a unit, never between multiple units, as those units wouldn't be under one command. Panzer Corps generally has units that are at least company size, if not battalion, so Pakfronts definately wouldn't apply to multiple AT-units acting together, as that is way beyond the scale of what a Pakfront offers.

You can even see that in the illustration you posted above. In it you have a platoon of German tanks getting attacked by a group of anti-tank guns. That is what Pakfronts are about, platoon- or company-level coordination.