Re: [DS] Why tank destroyers?

At 4:31 PM -0400 9/6/01, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
>
>The archer was not as great as you might think, because it could not
fire
>while moving, and it took some time to transit from moving to firing. 
The
>problem was that with the limited amount of space, the breechblock
recoiled
>through the driver's position (will have to check this, but I am
certain
>about the "no move and fire" issue).

Probably really means Shoot then Move. Since they were intended to be 
used in the defense (local or area) they worked well. Think of them 
as a nice heavy 17 pounder AT gun on tracks and partially under 
armour with plenty of ammo.

In the Attack, the infantry attack with their armoured support and 
once they've advanced a certain point, you bring up the AT guns. If 
they are towed great, if they are on tracks, all the better as 
they'll have better cross country mobility and won't be confined to 
roads and fairly level ground like many wheeled vehicles would be.

In the defense, you'd be placing them for ideal blocking and ambush 
positions if you have time and they'd all take a shot or two at a 
target them move out of that firing position to the next fall back. 
You plan on covered escape routes (wadi's, dry gulleys, behind 
hills/woods/etc) from those fighting positions the next.

--
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com  I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -