Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

Adrian1 wrote:

>I never got the point of assault guns.  If a guns main purpose is to
>fire at rapidly moving targets then this is possibly the worst ever
design.

Since the assault guns' main purpose was to destroy infantry strong
points 
(which are fairly unlikely to move at all, much less rapidly), any 
difficulties in engaging rapidly moving targets did not cause any major 
problems for the designs. Against tanks, the assault guns and fixed-gun 
tank destroyers generally preferred to fire from ambush positions (where

you can wait for the target to move into your sights) - and even when
they 
didn't, the enemy tanks lacked effective gun stabilization and therefore

had to stop to return fire.

When effective gun stabilization was introduced, allowing tanks to fire 
accurately on the move, the usefulness of hull-mounted anti-tank guns 
pretty much evaporated. (The S-tank struggled on for several decades,
but 
I'm very grateful that we never had to send one into actual combat.) 
Hull-mounted guns still work well against infantry strong points and
other 
fixed targets though - ie., the original assault gun mission.

Regards,

Oerjan
orjan.ariander1@comhem.se

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l