Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
From: Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@c...>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:54:59 +0200
Subject: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
>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
Since the assault guns' main purpose was to destroy infantry strong
(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
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,
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
fixed targets though - ie., the original assault gun mission.
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
Gzg-l mailing list