Yes. That IS different than all enemy's indirect fire basically destroying itself.
It is different but it is very difficult to pull. |
I read what you said. It is not correct
No one used the word spearhead except you
Correct. This has nothing to do with the discussion
Read more carefully. No one said it was required, I said it made easier. It makes it MUCH easier
It literally doesn't. What you mean to say is that SOME assault guns were a branch of artillery
Context matters
The Germans come up with the dogma of the assault gun or "Sturmgeschütz" (in German) and they had stugs serve in artillery units.
Here is also the Wikipedia article:
"An assault gun is a form of self-propelled artillery[1] which uses an infantry support gun mounted on a motorized chassis, normally an armored fighting vehicle.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_gun
Now do actually have a point?
|
I can't blob them and they require micro to be effective therefore they are bad.
Since you seem to be honest about and seem to need tips on how to use units I suggest you visit the ask the strategist section of the forum |
There's a difference between needing to combine multiple abilities and one doing it all. That's the issue. Set and forget is bad
You mean like calling a stock reckon plane and obliterating a Lefh with TOT? |
They absolutely operated with infantry, you're way off on this one.
Read more carefully I did not say they did not operate with infatry, what I have said it that they did not spearhead attacks
Support units can still move with infantry, and that's exactly what assault guns did
A mortar will also move with infatry but it would also not spearhead an attack.
They could be used for long range support fire, but that wasn't their only role at all. Or even their main one. They were supposed to be near infantry to make coordinating their their direct fire support easier
An assault gun does not have to be in shouting distance of infatry to provide support that is why they had telescopic sights and radios.
The fact the assault guns where branch of artillery says it all. |
You are confusing vehicle use.
No I am not.
Assault guns were used to give INFANTRY mobile howitzers and bunker busters. This is a very different role than "tanks". In the Assault gun role, the vehicle moves up with the infantry to blow up bunkers and clear soft targets in a direct fire role. But this is different than other forms of self propelled artillery such as the priest, hummel and sexton which were almost exclusively indirect fire units.
Historically, the concept of assault guns was very similar to that of the infantry tank, as both were combat vehicles intended to accompany infantry formations into battle.
The concept might be similar they implementation was different Assault guns did not move in like infatry tanks the fired from a distance with both direct and indirect fire. In addition the majority stugs server in "Sturmartillerie" which was a branch of artillery and not armor.
The assault was done by infatry with support fire and not by assault gun supported by infatry.
Tanks were used as a mobile and independent force not meant to operate with foot infantry. You are correct when you say that assault guns pressed into the tank role were not very effective at this, but you do not seem to understand the actual role of assault guns.
I know it seems intuitive that assault guns would fire from a long distance, but the reality is that operationally they were used in close support with infantry particularly when on the offensive.
Please read up on the actual operational use of the early stug variants and the soviet assault guns like the isu and su76 instead of relying on your intuition.
I suggest you do the same. The assault gun did not operate with infantry like infatry tank did, it supported infatry.
As a light assault gun, the SU-76M was well-regarded by Soviet infantrymen (in contrast with their own crews). It had more powerful weapons than any previous light tank for close support and communication between infantry and the SU-76M crew was simple due to the open crew compartment.
The important thing to take away is that it was used for CLOSE support, and mouth to mouth communication was used with infantry.
The Su-76 was used for both direct an direct fire support, especially since its gun could use high angle of fire.
Assault guns where not breakthrough vehicles so they did not attack with infatry the provided support fire direct or indirect.
Point is that "assault guns" did not spearheaded "assault" the supported the and thus having speed bonus while near infatry does not really make sense. |
I think what he means is that LeFH is a much safer choice and can be chosen early on because with it, you have an answer to any sort of indirect, with minimal input, while the ally commanders have to specifically wait to see if there is a LeFH on the field to get an offmap. Besides, LeFH is in strong commanders, which further amplifies it's usage.
Lefh is no way safer choice than Priest, Sexton, Calliope actually both SPG commanders can kill with off map or with barrage once it location is known. |
Do you know how much backlash you would get from whereaboos if you did that? Besides, E8 would still be useless. Even with 50 range. Well, not as useless. It's main role is to brawl mediums, however, having lower armour than OKW P4 and mediocre penetration, combined with slightly above average HP and below average AI cannon, 50 range would do nothing. Only real tank it would counter then would be OST P4. Unless armour or HP or AI or a combination of those is buffed, E8 will never see the light of day in any sort of competitive play (penetration values are fine as it is supposed to be a closer range tank).
Think about it, what would 50 range achieve on 200/165/155 penetration values? OST P4 has 180 armour, so that's about 85% to penetrate, which leaves quite a large margin for RNG. 15% ain't much but it ain't neglectable. OKW P4 has 234 armour, which is about 65% chance to penetrate, something I would not toy around with and leave it to RNG gods. Combined with 6-6.6s reload, there is much left to be desired.
Summa summarum, 50 range buff on E8 would be pointless and would further reduce the role it has. Why give it slightly above average armour compared to OST tanks and slightly above average HP compared to all stock mediums if you plan on using it long range only? To what? Have a chance at penetrating mediums?
Not gonna comment if E8 would go against a panther. Only a pair of E8s can contest with Panther
Easy8 does not have mediocre penetration is has superior penetration to medium tanks.
Easy8 beats both PzIV and perform according to its price. |
Yes it does, however it doesnt show cost or popcap wich is higher then about half of the units of its type. Also that its the only doctrinal one of its type.
It cant one shot full hp squads as claimed. Dont fix what aint broken.
I am simply pointing that the performance is not bad as you post seemed to indicate. |
Thanks for the info, but I still think they should stay as they are, and maybe we could add other infiltration variant of JLI in this commander to replac Artillery Flares, but it will require CP2 instead of CP1.
similar to what Smartie suggest, but without taking units from Ostheer.
Glad that I could help |
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
