ORIGINAL: Panama
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
For what its worth, I gave 212 Heavy AT Rifles to a Soviet division and it raised its Anti Armor Strength from 3 to 5, which would outclass the armor rating of all but the later models of German tanks. That might make sense, as the later versions had thicker armor or skirts. Does one AT Rifle in TOAW = one AT Rifle, or a section with multiple rifles?
Looking in the equipment editor and comparing it to small AT guns I'd have to say one AT rifle. It needs to have an AP strenght too. It's zero in the game.
The question isn't really whether it has some value, but whether a value of even 'one' overvalues it -- particularly against soft targets.
There are all kinds of things that are of
some military value -- from the commander's pistol to whether there are plenty of empty bottles, rags, and gasoline around. However, to attempt to represent them may skew things more than if one simply omits them.
Who was it who said 'he who attempts to defend everything defends nothing'? Maybe in the end, if you attempt to represent everything, you represent nothing.
I'd tend to see other factors -- the discipline and training of the troops, the terrain they were in, the discipline and training of the tanks attacking them -- as far more important than precisely which ineffectual infantry AT weapons they had. I'd be very reluctant to plonk 212 AT rifles into a Soviet Division and assume that I was thereby more accurately representing its AT ability.
After all, the Finns simply invented Molotov Cocktails -- and presumably they worked reasonably well against ineptly handled Soviet Armor. An Ethiopian once got the turret of an Italian tankette open and beheaded the gunner. His compatriots then trapped the rest of the platoon by rolling rocks down on them. When the crews panicked and attempted to flee on foot, the Ethiopians chased them down.
Below a certain threshold, it's who is using the weapon, not precisely what the weapon is. If I thought -- for whatever reason -- that the infantry in the scenario I was designing had some AT ability above the average for the period, I'd up them to 'AT-,' not frig around with counting AT rifles. I just don't see the assigned value as having any validity. It'd be like counting stationary stocks to determine formation proficiency.
Twelve 76 mm AT guns imply a certain concrete AT capacity. I don't see 212 AT rifles as conferring anything like the equivalent.
or 
