Originally posted by Rhodan:
Thank you very much for what appears to be a very well worked out answer Mindspy 
A few questions though; ( and although I realize that intially these questions may seem a bit more historically minded then game minded, I do hope to use this information in some scenarios in the nearby future)
1. Reading on both answers you so kindly provided me I can't help but get the feeling that both concepts shared many similarities, most of all the infantry support function in softening up prepared positions ( both seem to share their, intial, dependence on HE )..if that is the case..then why two different concepts? Or did the TD and the AG finally merged into one common assault support weapon?
2. With respect to the doctrine during offensive operations...would I be correct to assume then that the moment a breach had been created in enemy lines the cavalry/armour would exploid that gap, storm through to either 'gain miles' behind enemy lines, with minimal support units, or to cause mayhem directly behind enemy lines, where as the assault guns stayed behind with the infantry to support them in the continuation of the attack? To wrap the remnants of the enemy lines?
Of course my thanks goes as well to the gents who so kindly provided me with titles of various books to read upon.
Rho
MINDSPY
Now before we go on much further I would recommend the read ... (KG Erwin).
So that after the read we can have some more questions on how what where and we could probably start again with the postings.
I know that the topic is complicated as there are political reasons for non-effective tanks in all the armies (principal players) as well as tactical considerations and of course the internal politics of the armies in question so certainly a posting will not do justice to the topic, particularly when certain ideas are not yet settled in the mind.
So I will take my time read up some more then return with more recent insights to clarify the mix somewhat of not only mutually contradictory circumstances but policies and tactics and organization as well.
Now to answer as best I can your question (1) (2).
The use of the words Assault gun and Tank Destroyer is fraught with difficulties.
Like any history it matters greatly who wrote what you are reading.
The specialist? The historian? the joe blow soldier or commander from the period.
Do I use German ranks or their so-called euquivalent US Army ranks or the Brit's and so on ...
The use of the words Assault gun and Tank Destroyers should not be used inflexibly or to denote the specific use of a weapon or to even state it's type. "Many quotes on why this is -from hiding units in formations to just simply needing to present a picture for higher echelons regardless of whether or not this is an accurate description of the weapon type-yes lying for the bigger picture-at their own detriment"
Such it is on the subject of these weapons.
They are referred to as both and not, yet, the same models are often the subject of the discussion.
So let's do a better job then the written record and just refer to function then.
Hull mounted AFV's:
They are used with supporting infantry/to support infantry much like the heavier tanks because of their slow rates of fire.
This is more for their own protection and the sheer size of the Soviet Army then for tactical reasons.
They can be very easily overwhelmed.
The hull-mounted guntype is not the only assault gun possible.
In times like this it is simpler to go by the german word for the MKiv anti-infantry type and the STG 105 mm or 75 HE type!
Still in English the confusion reigns.
Mopping up.
The german army does not have an oversupply of STG's or other weapons on a chasis. In fact most of the mopping up is accomplished with infantry and artillery in support plus the less capable/less experienced air units that can often be found in aiding the mopping up situation.
It is however important to not get caught up in the use of formations since availability can result in tactics and uses that are not the norm but in reading a topic these differing instances appear to hold much merit. <<Having the tapes is more important then the reason for such tape making procedures. So "information" - we will have to work and re-work you until a predictable pattern emerges.>>
On the offense.
The preferred method for the German Blitzkrieg is to use motorized-mechanized-and
armoured units in the ASSAULT.
Infantry do not play a major role in an offensive for the Germans. To achieve a breakthrough the Germans use the wheeled units almost exclusively this is not just doctrine it is the only plans held up to serious scrutiny by the German higher command! Herr Adolf included.
(Physics alone guarrantee's that leg units should only follow the attack!)
Now in game terms or in the historical--
Armoured units are typically slow, it is in fact the motorized or (mounted-halftrack-mechanized) units that are primarily infantry that you use to get the major exploitation ranges -- the lightly armoured units! I am not saying that you let the trucks in convoy formation lead-the exact opposite.
As well since armoured units eat up gas in prodigious amounts there is a further limit in how far they can exploit -- to boot when in laager for resupply, eating and other things such as rest, they were vulnerable to the foot units hence the need for each formation type to be in close support of one another.
This resulted in the rarity of purely armoured units in the German Army!
This lesson did not need to be learned much by the astute - however they are not the single embodiment of any army so many errors can be found time and again in the deployemnt of pure tank or assault gun type units and their failures.
So to prepare for a German offensive.
Round up all the available tanks in the corps
similarly for all SP arty and other gun types.
Scrounge for all available half-tracks and trucks for the mounted infantry.
Assign air units to forward bases so multiple daily sorties are possible.
Assign air units to attack formations and targets in advance of the main armoured and mounted forces.
Assign dug-in Corps arty to the inital barrages!
These things must all be done in unison to depict a typical German Blitzkrieg.
Leave out anything and you do not have the clear operations picture! (or we are studying a less capable commander's organization of forces).
INFANTRY::On the Assault: it is not the preferred use of a formation for the Germans!
They are slow - too vulnerable - they will not gain the 450 mile plus penetrations expected for a Blitz type operation.
Yet the main target type for all offensive operations will decide the main shell type and simply put HE is number one.
For all AFV types HE is number one.
Certainly tanks will be met. But in all cases it is the need to defend against the infantry that is paramount since AP does not carry the punch required.
So as time goes on and the troops encounter the greater sized formations of Soviets tanks of all types.
The AFV's with AP are sorely missed.
Within the Infantry army the terms of tank destroyers carry the meaning -- I won't have to close assault a tank.
But the types used vary greatly.
thin skinned HE types and not.
TD or AG. These new titles are both proper and insignificant. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HE heavy caliber gun or light: to Long bore AP type guns with HE still possible.
For the germans no new supply of specialist anti-tank shells will be delivered to units only the standard AP types flow hence what is the difference between them then if they still have the same ammo type and ...
(However corps controlled supplies of such rare AP special rounds can often be shipped to a unit that is expected to lead or defend against an enemies massed armour.-this is by high command control.)
Going back to the TD vs AG problem.
Now the Allies do not have a specialist tank hunting armoured unit on DDay nor will they for quite some time.
On the other hand they will not face German armour in the numbers of the Eastern front so that in itself excludes the formation of these so-called TD units being in the majority! However they are needed and many political reasons are given for the way in which this subject was waffled on by all the Armies!
Late in the war we start to hear of TD units.
Blah blah
The subject is filled with contradictory information but fortunately it isn't until you discuss the Allies late in the war and see the difference in ammo supply for the favoured anti-tank unit (hull-mounted gun or not) in all types of shells that the picture starts to take shape.
Tank Destroyer units are better supplied in tank destroying ammunition then the majority of regular units (they are purpose built and assigned-to blunt the enemies armoured units in an advance or delay). They are usually commanded from Corps!
That is about the best that we can do.
It is a result of the AFV's fulfilling both missions - anti-infantry and anti-tank that -
we have the conundrum of what are we talking about.
With this comes the problem of what to call them exactly well before the historical designations catch up.
And what language to use while doing so!
MIDNSPY
Most assault guns have some anti-tank ability but their main use was to soften up prepared positions, dug-in infantry, etc.
