Using panzerjaegers

[Mangudai]

My question is how to use panzerjaegers (marders, etc) effectively. Someone mentioned a while ago that they lose a lot of accuracy when moving, my testing bears this out.
Here are some possibilities.

1. Sneak and peak like a tank, pop a shot then go back to hiding. Since you have to move, your accuracy goes to hell.

2. Set them in stationary overlooking positions, similar to the way you use AT guns. This way you have an AT gun with large size, low durability, and you waste its mobility.

3. Overwatch a hilltop while your troops advance. Preferably you should use a whole platoon of jaegers for this, that way if a sherman pops up on the hill it gets a chance to become an ace by killing all of your jaegers.

4. Set ambushes to intercept the enemies travel. That way when your opfire fails and you lose the jaeger, at least you have the comfort of knowing that it cost less than a real tank.

Ok, I'm being sarcastic. I have found that they deal with Stuarts reasonably well [8|]. Maybe the lesson is only use them in '42 or earlier. Is anyone here an afficionado, and if so how do you employ them?

[rbrunsman]

Sure they lose accuracy, BUT, they are cheaper (generally) than tanks and they pack as big or bigger punch.

I never use them on overwatch. I leave them in hiding, pop out when they are unlikely to get op fired upon. Blast away then GET BACK into hiding.

They key is to remember this: shot #1 costs you 1 movement point (or MP), shot #2 costs you 1/4 of your maximum MPs, shot #3 costs you another 1/4. After that you don't lose any more MPs so you can continue to shoot without movement penalties. Keep track of how many movement points you're going to have left and get into cover at the end of your turn. It's easy (in theory).

My favorites are Nashorns (highly accurate) and Hellcats (highly accurate AND 46 MPs!). In the early years, that little 47mm German PzJ is really good too. They're the only thing that can take out Matildas. You mix the PzJs in with Stugs. Use your Stugs to draw off enemy Op Fire and then follow up with your thin skinned PzJs.

rb

[Mangudai]

Thanks rbrunsman. Is this the case for all vehicles?

They key is to remember this: shot #1 costs you 1 movement point (or MP), shot #2 costs you 1/4 of your maximum MPs, shot #3 costs you another 1/4. After that you don't lose any more MPs so you can continue to shoot without movement penalties. Keep track of how many movement points you're going to have left and get into cover at the end of your turn. It's easy (in theory).

I do like the hellcats, they seem to shoot well even after they've moved, even at long range. If nashorns can do the same thing, I'll have to try them out.

[Hunpecked]

When playing the Germans I seldom buy Panzerjaegers, but if the scenario provides them I generally use them defensively, as in choice #2 above. True, they're more visible than AT guns, but they're also less vulnerable to artillery and small arms fire. Last month in the third scenario of the Stalingrad Campaign, a couple of well-sited Marder II's knocked out some T-34's that had survived my Panzer IIIL fire.

In the advance they go in after my recon and before my tanks; better something should happen to the cheap jaegers than to my precious Panzers. [:)]

[FNG]

When I use TDs I tend to employ them against vehicles that have already been suppressed. Shoot the hell out of the target with inf squads (fire once, then select another unit to decrease op fire accuracy, fire once, rinse & repeat) then pop-up with the TD, bang, bang, hide again.

Works well until you encounter the unspotted AFV [;)]

[rbrunsman]

ORIGINAL: Mangudai

Thanks rbrunsman. Is this the case for all vehicles?

Yes, it is.

Nashorns shouldn't be moved as much as Hellcats.

[Toivo]

Hey,

I play germans mostly and have found StuG III Ausf G with 48 cal gun to be decent tankdestroyer, especially in 1942 just like it was historically. Main problem is ammo usually. Being multifunctional vechile with several MGs I really like it even in 1944.
Couldn't say I use different tactics for TDs than for tanks, still have to keep 'em from being exposed to flanking fire and avoid driving them on hilltops for target-practise.

Have used Marders, Hetzer and Nashorn/Hornisse less often, Ferdinands/Elephants and Jagdpanthers are ofcourse different story but as they were rare I'd rather not use them.

Regards

[Poopyhead]

Historically, Tank Destroyers (TD)/Panzerjaeger(Pj)/Samokyana Ustanikova (SU) were a logical development. Leg infantry had horse drawn Anti-tank guns (ATG), motorized infantry had their ATG's hooked to their trucks and the mech infantry/armor had their ATG's mounted on a tank chassis so that they could keep pace. During WW II, most tank designs were insufficient and the turrets could not absorb the recoil of a high powered gun. These guns were mounted on an older tank chassis with no turret and in the beginning of the war an open canopy. Due to these factors and others not well reflected in SPWAW, the TD's were defensive in nature (like ATG's). Guderian thought that Panzerjaeger and Sturmgeschuetz were a waste of a panzer chassis.
My usual order of march is recon unit, tanks, tank destroyers, mech infantry, self-propelled artillery and mechanized flak. When you take an objective (VH), some of the infantry dismount and dig in and some of the TD's provide defensive firepower. In the advance, if the tanks get into trouble, the TD's are right there. If you are assigned a defensive mission, you can use TD's, but ATG's are usually cheaper, unless you follow my advise from the "Now for something completely different" thread, and choose never to defend, but always to attack.

[Toivo]

I'm pretty much with Guderian there, early war TDs are not for my taste either. Marder II/III got decent gun but can be only used in defensive position - either in delay/defend or to protect flanks/rear of armored spearhead.

What are pros and cons with TDs and ATGs?

TD can relocate fast and still shoot after moving although accuracy will suffer.
TD is indeed just ATG mounted on panzer chassis which means it can go off the sky in one direct hit.
TDs are more expensive than ATGs.

ATGs can live pretty well if deployed as platoon where all guns cover each other.
In early war, you can get 88 flak act as ATG - no TD got such gun mounted at this period.

So my choise would be StuG III since 1942 to 1944 as it can act both as infantry support unit and TD. But if you don't watch your ammo you will be empty in the middle of advance[:(]

One serious problem with TDs and with StuG aswell is ofcourse their turret - once they get immobilized you better bail out.

[Poopyhead]

Actually, Guderian wanted to stop production of the Stug's altogether, but the artillery branch of the Wehrmacht wouldn't hear it. Stug's were the only way for an artilleryman to earn the Knight's Cross.

[Losqualo]

Don't forget that in Germany there were two differnt classes of TD's: Panzerjäger and Jagdpanzer.

Panzerjäger were pretty much what you mentioned (PzJg I, Marder, Nashorn, ...) with all the pro's and con's.

Jagdpanzer on the other side were a whole new class with vehicles like the Jagdtiger, Jagdpanther, Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV and such. Because of their heavy armor they had a different roll: to ambush and then to counterattack. Pretty much like the StuG, but better suited for anti tank warfare.

The funny thing is that Germany built defensive TD's while attacking, and offensive TD's while being more and more in defense...

[Toivo]

Well I definately wouldn't be with Guderian on this one. StuG's had pretty high ratio of kills in WW2 and best panzer ace, Michael Wittman got his first victory with it too, didn't he?
Works for mechanizm of blitzkrieg pretty well in game atleast.

As for Pzjäger and Jagdpanzer - difference was obvious but didn't think about they were named differently, that's something new.

And still I'd say any TD suits better for defense. I just ran few tests with 6 Ferdinands delaying vs 24 and 48 T-34's - they didn't even scratch paint of these elephants because on 800 meters every shot was direct hit. But I recall from earlier try at Prokhorovka how they became pretty useless while advancing because of their weight (got stuck on soft ground), lack of MG and fact that accuracy of TD's suffers while moving.

This goes ofcourse for H2H, game.

[Poopyhead]

Guderian knew that you don't win a war with great defensive weapons. The Jagdpanther was the best of this branch of the AFV tree. But once tanks were capable of defending themselves, the evolution of these vehicles came to an end.

[Belisarius]

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

Actually, Guderian wanted to stop production of the Stug's altogether, but the artillery branch of the Wehrmacht wouldn't hear it. Stug's were the only way for an artilleryman to earn the Knight's Cross.

Yes, and no. He wanted to stop the StuG production when they switched to the PzIV chassi. For every StuG produced, it meant one PzIV less, and in all honesty the PzIV would be a better choice. I don't think he was too upset about the PzIII StuGs, except that they also took resources from PzIV production.

Question: Weren't the PaK crews subordinated the artillery, like the StuG crews?

[Mangudai]

ORIGINAL: Mangudai

Thanks rbrunsman. Is this the case for all vehicles?

Yes, it is.

Infantry too?

[Frank W.]

>>>>>>>>Yes, and no. He wanted to stop the StuG production when they switched to the PzIV chassi. For every StuG produced, it meant one PzIV less, and in all honesty the PzIV would be a better choice. I don't think he was too upset about the PzIII StuGs, except that they also took resources from PzIV production.

mhh.. perhaps he only was upset that he hadn´t control over STUGS as they belonged to the artillery not to the armored branch.

and guderian was generalinspekteur ( english ? ) of the armored forces. he wanted to control the armor of the artillery, too but was refused.

[Frank W.]

best tank killers: M10,M18,M36 and SU 85.

german ones had mostly some drawbacks made them not as good as the
above. exept that the M series was open topped they were good.

[Poopyhead]

I'll thumb through Guderian's autobiography (Panzer Leader) again tonight, but the first time I read it, I kind of got the opinion that he thought these things were abortions. Things that we take for granted today, that a tank should have a radio, that the tank commander should be in the turret, etc. were innovations that Guderian helped make. Perhaps he was a bit too protective of his panzers. You have to realize that assault guns and tank destroyers were cheaper and easier to make and that some Generals wanted Hitler to switch all panzer production to Stugs and Jagdpanzers. This is perhaps why Guderian was so adamant in his opinions.

[Losqualo]

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

Yes, and no. He wanted to stop the StuG production when they switched to the PzIV chassi. For every StuG produced, it meant one PzIV less, and in all honesty the PzIV would be a better choice. I don't think he was too upset about the PzIII StuGs, except that they also took resources from PzIV production.

And as we know today, he might have been wrong, by looking only at the production. For the material and work that went into the production of the superstructure and turret of one Panzer IV you could have built two superstructures for a StuG IV. But don't ask me where to get the second hull. [;)]

[Losqualo]

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

best tank killers: M10,M18,M36 and SU 85.

german ones had mostly some drawbacks made them not as good as the
above. exept that the M series was open topped they were good.

Didn't they have a rotating turret (M-Series)?
So the question for me is (I wanted to ask that for a long time) what qualifies them as TD's (In the German sense = turretless) apart from naming them TD's? Wouldn't you count them as tanks?