Del:Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
To both agree and disagree....
Yes AT guns were effective components of almost all of the defensive efforts in European and African combat in WW2. They produced a significant percentage of all tank kills recorded. So why were they phased out?
Answer = mobility & survivability. Towed AT guns, however powerful, were vulnerable to infantry and standard artillery response. As the war progressed, both the Soviets and the Germans, and to some extent the US/UK shifted to Assault guns because of their mobility and survivability. Towed AT weaponry even ended up being thrown away, as with the Sovs at Kursk, simply to slow an attack down a bit -- no transport provided, just shoot until overrun.
Assault guns, tanks, and tank destroyers were subsequently found to be funtionally interchangeable in practice, so why bother to build several types of AFV, just concentrate on a better battle tank.
AT guns weren't bad as guns, just superceded (though never entirely replaced, I'l admit) in practice.
As to the other artillery fans out there, I have yet to see any compelling sources provided for artillery used in an effective anti-tank role during WW2 unless firing over open sights at fairly close range. HE concussion and light-weight shrapnel do not seem likely to damage any but the lightest of AFV's.
Seamus
Bookmarks