What are tank destroyers for?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • What are tank destroyers for?

      Does anyone actually use tank destroyers? They anti-armor capability seems nice, but they are clearly to vulnerable to infantry to be used for attack right? And other then their armor stats, they just seem like inferior medium tanks. So then why build them?

      Is there anyone out there who has used tank destroyers in a successful strategy? What do they do that justifies their research cost?

      (slightly related question, if you you tank destroyers, why do you use them instead of the much cheaper anti-tank units)?

    • Unlike tanks, tank destroyers keep their full hit points even in urban areas. :thumbup:

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
      ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
      .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D

    • Restrisiko wrote:

      Unlike tanks, tank destroyers keep their full hit points even in urban areas.
      Yes, they maintain their full 30 hit points in cities. However, like almost all other armored units, tank destroyers do lose 50% of their strength points in urban areas. So, they are half as strong in cities, but still as difficult and time-consuming to kill.

      As to the original question -- what is the value of tank destroyers? -- that is best answered by saying they are primarily a defensive unit, best used in a defensive war, when your opponent is using predominantly armored units. Under those circumstances, TDs are quite effective, especially when combined with fortifications and mixed with other unit types for support.

    • I use tank destroyers sometimes. It does depend on my enemy and what they build.

      I use a lot of artillery and tank destroyers are good to bulk up an artillery group. Especially good if the enemy tries to rush my artillery groups with tanks.

      Tank destroyers take oil instead of food like an anti tank, so their use depends on the oil and food balance of the country.

      That combination was a key to victory on the arms race map, with everyone starting with so many tanks the artillery and tank destroyers combo was both cheap and fast to build, and quite effective. I didn't mind the slower speeded the TD's as the arms race was a speed event.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<

    • I must admit I fail to see the use of TDs, especially in contrast with AT cannons.

      Both are centered on defensive use rather than offense.
      They have similar speed.
      The AT cannon is significantly cheaper and faster to produce and does not suffer a penalty in cities.

      I have a hard time seeing any justification in the stats for a supposed preference of TDs over ATCs.


      My firm conviction is that Bytro should reform the TD to adhere more to either of the 2 predominant TD doctrines at the time of WW2 :
      - Either a lightly armored, fast tank killer : in-game that would mean a unit similar to a Light Tank, maybe slightly faster. This is the concept American TDs historically adhered to (Locust ; Wolverine ; etc.).

      - Or a heavily armored, slow anti-tank unit : a unit more akin to a Medium or even Heavy Tank, with great AT capabilities but significantly reduced mobility.
      The German (and to some extent Soviet) TD doctrines predominantly went along those lines, especially in the later half of the war (Jagdpanther, Panzerjäger, Jagdtiger ; and SU and ISU models on the Soviet side).

      Currently the way TDs work in CoW, they are a mix of both doctrines, but take only the negative aspects of both : they're painfully slow on the one hand, but not particularly strong on the other hand (or rather, not strong enough that that would justify their extremely slow speed).
      Bytro should adjust them to be either or, not both.


      My opinion ? The TD should be remade into Option 1, the light and quick one. We already have a slow AT unit, and that's the cannon. Adding a faster alternative to the cannon would make it more varied and would lend some actual true use to the TD.

    • VIRVCOBRV wrote:

      I must admit I fail to see the use of TDs, especially in contrast with AT cannons.

      ...
      - Or a heavily armored, slow anti-tank unit : a unit more akin to a Medium or even Heavy Tank, with great AT capabilities but significantly reduced mobility.
      The German (and to some extent Soviet) TD doctrines predominantly went along those lines, especially in the later half of the war (Jagdpanther, Panzerjäger, Jagdtiger ; and SU and ISU models on the Soviet side).
      Almost all WWII tank destroyers were lighter and faster than tanks.

      The Marder III and Jagdpanzer 38 (the two German tank destroyers of the early war) were faster than the Panzer IV, and all prior German tanks. The Jagdpanther was based on the Panther chassis, just with a bigger gun and lighter armor. Its speed was comparable. The Jagdtiger was the only German Tank Destroyer slower than most tanks, and only 80 were made.

      The Russian SU85 and SU100 were both faster than the T34.

    • Stop blaming "slow" speed of units in CoW: Speed of units in CoW reflects not only speed itself, but a time for preparations for battles, reinforcments, maneuvers in field, digging new fire spots. Or did i said digging new firespots?

      How quick it were possible to dig battle position for 100 TD's? For 1000 TD's?
      True combat speed of TD is in average war cases slower then of tanks.

    • Last Warrior wrote:

      Stop blaming "slow" speed of units in CoW: Speed of units in CoW reflects not only speed itself, but a time for preparations for battles, reinforcments, maneuvers in field, digging new fire spots. Or did i said digging new firespots?

      How quick it were possible to dig battle position for 100 TD's? For 1000 TD's?
      True combat speed of TD is in average war cases slower then of tanks.
      1) That's not true, and if it were, TDs never would have been a thing. The entire reason they existed was that they were cheaper and faster than tanks. The Russians, Americans, and British all explicitly developed TDs to adapt to the Blitzkrieg-style attacks Germany launched at the beginning of the war, which they expected to face throughout.
      2) Even if this were true (which again, it isn't), TDs would at least be able to self-deploy faster than tanks, perhaps over friendly terrain.
      3) Actual AT guns require substantial time for emplacement, and they suffer no similar penalty.

    • Honestly, what is the use of a TD because at the begening of the game I use light tanks then medium tanks & heavy tanks but I hardly ever use them iv only ever used 2 TD 1 want even in use it just capture a province and stayed their for the whole round while the other 1 im currently using is only fighting to the minimum

      (my TD is going to be destroyed probably because it is engaged with a infantry unit)

      {I think the bytro team should add the ability to retreat while engaged in combat because then if it turns out ur wrong and its a stronger enemy then your unit is done for you can only send reinforcments which will probably not arive in time.}

    • conflictofnations wrote:

      Honestly, what is the use of a TD because at the begening of the game I use light tanks then medium tanks & heavy tanks but I hardly ever use them iv only ever used 2 TD 1 want even in use it just capture a province and stayed their for the whole round while the other 1 im currently using is only fighting to the minimum

      (my TD is going to be destroyed probably because it is engaged with a infantry unit)

      {I think the bytro team should add the ability to retreat while engaged in combat because then if it turns out ur wrong and its a stronger enemy then your unit is done for you can only send reinforcments which will probably not arive in time.}
      Because you and most players, they make LT, MT and HT during the game. Because of that I will make TD instead. I will put my TD in a forest where they are stealth and deal an additional 50% damage. Perfect to ambush your tanks, the day that happens, you'll discover what the use is of TD :thumbsup: because your tanks will get wrecked. Just imagine I also make fortifications in that forest. It will be pretty bad for you'll get the picture. Especially when my attack bombers will patrol overhead and my SP artillery will move in to ranged attack.



      Most players use a lot of tanks and it makes them very predictable. Good players will always have anti tank, tank destroyers, attack bombers and SP artillery and they will destroy you easily. There are no bad units, only a lack of imagination :thumbup:

      If you meet a superior force you should try to retreat and regroup before you are locked in battle. As you move at 100% and your enemy only at 50%, you should be able to do that. Once you are locked in combat it's too late. The history of warfare shows that an organized retreat during battle is very rare. In most cases the soldiers panic and run away from the battle. When the enemy turns his back to the enemy and runs away that's when the real slaughter starts.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    • I started using TD extensively recently. In the late game I use SPRA and SPA paired for brutal efficiency. But to escort them in the event they see combat, I pair armored cars and tank destroyers; throw in a SPAA or two and it makes a complete stack. I used to get tanks, but I found myself never attacking with them, so TD makes sense. Plus from an upgrade perspective it’s even better. For those of you that use LT, MT, and HT you have to research each one and build them but you can’t upgrade a LT into a MT. With TD, I only need to research LT then TD and can keep working in TD upgrades after that.

      Like BMFox, I do enjoy pairing them with militias. I rarely even go for a total surprise more like pairing them with a AA or something. When I’m your opponent and something looks too good to be true it probably is…