Massing Marders

[Xipe66]

I have a question - how was the Marder fielded historically? Piecemeal or én masse?

I was playing around with the scenario builder today and was trying out the Pzkpfw. III M (50 mm L/60) against various 1943 russian armour. Accidentally I got one Marder in one of the battles, and predictably it died the second someone gave it a dirty look from across the battlefield.

So, never having held Marders in high esteem I was about to continue to believe that the Marder sucks, when I noticed you get NINE Marders for the same price as four Pzkpfw. III M. NINE.

So I removed my III's and fielded the Marders - the firepower from nine 75 mm L/48 is amazing. It wasn't even close - where I had to use the III's with care against the T-34's and IS-2's with the Marders it didn't matter that they had worse armour - the numerical advantage was overwhelming.

Russian numbers with german weapons. Right on.

So, anyone else use Marders like this? Would it be considered cheesy to do in online play? Or am I missing a piece of the puzzle, would they be hard to get the same effect out of them against a human player?

I'm guessing they would work best in defence and using the number of guns to seal off parts of the battlefield and effectively neutering the opponent armour (if they show their face they die), but I'm sure a good player could work miracles with them on the offence aswell.

(Edited for wrong panzer-modell)

[ April 09, 2005, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]

[Sergei]

That's right, they aren't much good on attack, and you have to keep them away from enemy artillery... so once they reveal themselves, you should change positions. Nothing cheesy about them, no sire! Au contraire...

[Cannon-fodder]

Well, apart from their obvious shortcomings in the duelling department (These guys can be killed by armored cars, IIRC) they pack a pretty awsome punch. Best used hull down at range (well like a tank there really) and in large numbers so you get the odds on killing anything that sneaks into view. A bit crap on the offense though, in my opinion, since they leave no room for mistake - in a Pzkpfw. III N you can often take the first hit of an ambush from infantry, light guns etc. In a Marder you don't get that chance.

So keyhole away, or use them to block off key areas to enemy armour.

Just my two cents anyway

[MikeyD]

The CM games are often criticized for being too aggressive in gameplay. Wiping out an entire company in 10 minutes to secure a tiny hamlet, that kinda stuff. It's no doubt less the game's fault than the players themselves. A Marder should driven to a nice secure hull-down location and left waiting for the enemy to come to you. 3-4 shots and you back away. If the enemy doesn't show up you live to fight another day. A 'normal' CM player would press for the 5th and 6th shot, or try to immmediately redeploy and reengage. and we all know what happens then!

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Xipe66:

I have a question - how was the Marder fielded historically? Piecemeal or én masse?

It looks to me as if the tactics you have discovered independently are a good match for what was done historically.

I quote from Chamberlain & Ellis' "Panzerjäger" (Wehrmacht Illustrated no. 2, Almark Publishing, London, 1971):

"Tactically the basic unit for Panzerjäger deployment was the company which was subdivided into platoons. Due to their vulnerability it was usual to protect the flanks or rear of a Panzerjäger company with infantry, tanks, or towed anti-tank guns. On the offensive Panzerjägers were used to follow up an attack rather than lead and they protected against breakthroughs by enemy tanks or picked off retreating stragglers. Platoons or companies usually fired en masse for maximum effect directed by radio by the company commander, individual platoons engaging different targets as necessary. On the defensive, Panzerjäger were kept concealed (but not dug in) as much as possible, and were held as a mobile reserve to guard against breakthroughs by enemy tanks."

All the best,

John.

[Joachim]

Ahh... Marders... they die quickly. But it is so rewarding to see them stop an AI assault. II remember several scens where I got them vs the AI. One of my last CMAK PBEMs I had a plt of them. Not much kills for them - towed ATGs had better stopping power vs a frontal attack as they were more stealthy. But they made the difference in the advance on my enemy's right flank consisting of Lees and priests. My PzIIIs (late/long) wouldn't have achieved that.

As said: Very fragile - but very rewarding when you master them.

Try that scenario with the Nashorns from the CD: Hornet's Nest. Lots of discussions on that one. Several good tips for using Nashorns - which are not that different from Marders.

As John wrote, massing them ain't gamey. 9 of them is pretty much a company that saw some battle.

There are several variants - faster ones, those with MGs, without MGs, more or less ammo. Those with 50mm frontal armor are not much worse than PzIVs in duelling - both will suffer losses when you don't have odds. But those 50mm Marders are not cheap when IS2 are available. And vs 122mm it doesn't matter if you have 20 or 50mm.

In 1943 you can use a plt of StuGs and a plt of Marders. The StuGs are there to draw fire, the Marders are a bit back protecting vs flanking runs and doing some long range killing while the StuGs receive all the incoming - when timed correctly.

Of course that won't work vs 122mm.

If you have Marders and your opponent has 122mm - make sure he can't area fire at you. While area fire with 122mm might even kill/disable a Tiger, it is much more dangerous vs open topped or weakly armored vehicles. Goind turret down after you shot will not be enough - redeploy, do not move straight back from your firing positions, make a turn once out of sight. And make sure there ain't another ridge or 2 story house behind you.

Gruß

Joachim

BTW: PzIIIn has 75L24. You mean IIIm?

[Xipe66]

Thanks all for your input and info - guess I'll explore some pzjäger-tactics a bit now then.

And yes, I probably meant the M (the long-barrelled 50mm whichever that is in 1943, it seemed empirically more potent than the short-nosed 75mm (the N?)).

[Kingfish]

Keep in mind that the real life Marder didn't have to deal with an opponent that benefitted from borg spotting. The CM T34/76s are far more responsive to a threat than the one in real life were.

[JasonC]

It wasn't particular to Pz Jgrs. The standard tactical force of armor for the Germans throughout the war was the company - as a minimum. (Sometimes it was a regiment - as a maximum - in the same spot on the map). In fact, the Pz Jgrs and StuGs were more likely to be found as a separate platoon than the turreted tanks were.

Read the tactical AARs, and it is always "infantry then probed at heresabout supported by 10-15 tanks". 1s and 2s are a CM scale distortion, and even full platoons of turreted tanks in CM give a poor sense of the power and resilience of armor as it was actually used.

The other side of it is they were far less willing to lose all their armor in a single engagement, than we are. They sent a company, but if they lost a few tanks they would stop as often as not, and look for another way. They were much more useful massed like this, but they were also much more valuable than we typically treat them as.

Occasionally you get blow out engagements where a whole larger force (battalion or more) is destroyed in an afternoon, particularly with less experienced forces who don't know combined arms tactics yet. But these are operation-killing disasters, not acceptable prices for single villages or hills.

[Xipe66]

As a paranthesis; I looked at the numbers you can get in 1944, which is 18 Marder III's for 5 Panthers - probably not a given deal though as the Panther is quite resilient (maybe it also has better optics?).

However, you could also chose to go with 9 Jagdpanzer IV instead of those Panthers, which IMO is a good trade if you want numerical advantage and decent armour. In an ACW-kind of fight (just a plain field with the tanks opposing eachother), the Jagdpanzers perform just as well as Panthers against the T-34's of the period (and you get as many as the russian player gets T-34's).

If the russian goes for 122mm weapons in anticipation of Tigers, you will have a serious numerical advantage with your Jadgpanzers. EDIT: Strike that, the SU-122 is dirt cheap in 1944 - but its armour is an eggshell and the rate of fire is really lousy. Also its optics seem to not be the best. As long as you trade shots 1-for-1 you should be fine as you'll hit more often and have higher ROF.

I guess I'm repeating what most of you guys already knew, but this info seriously revises some of my thoughts about armour mix and its tactical implications (depending on terrain and mission, etc).

This is only a viable strategy in heavy armour games though (500+ pts in '43, 1000+ pts in '44 of armour) as the use of the number of jadpanzer/panzerjäger you get increase proportionally - and these units' use in an anti-personell role is limited (esp. the Marder which doesn't have much HE and lack a machinegun). I'd rather go with 2 Pzkpfw. III than 4 Marder, but might go for 9 Marder instead of 4 III's; or, hell, 2 III's and 5 Marder might be the best of both worlds (the III is decent in an anti-personell role once your combined firepower that the Marders help set up has ridden the opposition of its tanks).

(In '43 you also get 5 Stug IIIG (early) for those Pzkpfw. III - but maybe that's the überstug and gamey to chose? In '44 you can get 10-11 Stug IIIG for 5 Panthers)

[ April 09, 2005, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]