Defensive tactics using the Archer

[Subvet]

I've had good results with the Archers as well. I think a lot of people have problems with them because they simply aren't using them correctly. If you are complaining because they aren’t doing a good job against infantry 30 meters away it probably isn’t the vehicles fault.

Comparing them to a firefly isn't really fair either, because people aren't taking into consideration the point difference. A regular Archer cost 99 points, a firefly goes for 164 points. The two have exactly the same gun, and both can get tungsten rounds. The Firefly obviously has an advantage with more rounds (especially HE), better armor, machineguns, a smoke mortar, transport ability, and better speed. The Archer is harder to hit, and has much lower ground pressure (which can be very important when wollowing in the mud). So yes, a Firefly is the better vehicle. But when you look at the points it isn't neccessarily the better bargain. It really depends on the situation and the player. Comparing them to a 17 lb AT gun is more fair because they are almost the same price with the AT gun at 96 points. The Archer has the advantage of mobility, and the AT gun can hide within the LOS of the enemy. Both can be taken out fairly easily, once spotted, if they stay in the same place. The AT gun can't do much about that, but the Archer can easily move. Also, you don't always have a good place to put an AT gun where it can cover all the avenues of advance. If the opponent come at you in the AT guns blind spot you're screwed. Again, the Archer can relocate fairly easily.

Anyway, the Archer can be effective if you use it correctly. If you use it as a firefly or as a stationary AT gun you'll probably be disappointed, but that isn't the Archers fault.

[Mark IV]

Nothing to see here. Anyway, I just had an Archer kill 2 Hetzers and a StuG III plus 6 infantry casualties. Secret: Hide behind trees or hill or both, reverse, shoot, move, repeat as needed. Sometimes it's wise to reverse into a slightly different location to maintain surprise.

[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Mark IV ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD:

If you're having trouble deploying you're archer that's an historically accurate dilemma. the Brits simply hated the beast and it was quickly withdrawn and replaced with towed guns. never did see fighting in the desert.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That really is not quite correct. The Archer was not only used until the end of the war (I have a picture of one in Bremen), but it also replaced a lot of the towed guns in the RA AT Rgts at least in the infantry divisions, to my knowledge. From what I have read a lot of that had taken place by Dec. 1944

No surprises it was classed as an SP gun. So were the M-10 and the Achilles in the Commonwealth.

[Subvet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD:

the Brits simply hated the beast and it was quickly withdrawn and replaced with towed guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the exact opposite was true. I just read in "The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II" that they were definitely preferred over the towed 17-pdr guns. It also says that they went on to be used in British anti-tank units until the mid-1950's. So I can confirm what the others have mentioned about this.

[Kestrl]

I'd like to see the new shoot and scoot command added because i think the Archer could really take advantage of that option in the future.

I can see a Archer firing off a couple 76mm AP rounds and then moving out of LOS.

[Mattias]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MikeyD:

[QB]If you're having trouble deploying you're archer that's an historically accurate dilemma. the Brits simply hated the beast and it was quickly withdrawn and replaced with towed guns. never did see fighting in the desert.[QB]<hr></blockquote>

I'll have to ask the same thing, where did you get this idea?

The four books on UK armour I have all agree on the opinion that though the Archer was tactically limited by it's design it was nevertheless an effective and reliable weapon system.

M.

[Andreas]

Well, the 'never did see fighting in the desert' bit at least is true, since it was not introduced before early 1944, according to this site.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mattias:

The four books on UK armour I have all agree on the opinion that though the Archer was tactically limited by it's design it was nevertheless an effective and reliable weapon system.

<hr></blockquote>

The more I read about armor combat, one thing becomes clear: tank destroyers do not follow the same usefullness criteria as tanks, and not nearly.

The whole TD thing is about low silhuette, good spotting (three man in an open turrent in the M10, Scherenfernrohre and high-magnify targetting in StuGs and Jagdpanzers, even air defense range finders in Nashorn and the like). The guys in these vehicles are not race car drivers, they are snipers who would usually man a towed gun and are only forced into the vehicles to arrive in time (and have a set up gun when arriving).

People seem to agree that a machinegun is very desireable, though, apparently the theory of "friendly lines only" didn't work out in all cases

.

[Biltong]

Well - if you want to try out all the above tactics - give me a buzz and I'll send you a Archer scenario.. You'll get 4 archers and an inf screen against some worthy opponents

Made for PBEM or UK vs AI - Had one go at it so far (UK vs AI) and saw my arse with some hurried play

betrim@xsinet.co.za

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Biltong ]</p>

[D'arcy Montague]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kestrl:

I'd like to see the new shoot and scoot command added because i think the Archer could really take advantage of that option in the future.

I can see a Archer firing off a couple 76mm AP rounds and then moving out of LOS.<hr></blockquote>

Stagger your move orders and use pauses. They ain't releasing a patch any time soon.