WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
And the tanks performed their role as a shock weapon, part of the functions of true cavalry. Makes sense for Mexico to follow the early 1930's Atlantean design of mix cavalry/tank units. That makes three nations them in WW so far that had followed this.

Whos' the third?

Actually four. Atlantis, Mexico, Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Overall it makes sence, there are no real anti tank threats in South America (yet) Atlantis (for obvious reasons) and North West Africa.

That being said I do have an unspecified (small) amount of self propelled artillery and AA guns mounted on the AT-27 hull. The question is with growing numbers of tanks in the world should Atlantis invest in a 3rd modification using an AT gun given the likelyhood of tank on tank encounters will increase?

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Overall it makes sence, there are no real anti tank threats in South America (yet) Atlantis (for obvious reasons) and North West Africa.

That being said I do have an unspecified (small) amount of self propelled artillery and AA guns mounted on the AT-27 hull. The question is with growing numbers of tanks in the world should Atlantis invest in a 3rd modification using an AT gun given the likelyhood of tank on tank encounters will increase?

By the same reason you gave in paragraph one (not a very serious threat of enemy armored vehicles) it will be IMO a waste of resources the use of still valuable hulls for that purpose. Better served by trying to find a way to portee the current AT guns in the Rhino halftrack frame for example.

I was thinking Portee was the way to go, damn hard to find good real life pictures though, at least untill the U.S. starts mass producing masive amounts of Dodge WC53 trucks.

Now that you mention it, it would be a waste of hulls given the rather low production rates for the various tank designs out of Atlantis.