The very poor mans solution.  I'd think you'd be sentencing the troops manning these guns to death.. in any sort of attack with more than a few tanks or artillery support..

That said.. if it's what you got.. it's better than spit balls.. and you certainly could make a fight of it in the defense if the other guys aren't fighting a particularly well organized / supported assault.

 

 I'd argue that size (big) and mobility (lack of) are the bigger issues.  ATGM teams have the same vulnerability to indirect fire.

 

On the good enough front, in the Ukraine, that well may be the case.

More primitive tactics? Says who?

 

I can see circumstances where antitank guns make a LOT of sense.

 

For direct fire against other ground targets (the Russian method when they are short of trained forward observers) against anything that is bunkered or camouflaged. These guns all have anti-material and anti-personnel rounds in addition to the usual high explosive. Russian high velocity guns traditionally have that type of ammunition. Even I know that much and I am not an expert about artillery.

 

It is ARTILLERY. The Russians love artillery. They can't get enough of it since they usually can't count on air support at all.    

The British used their guns in the checkerboard pattern (Infantry box or hedgehog as HR does not know the correct term) and learned why you don't do that.  The correct method was to prepare obstacle defenses and use spaced lines, one behind the other (Rommel) so that one line could cover the other (and the minefields) as the enemy advanced and the guns retreated.  Add a few tanks to the mix both as bait and as maneuver fire and you can see why it took the British 3x as many tanks and men to carry a German position as it should have (slow learners, for that was why  God invented howitzers.)  Again this was why anti-tank guns had anti-personnel shells (to break up infantry assaults on those guns) and why the confounded Germans had the best of everything with the 88, because they could shoot up tanks, infantry and AIRCRAFT all from the same damned rapid fire AAA gun from the same damned prepared defensive positions.         

 

The Canadians (not slow learners) did exactly the same thing with the Bofors 40 mm antiaircraft gun.   

 

On the WWII comparison front.

 

There are some other significant technology changes, that (in my opinion) leave the towed ATG much more challenged today. In a Tank vs ATG scenario.

 

Tank gun stabilization was very primitive in WWII, and not widely spread until the end of the war.  So, tanks.. in order to shoot reasonably accurately had to stop.  Advantage, AT guns.. as they were typically slugging it out with tanks in the attack (on the move).  Even T-72's aren't going to have to stop to put a reasonably accurate round down range.   So moving and shooting (accurately) is better than just shooting..  Tanks are just a hell of a lot more accurate today than they were in 1943.

 

Thermal imaging sights on tanks - are going to limit the effectiveness of basic camouflage.  Not sure that rust bucket T-72's have had them added.. but the newer Russian stuff certainly does. So while you may be able to hide the gun.. the 6 man crew is more difficult.

 

WWII - AT guns were often more powerful.. longer ranged.. more accurate.. faster firing.. (larger crew, not confined to a turret)..  Modern tanks are more on par or superior to older AT guns... with the addition of armor and mobility.

 

AT Guns ability to kill armor decreases with range.  The guns in the article have probably a max effective range for killing armor of 3000m (and that would be really lucky...)  Russian Tanks.. have guided missiles with up to a 5000m range.

 

 Exiting WWII:

Exactly. Once the Russians hit a strong fixed line of defense that they don't bulldoze over. They are going to try to beat the beejeezus out of it with artillery.  The best option for protection against artillery (if you can't kill it before it finds you).. is to not be there when it lands.  Mobility / shifting positions with towed AT guns... seems iffy.. keeping in mind that the enemy tanks are in range of the AT guns.. the AT-Gun transports are likely in range of the tanks.

 

 

All that said.. I'm probably giving the Russians and "Rebels" too much credit.  AT guns may work out reasonably well for Ukrainian forces.