Sigh. Relax, guys. I think he's actually coming around, hounding him to a CONCESSION ACCEPTED moment is silly.
Also, I'm pretty sure I agree the Tau don't have much tube artillery. They'll wish they did if the Tyranids and orks become more of a problem; the ork problems they've had were bad enough. But I don't think they do.
Actually, you do realize that at Kursk the Germans attacked the Soviets who only had a 2:1 numerical advantage, yes? And that the Germans had the advantage of holding the tactical initiative, and got to choose where to hit the Soviet lines?
Simply having enough manpower to be able to defend in depth is, in fact, feasible especially if your troops have inferior mobility compared to the enemy.
And for the last time. The Russians had tanks at Kursk too. I'm not saying "Don't have tanks".
...Then what was the point
of your initial posts where you argued that the purpose of the exercise was to deny the Tau valuable targets for their superior AT railguns?
Also, you miss the point at Kursk: the entire Kursk salient
was the wrong place for the Germans to attack because it put them in a slogging, headbanging match against a solid field of defenses stretching for miles. The Germans did not have to choose to attack there. Doing so was a disastrous error; attacking any of many other places would have been better because everywhere else along the front
, the Soviets didn't have the manpower to put that kind of impregnable defense up.
This mistake, this error of attacking where the enemy is ready for you and has set a huge, lethal trap, is very simple. It is also an error the Tau would be very unlikely to make because if anything they are too
wary of launching attacks against a prepared and entrenched defender.
Lemme try to explain what I'm seeing.
I get what you're trying to say. I really do. Let's have our armor hunt down their armor! Counter mobile forces with our own mobile forces! Engage them in a battle of maneuver!
The Tau are like the modern US Army - high speed tanks, mech infantry, high-tech troops. They can strike at will and make rapid punches! To counter them, you need an equivalent force.
But here's the problem: The IG isn't like that. Some regiments may be capable of these kinds of battles (i.e. Narmenians and Pardus), but most aren't. They're closer to a World War 2 army in overall orientation - whith huge numbers of infantry-only regiments supported by some mech and tank regiments. If you try the mobile warfare game with the Tau by gathering a large number of IG Mech/Tank units, the result is most likely going to be Iraq '91 or Barbarossa 41' - with the IG being either the Iraqis or Russians respectively.
That's why I am proposing a strategy wherein you refuse to play the same game as the Tau at all - no fast-moving mobile battles, but deliberate front-wide advances designed to capture Tau logistical centers. Advance, capture, consolidate.
Seeking out the Tau armoured forces is not my concern. I want them to attack me instead, because I'll have troops defending in depth with armoured response troops and air cav (in fewer numbers) reinforcing them. If they don't attack, then fine - I'll take their logistics centers and wait a few weeks until their tanks run out of fuel.
And again, that does not mean the army won't have tanks or mech. That doesn't mean there won't be Air Cav. But the army will look more like the Red Army of 1943 instead of the US Army of 2010, because the IG is closer to the former than the latter in overall composition anyway.
Now, if you can get an Army Group together with only the best IG tank / mech forces who've been trained for that kind of rapid mobile warfare, sure, I'm game with taking on the Tau that way.
Okay. This is... not
what it sounded like you were saying. When we began this conversation it sure sounded like you wanted to try a pure foot infantry army. Which is a recipe for disaster or humiliations unless your numerical superiority is incredibly, ludicrously overwhelming (dozens to one).
You had very much downplayed the role of the mobile assets, you see. And made a number of statements that sounded absolute, like the bit about the Tau lack of effective antipersonnel weapons and how you wanted to deny them tank targets for their railguns. The combination may have created a false impression. I won't apologize for that.
In any event, the key here is that you at least need units that can
in theory chase and catch the Tau. The advantage of having them is that it "keeps them honest." It limits the options they can use from their own mobile-warfare playbook, because they're not dealing with a paralyzed opponent whose feet are nailed to the floor.
It's sort of like how having a competent air defense network and some
fighters of your own, even if not the best ones, helps you minimize the advantage of enemy air superiority. There are things an air force can do against an enemy with no AA weapons and interceptors that would never
work, would be outright suicidal or at least largely ineffective, against an enemy who has them. Likewise, there are tricks of mobile warfare that work brilliantly against a slow opponent that fail against a fast opponent.
Like, moving through rough country by a back way to cut off the column marching slowly down the road is a great trick (see Operation Compass and the total British defeat of an Italian army that outnumbered them 10:1). But it can fail badly if the enemy sends a flying column of fast troops down the road, gets to your ambush site first, and ambushes you right back before you're ready.
Or, using your fast patrols to stalk the enemy (in the "stalker watching you" sense). That works very well against a slow enemy with no fast troops, because your patrols can always break contact whenever they like. It doesn't work so well if the enemy can use his fast troops to battle yours, because you have to keep more of a safe distance from the enemy, and your scouts have to worry more about bailing out in time to escape pursuit.
Or breakthrough tactics- this was a big part of why when the Germans tried to repeat the successful 1940 Ardennes Offensive in 1944 at the Battle of the Bulge, they lost. Unlike
the 1940 French, the 1944 British and Americans had plenty of mobile, motorized and armored units they could shift quickly to throw against the flanks of the German penetration. It also didn't help that the Germans lacked a lot of the muscle they'd used to follow up the penetration in 1940, but fundamentally that was a lot of what went wrong.
So basically, even if your mobile units are much more agile than the enemy's, just the fact that he has
mobile units that can't be effortlessly wiped off the field (as Guard armor can't be effortlessly wiped out by Tau armor, the Tau aren't that
good)... that's important. It cramps the fast guy's style a lot.