Through all of my readings dealing with the period of 1943-1945 on the EF any action where German units would counterattack they would be met by a hurricane of AT fire. Especially actions where Tiger tanks where involved. To do them justice I think it only fair that those creating scenarios involved with this period should include numerous AT gun units. What is anyone else's opinion?
Gil
Yes having just finished reading "the generals" and the exploits of the likes of Manstein/Guderian/Model etc the PAK FRONTS formed by the soviets had a 1000 anti tank guns and mortars per square mile and were devastating i.e operation Zitadelle. I suppose this is on a defensive basis particular to this battle.
During the German Konrad operations in Hungary the Russians had strong pak fronts also.
i concer, armor thrust where counteed with multiple lines of AT kill zones
Rommel wrote that he felt the german defense budget would be better spent on AT guns than armor once germany was in retreat. Although a fixed defensive line is a folly he felt that AT guns could be moved and from a defensive aspect be much more affective. For instance 300 88mm At guns could have been built for the cost / time to market for 1 Tiger.
300????? 
Probably less than 300 when you consider all the ancillary items, like extra crew training, prime movers/horses to transport the AT guns, extra ammunition (and ammo haulers), extra maintenance units, etc. versus 1 Tiger and it's maintenance requirements (certainly it takes more to maintain 1 Tiger than 1 88 ATG, but 300 ATGs/HTs has got to consume more maintenance than 1 Tiger).