German Tanks in WW2 - the wrong conception

[Kraxis]

This reminded me of Wittmann's adventures at Kursk. I wish the book i read it in was here so I could directly quote it.

Basically, Wittmann simply ran over a great number of German artillery pieces, destroying them instead of wasting ammo on them. He had an interesting tactic(which is in the book ) to get right up close to them without being targeted and just ran them over!

Another advantage of the Tiger.. brute strength!

Hmmm... Interesting, when did the Germans convert him from the Russian side?

But you should remember that Wittmann was a very special case, he could read the ground, spot the guns and calculate a safe route to the gun's rear. Not all could that. But granted the Tiger did have the mass to do it, though it must be pointed out that the T-34 did similar things in Barbarossa.

I haven't seen pictures of upturned KV-1s, but as far as I know they had a nasty tendency to explode furiously, perhaps that is the reason for the upturned tanks.
The only pictures I have seen of upturned tanks are the propaganda shots of a Tiger on its side after a barrage of battleship shells.
It seems extremely unlikely that the few kilos of explosives in a 150mm shell could turn over a tank of over 40 tons.

[PanzerJaeger]

LoL woops.. Those would be Russian artillery pieces he ran over.

[Papewaio]

El Alamein and the Battle of Britain have two things in common that the attacker went for the support infrastructure.

The British attacked the tank staging grounds and the Germans attacked the airfields. I think the Germans would have won the Battle of Britain had they continued to attack military infrastructure.

----

The Tigers had superior communications... command and control.

While the British in the BoB had radar... so they also had superior command and control.

----

Anyone know why the SAS are called the Special Air Service and what their role was?

----

Or the role of U-boats too.

----

So the role of tanks in some armies was to attack military infrastructure or engage in asymetric battles not other tanks.

[econ21]

So the role of tanks in some armies was to attack military infrastructure or engage in asymetric battles not other tanks.

Yes, that's my understanding too. I think the reason most countries tanks were under-gunned for much of the war is that they were supposed to do other things apart from engage other tanks. The Germans were supposed to breakthrough and hit the infrastructure; the French/British were supposed to support infantry or do some strange cavalry charge thing; the Americans were supposed to leave the tanks to their tank destroyers.

However, I think gradually the armies discovered the best thing to battle a tank was another tank (or tank destroyer).

AT guns were too immobile and vulnerable. Infantry needed to get too close. Aircraft were not available in sufficient numbers. Artillery, as has been said, was pretty ineffective.

Hence the upgrading of tank guns and armour until you end up with the main battle tank concept, perhaps first fully realised in the Panther.

It finds its extreme in the contemporary Abrams, whose main gun is not even supposed to be fired at infantry (I wonder if the effectiveness of the heavy tank in combating infantry in urban Iraq is leading to a rethink of this?).

[Kraxis]

I would say the T-34 was the first of the real tank vs. tank tanks. Others had previously been made to combat tanks but this was the first that could do it all (and did it all).

The Abrams is lucky to have a nice compatriot in the Bradley, with a nice little group of infantry in tow. And of coruse the alltime biggest infanty killer, artillery is also nearby. The tank has become a shock-troop, rather than a true warrior, it is intended to roll on, and keep rolling. That is actually a return to the old tanks of early WWII, say a Pz II for isntance.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

The Abrams does have HEAT shells as well as SABOT rounds, so in theory it could be used against infantry and I bet HEAT would be preferable for attacking buildings and other "soft" targets.

[RabidGibbon]

Re: The SAS in North Africa, their full title was the Special air service brigade, the idea being if any of them got caught and gave away their unit name the Germans would think there was a full airborne brigade in the North african theatre.. the name has stuck since. The Light vehicle raider group referred to is I imagine the LRDG (Long Range desert Group). IIRC The SAS only tried one airborne insertion(In North Africa), which ended in a sandstorm related disaster, after that the LRDG would show them the way to their targets using their specialist survivalist knowledge. They both (the LRDG and the SAS) wreaked textbook style commando havoc in North Africa.

To get back on topic however, my opinon on German tanks is that their training and motivation was supremely well handled. However the Later Tiger designs ignored the Blitzkrieg philosophy (This is understandable, they were under attack from all sides) The Tiger and Tiger II, and to a lesser extent the Panther, where mobile fortress' that couldn't go too far from their support lines. A May 1940 Blitzkrieg using Tigers would have stalled - they would have run out of fuel. The German army changed a lot between 39 and 44. The Army of 44 based its defense around Tank Fortress' of Tigers and Panthers that were superior to the opposing tanks, whilst the Wermacht of 39 to 42 used inferior tanks with superior command and control techniques to wreak havoc in the enemies rear areas.

Hear endeth my drunken rant.

RE: The SAS being support for the LRDG it was (IIRC) the other way round. The Lrdg, who predated the SAS, ended up calling them selves the long range taxi group, because their main role was to deliver the SAS to their targets and then show them the way home!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would say the T-34 was the first of the real tank vs. tank tanks. Others had previously been made to combat tanks but this was the first that could do it all (and did it all).

I could make an argument for the Pzkw-3g, since I think it went operational first and the 50 was thought to be an excellent main gun for tank-to-tank at the time, but I have to agree that the T-34 was the first one designed from the first to do tank v. tank and penetration assault.

The Abrams is lucky to have a nice compatriot in the Bradley, with a nice little group of infantry in tow. And of coruse the alltime biggest infanty killer, artillery is also nearby. The tank has become a shock-troop, rather than a true warrior, it is intended to roll on, and keep rolling. That is actually a return to the old tanks of early WWII, say a Pz II for isntance.

True, though there were a couple of phases in gulf 1 and gulf 2 where it functioned as the point of the spear in tank on tank fashion.

Seamus

[Kraxis]

True, though there were a couple of phases in gulf 1 and gulf 2 where it functioned as the point of the spear in tank on tank fashion.

Seamus

Well, I didn't intend to say that it wouldn't fight tanks head on. It is obviously intended for first and foremost, given that 100% of its ammo is AP (either sabot or HEAT). But it has been learned that a tank doesn't need to be particularly effective against the soft targets, its shock-effect and the fact that it is rummaging in the rear is more than enough. The follow-up troops can clean the house, while the tanks roll on.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

El Alamein and the Battle of Britain have two things in common that the attacker went for the support infrastructure.

The British attacked the tank staging grounds and the Germans attacked the airfields. I think the Germans would have won the Battle of Britain had they continued to attack military infrastructure.

Probably, but it would not have made any difference whatsoever in strategic terms. The Germans lacked a strategic bomber and could not have hammered British industry outside of the SW quadrant without hideous losses. Moreover, even air supremacy over the channel would not have enabled an invasion. The disparity in fleet units meant that, regardless of casualties, the RN could have stopped an invasion.

The Tigers had superior communications... command and control.

While the British in the BoB had radar... so they also had superior command and control.

Spot on, C-cubed-I is the key to success in modern war.

Or the role of U-boats too.

The only tool at Germany's disposal that could have defeated Britain. Had Doenitz prevailed and all of the effort and tonnage devoted to Bizmarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisnau, Graf Spee, Deutschland, et. al been channeled into the submarine program, giving him the hundreds he sought by 1939, the British economy may well have been crippled.

So the role of tanks in some armies was to attack military infrastructure or engage in asymetric battles not other tanks.

The Blitzkrieg emphasized breakthrough and deep penetration to savage command, control and logistics. Part of that involved the ability to smash armored reserve formations, particularly if they could be caught off-balance, but that was secondary to inducing a strategic "shock" effect on the enemy formations. Once shock set in, fighting effectiveness went way down and - despite the bravery of many such units - defeat was almost inevitable. This was particularly true of armies that were relatively inflexible in doctrine and training such as Russia, France, and most of the "minor" combatants.

Seamus