German Tanks in WW2 - the wrong conception

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I definitely disagree with these statements. AT artillery in WW2 was most certainly an effective counter-measure to tanks and had an important role in the tactical methods of all armies fighting at the time.

The idea of AT artillery is not that one gun or perhaps even two will defeat a high-quality tank, but that if you get enough pieces into a defensive line in concealed positions, and the enemy armor attacks them, they'll at least take out enough enemy tanks to allow friendly armor to finish the job later on.

What's more, AT artillery on many occasions in WW2 was enough to stop tanks cold, decimating their ranks and forcing them to call in support. This was especially true with German AT artillery vs Allied tanks, though even as a German panzer commander I would be very nervous using armor against a prepared, unsoftened defensive line....

The reason that tank-vs.-tank effectiveness is so important is NOT because tanks are the best solution to kill tanks-- they most certainly are not...DA

Del:

To both agree and disagree....

Yes AT guns were effective components of almost all of the defensive efforts in European and African combat in WW2. They produced a significant percentage of all tank kills recorded. So why were they phased out?

Answer = mobility & survivability. Towed AT guns, however powerful, were vulnerable to infantry and standard artillery response. As the war progressed, both the Soviets and the Germans, and to some extent the US/UK shifted to Assault guns because of their mobility and survivability. Towed AT weaponry even ended up being thrown away, as with the Sovs at Kursk, simply to slow an attack down a bit -- no transport provided, just shoot until overrun.

Assault guns, tanks, and tank destroyers were subsequently found to be funtionally interchangeable in practice, so why bother to build several types of AFV, just concentrate on a better battle tank.

AT guns weren't bad as guns, just superceded (though never entirely replaced, I'l admit) in practice.


As to the other artillery fans out there, I have yet to see any compelling sources provided for artillery used in an effective anti-tank role during WW2 unless firing over open sights at fairly close range. HE concussion and light-weight shrapnel do not seem likely to damage any but the lightest of AFV's.

Seamus

[Del Arroyo]

I was under the impression that AT artillery was phased out because we had guided AT missles and stuff like that...

DA

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I was under the impression that AT artillery was phased out because we had guided AT missles and stuff like that...

DA

True, but AT guns were less and less prominent in arsenals beginning in the 1950's. AT Missiles didn't achieve prominence until the Yom Kippur war of '73, though they had been deployed before that.

A lot of the early assault guns/tank destroyers (Marder, JPZ-I) were, essentially, AT guns on a chassis with armor. The mobility/protection combo was more and more preferenced as the war progressed.

Seamus

[PanzerJaeger]

a .303 round could take out tank tracks

What kind of tank is being discussed in this statement?

[Papewaio]

"The mobility of tanks depends upon the proper functioning of the suspension parts — sprocket (small driving wheel), idler (small wheel in the rear), wheels and tracks. All of these parts are vulnerable to shells of all calibers. A particularly vulnerable part is the sprocket.

Soviet Artillery Journal

I remember veterans of D-Day saying that they fired .303 at tank tranks to get inbetween the tread and wedge inside the tracks leaving the tank immobile (well one tread was so they could still do doughnuts )... it wasn't the preferred method, but more one of desparation.

[English assassin]

Its not exactly evidence but...

As I may have mentioned I am the proud owner of a Ferret armoured car, 1959 manufacture. Now, an armoured car is not a tank. But even if you assumed the armoured body was completely impervious to shrapnel, there is a lot of suspension that sits outside the body on the ferret. I believe that is true for tanks as well. The suspension is pretty tough and overengineered, sure, but I'm sure its not bulletproof. And I have inspected it pretty close up (what idiot put this bloody oil filler here....)

Also the episcopes leave a lot to be desired when you are sealed up. They are covered by bulletproof glass, of course, but its not scratchproof and wouldn't take all that much to make it opaque.

Finally, airbursts. Engine decks don't look that robust to me, and they are not heavily armoured. Might an airbursting shell put out enough power to get shrapnel through the engine deck? I'd guess yes.

[Kagemusha]

Finnish forces used field artillery as AT with some succes in winterwar,and that was not direct but indirect fire.Here is a llink.At the bottom of the page is a paragraph of Soviet tank losses at Karelian Isthmus,there is stated that Finnish artillery destroyed total of 955 tanks.At the time the main caliber of Finnish artillery was 76mm .If you scroll down the page there is another less sophisticated method to immobilize tanks.Here is a picture of this mighty weapon.

[Franconicus]

Soviet Artillery Journal

I remember veterans of D-Day saying that they fired .303 at tank tranks to get inbetween the tread and wedge inside the tracks leaving the tank immobile (well one tread was so they could still do doughnuts )... it wasn't the preferred method, but more one of desparation.

I remember the story of a Thunderbold pilot fighting over Normandy. He said that they attacked Tigers but could not penetrate the armor. Thunderbolds have 8 heavy maschine guns. Then they tried something else. When the tank was driving on the street they fired at the street in frint or behind him. The bullets were reflected and hit the soft undercarriage. That made the Tigers burn.

Well, I never believed that story