German Tanks in WW2 - the wrong conception

[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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kag:

A source! Thank you. Pulling from it though:

While the main task of the barrages was to pin down or disperse any infantry attacks, that were following the tanks, some lucky hits on individual tanks was scored.... Even a 76 mm artillery shell was powerful enough to destroy a light tank, or severe the tracks from even a bigger vehicle. A hit by a heavier shell almost always disabled a light T-26 or BT tank

I have never argued that tanks were impervious against a direct hit by indirectly fired artillery. Some of the lightly skinned early war tanks would, indeed have been killed by a lucky direct hit from an HE round. Moreover, tracks are vulnerable enough during a direct hit on all tanks throughout the war that artillery fire could not be ignored by armor -- paricularly if they were firing at a concentration point or tank laager. Earlier posts, however, argue that misses at distances of up to 30 meters had a realistic chance of disabling the tank. I expect that such instances were actually pretty rare.

Yes, the engine deck of a WW2 era tank is comparatively lightly armored, and bullet resistant periscopes are not immune to scratches etc. But it takes very little to stop shrapnel -- which is precisely the point of an infantryman's helmet. Shrapnel, fired correctly, tends to burst in the air above a target. Softer targets can be badly treated by such attention. Things of metal, such as barbed wire, tank engine grills, and APC's tend to survive. Tank tracks were usually covered from above to protect them further from such risks.

A far greater risk to the AFV was the concussive blast from an HE round. These could break things on a tank, but had to secure a direct hit or very near miss to do so. In this, the bigger the explosive charge of the round, the greater the threat.

Direct fire of all sorts at a tank tread was more risky for the tank. Anything mechanical can be broken or "monkey-wrenched," and as Pappy noted, tanks doing doughnuts are not quite as scary . This, however, was a direct fire scenario, not indirect artillery. Direct fire chances to disable a tank always went up with the caliber of weapon used in the role. Even fired directly, nobody counted on a cal 30 round getting a "golden BB" hit on a linkage point, but in desperation, you'll take the 1 in 10k chance over 0 chance every time.

Brave infantry could actually disable a tank more readily during close assault. If you are actually able to stick a bundle of grenades in the bogeys or have a couple of blokes shove a small log into the gearing and tread, you will immobilize it. There are certain risks in running right up to the tank, however, particularly if your artillery hadn't whacked or grounded the infantry support first.

The Finns in the Winterwar had better success against armor than any infantry army prior to them. To do so, they improvised well and did some things requiring a LOT of cojones. Actually, given the limited resources available, the entire Finnish defense against the Sovs was a textbook for using forces effectively. Hard to think of a better example of defense against the odds than that campaign.

Seamus

[econ21]

there is stated that Finnish artillery destroyed total of 955 tanks.

Of course this includes AT guns, which probably accounted for the lion's share of losses (the article, like Redleg, talks about indirect artillery causing the odd "lucky hit").

I agree with Seamus, WW2 AT guns could be deadly, especially with the element of surprise. The German 88mm gun is the clearest example. But their weakness is that once their position is revealed, they are very vulnerable to artillery or other means of attack. The Finns excelled at hit and run attacks, so did well with very limited AT resources. The article kagemusha links to has a nice vignette showing some Finns hastily abandoning their obsolete gun after it fired one shot. But just imagine what they could have done with hundreds of T-34s and KV-1s.

[Kraxis]

One of the first instance of Germans facing KV-1s and T-34s was a rather pathetic attack. It included 1 KV-1 and a couple of T-34s as escort, nothing else.

The German 37mm AT guns had of course no effect, neither did the tanks fare well. Luckily these tanks were crewed by inept soldiers, so they didn't hit much themselves. But pure brute strength forces them into the German rear, right into the terrain covered by a couple batteries of 105mm artillery guns (not infantry guns). The crews stayed put, a testament to their courage, and attempted to knock out the Russian tanks with direct fire. Though repeated hits were scored, no kills were reported (though I would not have liked to be in one of those tanks). In fact a comment went like this :"each time we hit the monsters they reared up, then fell back again to proceed forwards." Eventually they ran over the guns (indicating that their own guns or optics had been knocked out by the hits).
Direct hits by 105mm HE shells were not enough, then I doubt that a 150mm 30 meters away would have much better success against better tanks.

[econ21]

... Luckily these tanks were crewed by inept soldiers, so they didn't hit much themselves. ... The crews stayed put, a testament to their courage, and attempted to knock out the Russian tanks with direct fire. ...Eventually they ran over the guns (indicating that their own guns or optics had been knocked out by the hits).

Fascinating case, Kraxis, although I would have to say the determination of the Russian tank crews, however inept, was a testament to their courage.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fascinating case, Kraxis, although I would have to say the determination of the Russian tank crews, however inept, was a testament to their courage.

Virtually every contemporary German account of Barbarossa as well as later combat on the Eastern front spoke highly of the bravery of the Russians in combat. They may have questioned their judgement, skill, training, or equipment, but never their cran.

Seamus

[Redleg]

Direct hits by 105mm HE shells were not enough, then I doubt that a 150mm 30 meters away would have much better success against better tanks.

Image if you will - that a 155mm high explosive shell weighs 96.5 pounds on average. I could go into square weights of the shell which are simply a varition from standard of 1.1 pounds per square weight from the standard of 4 square. Then fired with the maximum charge of the howitzer - with during WW2 and up until around the 1980's was Charge 7 M4A2 powder. This created a muzzle volecity of over 454 meters per second. If you do the physics - the round serves as a huge kinetic energy weapon if you do not use a fuze on the projectile. Placing a fuze on the round does lessen this impact - however to kill a tank does not always require its destruction. A direct hit from an artillery round will often cause problems for the tank and more important the crew inside


Now back to WW2 when the tank armor was still in its developmental stages. WW1 being infant - WW2 armor is adoslent (SP). One of the soviet lessons learned was how to use artillery and anti-tank weapons together to kill tanks. Several battles show how effective such a systems is. The germans also did this (along with the Finnish as already pointed out)

From a translated WW2 German document

9. When antitank weapons are encountered at long or medium ranges, you must first return fire and then maneuver against them. First make a firing halt in order to bring effective fire to bear - then commit the bulk of the company to maneuver on the enemy with the continued support of one platoon.

10. When antitank weapons are encountered at close range, stopping is suicide. Only immediate attack at the highest speed with every weapon firing will have success and reduce losses.

11. In combat against the antitank guns you may never - even under the protection of strong fire support - allow a single platoon to attack alone. Antitank weapons are not employed singly. Remember - lone tanks in Russia are lost!

17. Always prepare dug in positions and camouflage against the possibility of air or artillery attack. Being sorry afterwards is no excuse for losses taken by these causes.

http://www.combatmission.com/article...ard/panzer.asp

Notice what this actually tells you about the combinaton of Artillery and Anti-Tank weapons used together.

To set an effective Armor Ambush is a very difficult thing to do - but is every Infantry commanders dream from WW2 on. Whole doctrines were invisioned from using exambles from WW2. Anti-Armor Guns - now missles - used with effective and planned Artillery support can cause great harm to any armor attack.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Artillery is not to be dismissed, as this material confirms. But nor is it the greatest theat to armor. The piece later notes:

20. Support from artillery fire or dive bombers must be used immediately, that is to say, while the fire is still hitting the objective. Afterward, when the fire has stopped it is too late. You must know that mostly such fires only produce a suppressing effect, not a destroying one. It is better to risk a friendly shell or bomb than to charge into an active antitank defense.

Killing blows by artillery v armor are the exception.

Seamus

[Kagemusha]

Artillery is not to be dismissed, as this material confirms. But nor is it the greatest theat to armor. The piece later notes:

Killing blows by artillery v armor are the exception.

Seamus

I agree.I think the most important anti tank weapons introduced in WWII were panzerfaust and Panzershreck and their Allied eqvalents(spelling).One hit to the side of the tank could destroy any tank of that day.

[Kraxis]

Image if you will - that a 155mm high explosive shell weighs 96.5 pounds on average. I could go into square weights of the shell which are simply a varition from standard of 1.1 pounds per square weight from the standard of 4 square. Then fired with the maximum charge of the howitzer - with during WW2 and up until around the 1980's was Charge 7 M4A2 powder. This created a muzzle volecity of over 454 meters per second. If you do the physics - the round serves as a huge kinetic energy weapon if you do not use a fuze on the projectile. Placing a fuze on the round does lessen this impact - however to kill a tank does not always require its destruction. A direct hit from an artillery round will often cause problems for the tank and more important the crew inside.

Note that I didn't say that direct hits by 150mm were inefficient, I said that 30 meters away they would not be such a massive threat due to their cuncussion or shrapnell, considering that direct hits by 105mm failed to do anything obvious.

I have seen the results of direct hits of 150mm HE on a captured Panther by the Russians (they really liked to test their weapons against enemy equipment). It is not pretty, with a massive part of the frontal glacis blown in. That would have been an obvious kill had it happened in a battle.

Today, 150mm HE wouldn't be as dangerous of course, but would still make a serious impact (pardon the pun).

But what was the soldiers' consideration on artillery? I have never read or heard of tankers saying "Man... There was only one thing that really scared me, and that was when they opened up with their artillery on us." But I have heard them say they feared the Panzerfaust/schrek or AT guns in general.

[Redleg]

But what was the soldiers' consideration on artillery? I have never read or heard of tankers saying "Man... There was only one thing that really scared me, and that was when they opened up with their artillery on us." But I have heard them say they feared the Panzerfaust/schrek or AT guns in general.

Thats because the tankers often can outrun the artillery fire. Its also one of the main battle drills practiced today - reaction to Artillery Fire. Button the hatch and move out.

[Kagemusha]

Of course this includes AT guns, which probably accounted for the lion's share of losses (the article, like Redleg, talks about indirect artillery causing the odd "lucky hit").

I agree with Seamus, WW2 AT guns could be deadly, especially with the element of surprise. The German 88mm gun is the clearest example. But their weakness is that once their position is revealed, they are very vulnerable to artillery or other means of attack. The Finns excelled at hit and run attacks, so did well with very limited AT resources. The article kagemusha links to has a nice vignette showing some Finns hastily abandoning their obsolete gun after it fired one shot. But just imagine what they could have done with hundreds of T-34s and KV-1s.

Unfortunately Finland had only one armored division in the whole war 1939-1944.
80 T-26,8 T-28,7 T-34 and 2 KV-1s,all taken from the Soviets.The best armour in WWII Finish possessed was 59 STUG III assault guns,wich Germans didnt even consider as armour because those didnt have a turret.