# Armour and it's conflict.



## plan_D (Sep 12, 2005)

Since a certain moderator, who shall remain nameless *cough* NS *cough* deleted the threads concerning armour. I've created this to encompass it all!

And I would like to start with this about flag signals from tanks; 

After the battle of Chemin-des-Dames in Autumn of 1917;



> On this occasion the French deduced the following:
> 
> (a)...
> (b)...
> ...


 From Commandant Perré, 'Les Chars á la bataille de la Malmaison' in _Revue d'Infanterie_)

If flag signals were a failure in World War I, it certainly proves they were not good enough for World War II. Don't you think, schwarzpanzer?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 12, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Since a certain moderator, who shall remain nameless *cough* NS *cough* deleted the threads concerning armour.


:-"

Oh sorry, don't mind me. I'll try not to set my drink down on the Delete button.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 13, 2005)

Well, the French couldn't manage to stop a few light tanks with masses of heavy tanks, so it proves nothing really. 

Oh yeah BTW the commander had to load, aim and fire the gun as well as operate the radio (whilst commanding).


----------



## plan_D (Sep 13, 2005)

Not in World War I they didn't. The French were alongside the British in tank development and deployment. It proves everything that flag signals are not reliable. They weren't reliable in World War I and they were not reliable in World War II. 

The Tank Commander doesn't aim the cannon. Nor does he fire the cannon. That's the gunners job. In the T-34, with the cramped two-man turret, the Tank Commander had to load as well as command. In most of the machines during World War II, there was a seperate loader, gunner and commander as they're all full time jobs. Some tanks even had their own radio operators. 

Loader, Gunner, Tank Commander, Radio Operator and Driver. A 5-man crew, which the most famous tanks had. 

Flag signals were not reliable sources of communication. The lack of radio hampered the Soviet armour. Radio is important for any and all tank combat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2005)

I dont know squat about flag signals from tanks so this will all be new to me.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 13, 2005)

Well, let me explain a little. When the tank was fully developed in 1915 the idea proposed by the British involved that they be equipped with wireless radio sets. The French (developing the tank around the same time) didn't think along the exact same lines and thought that flag communication would be possible. 

Flag communication being the Commander popping out the top of the tank to "talk" to another tank about 200 metres away with flag signals. 

The tank first saw battle on the 15th September, 1916 and the British had little trouble with the communications. They had a lot of trouble with the tanks, but even with that they proved their worth. Although some people didn't believe so.

Anyway, the French learnt after the battle of the Chemin-des-Dames in 1917 that flag signals were just useless because the mist of battle (both artificial and natural) prevented any effective communication. Plus the heat of battle made flag signals unreliable while leaving the Commander open to sniper fire. 

Well, the Soviet Union still largely used flag signals in World War II. And the same problems existed then as they did in World War I. Due to this poor, slow and unreliable source of communication the Soviet crews were often unco-ordinated. Especially in the early years. That is why a good wireless set is vital for any tanks.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

Actually I have seen a painting of Russian tanks with the commander poking out the top with flags in his hands.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 14, 2005)

I've seen a Tiger commander flapping his arms around like a cheerleader.

Yes I know, what I meant was in all French WW2 tanks there wasn't even a gunner!

The Char-B's driver was also a gunner!



> Radio is important for any and all tank combat.



Yes, but not vital, esp. if used the same way where the West would use radio silence.

i.e. go there, blast any German tank etc.

Also remember Soviets did not generally work individually.



> A 5-man crew, which the most famous tanks had.



Except a Tankovy-Desant T34!


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

Tank Commanders will sometimes have to communicate with infantry men. This would involve exposing yourself to enemy fire to communicate with them as they didn't all carry radio. 

In fact, communication via radio is vital. Without any form of quick communication between tanks there is no tactical flexability. It's alright if the enemy doesn't react but what if the enemy does react. There's no communication between tanks and many would be caught off guard if only one tank saw the counter. It is a vital piece of equipment. 

The Soviet tanks did work individually at the start of the war. You must remember that for tanks to work individually means they are not capable. The tank must be used on a unit basis, not singular basis. They need control, command and communication to act flexibly. A command stuck on flag signals cannot react quick enough to any situation. 

You're under-estimating the need for communication between machines. It's quite shocking to say you have the benefit of hindsight from both wars. Read _Achtung-Panzer!_ it'll give you an excellent study of armour usage in World War I and what Guderian gained from it. If you have read it before, read it again especially the section about wireless sets in tanks.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 14, 2005)

> You must remember that for tanks to work individually means they are not capable.



What about that T34 that drove 9 miles into German lines, or that KV, or even your Tiger in 'Command post 506' etc, the radio actually FUBAR'ed that one!  

Yes radios are an advantage, more a luxury really though  , I'd rather have a big gun/armour/engine etc.

I'll have to find that page in AP!


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

And what are those tanks going to do on their own? Nothing. The tank cannot hold a position on it's own. The radio is not a luxury, it's a need for any successful tank assault to take place, on the defensive or offensive they need to be in contact for if there wasn't there's no flexability and no quick thinking. That means...no successful tank attack. 

They discovered that in 1917 - why can't you in 2005?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 15, 2005)

> The tank cannot hold a position on it's own.



I've just given you 2 examples. Plus there was at least 1 KV-1 that did the same.

The Russian AFV's never really used radios, but they were still superior to all others (as a whole, rather than individually).


----------



## plan_D (Sep 15, 2005)

No one single tank can achieve operational success. No tank forces act individually, hence the creation of Armoured Division and Tank Armies. The Soviet Union acted individually during the early part of the war and they lost terrifically. 

Even if they T-34 did drive 9 mile into the German lines. The line closes behind it and it's lost. A tank cannot act on it's own for any kind of success. You do not understand the principal of tank warfare if you believe otherwise. 

Tanks need radio to act in any flexible role. Without the radio there is little of operational success if the enemy reacts in any way. There's also little chance of exploitation if the oppurtunity arises. 

I'm sorry but you don't understand how tanks should be working if you think they don't need radio. The reason the Wehrmacht was so successful in the early years was because their radio and tactical flexibility allowed to adopt and react to every situation. Not possible without communication.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 15, 2005)

> I'm sorry but you don't understand how tanks should be working if you think they don't need radio. The reason the Wehrmacht was so successful in the early years was because their radio and tactical flexibility allowed to adopt and react to every situation. Not possible without communication.


Agreed 100%..... This is actually a silly conversation... If communication WASNT important, why did they bother using flags in the first place......


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 15, 2005)

> Even if they T-34 did drive 9 mile into the German lines. The line closes behind it and it's lost.



Well, an '88' Flak sneaked up on him, but he'd bought a one-way ticket.

Loose cannons can be very, very effective.

Also with the Germans having radio, news of the Matilda2 ("hundreds of tanks!") and T34 spread fast.

Good you'd think? wrong, the Germans were scared and lost morale.

Yes, radios are good, but not vital, not in WW2.

What if it's knocked out? What then?

Kinda like indicators on a car etc.

However, Katyushka/commander communications were important to the Soviets.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 16, 2005)

> Well, an '88' Flak sneaked up on him, but he'd bought a one-way ticket.



I believe this is proof of my point. Aside from there being no source of evidence that you have provided to state this actually happened. You have collapsed your own argument. This T-34 had managed to find itself nine miles from it's own army and it's own supply. It was cut off and destroyed, this happens to all those that put themselves into that position. As I said, they can advance but the line will just close behind them and they're trapped. 



> Loose cannons can be very, very effective.



No they cannot. A "loose cannon" cannot achieve operational success. The tank is an assault weapon, it's capability to hold ground is practically nil without the aid of supporting infantry and artillery. 



> Also with the Germans having radio, news of the Matilda2 ("hundreds of tanks!") and T34 spread fast.
> 
> Good you'd think? wrong, the Germans were scared and lost morale.



You will find that you are wrong in that statement. Knowing about the enemy action, or reaction, defeats surprise. Surprise is the greatest weapon of war, with fast communication the surprise is lost and a quick reaction to the enemy is possible. 

The German soldiers may have been scared but the Divisional, Corps or Army HQ would have the information to provide counter-measures. It is better to know about your enemy and be scared than not know at all until their advance has reached your HQ. 

One of the main troubles with the French defence in 1940 was slow communication. The German forces would be advancing at break-neck speed and the French could not react. There are many stories of French Commanders ordering counter-attacks on an area only to find the German forces had advanced through that area and in fact were miles behind the Commanders HQ. The French needed a faster system of communication to allow for reaction. 

Communication is also vital to allow, if the enemy is over-whelming, a hasty retreat of all equipment. Fixed artillery positions would soon be overrun if the front line troops did not communicate the information back through the lines. 

Even more so, the tanks on the front line could react to the advancing troops with communication. Radio communication between platoons of tanks could allow them to change position and move around in any kind of attack or counter-attack with lightning speed. 



> Yes, radios are good, but not vital, not in WW2.
> 
> What if it's knocked out? What then?



Radios are vital for operational success and tactical flexability. Tactical, local, success can be achieved with little communication but to enable a breakthrough, leading to operational success, good communication must reign throughout the tanks. This cannot be achieved with flag signals. The fog of war and heat of battle will cloud and distort communication with flags.

The odds are if the radio is knocked out on that tank, then the tank is knocked out. The only possible destruction of the radio is in the Command Tank which was also bristling with radio equipment. These would not normally tank an advance role but would be with the leading troops to react to any situation. The enemy did aim for the Command Tank when it was spotted, just like they would aim for the officer in the field. However, what happens when the Command Tank is knocked out? What happens when the lead plane is knocked out? What happens when the CO is knocked out? It's a silly question. 

In the worst case the attack must be halted for the tanks retain any kind of unit cohesion. As that is most important in tank assaults on an operational scale. The Allies learnt so in the Great War in Cambrai. 

I'm interested in what you consider so different from World War 2 and now. Sure, the technical ability of machines today are much more advanced but the tactics are exactly the same. World War 2 was a modern way and it has laid the structure for combat today. _Panzer Battles_ was read by the majority of U.S Armour Commanders in the Gulf War. 



> Kinda like indicators on a car etc.



Indicators on a car are vital for safe driving on the roads. Sure, the car can drive without them but it cannot act safely and successfully on the roads without them. That is why it's illegal not to use them on the roads. They're a vital safety aspect to inform everyone else what you're doing, a lot like a radio in a tank.

_"Communication between the members of a tank crew is effected by lights, speaking tubes, internal telephones and other devices. For external communication nearly all command tanks have radio transmitters and receivers, while all other modern tanks have radio receivers; the company commanders of the World War, hastening ahead of their tanks on foot or horseback, are figures of the past. The continuing development of radio apparatus is of *great relevance to the direction of larger tank formations and their deployment for tasks in depth."*_

From _Achtung! Panzer!_ by Heinz Guderian (1937). Note: Bold is my own. 

Guderian realises, in 1937, that the deployment of large tank forces for operational success relies solely on the radio. 

Again, from the same book:

_"Tank forces are directed by radio, and the smaller units from company downwards also by visual signals. As long as radio silence has to be observed, orders and reports can be transmitted by means of aircraft, vehicles or telephone. Commanders ride in the command tanks, which are followed by the necessary radio tanks for secure communication with superiors and subordinates."_

The tactics of tank forces clearly include the use of radio for tactical flexibility. From company level downwards, they did use visual signals as you can see. But company down is platoon strength, little more than four tanks most of the time. 

Again from the some book:

_"In the World War the shortcomings of the *signals and communications systems* greatly impeded the command of tank forces, and their co-operation with the other arms. Tank company commanders were sometimes reduced to accompanying their forces on horseback, to exercise a modicum of control, and they had to make considerable use of runners. Here is the origin of the accusation that tanks are 'deaf'. This shortcoming has now been overcome by that magnificent invention, the wireless telegraph and its relation, the voice radio. Every modern tank has a radio receiver, and every command tank is equipped with both the receiver and transmitter. Tank units are now under guaranteed command and control. Inside larger tanks are various devices to enable the crew members to communicate with one another."_

As is quite clearly stated by Guderian, the lack of communication in World War I impeded the progress of armoured forces. He, as many others, found it of vital importance that tank forces could communicate in efficient and clear manners. Command and control is vital in any operation, from infantry to aircraft with artillery and tank inbetween. 

Not only that, the mention of control between the different arms. The tank needs to be in contact with it's supporting arms. It cannot act on it's own. It needs the support of engineers, aircraft, infantry and artillery to be of any success. 

If you believe the tank can act on it's own, you're wrong. If you believe the tank does not need good communication for a success on an operational basis, you're wrong. 

I carry on with various quotes;

_"Radio is likewise the principal medium of control between tank units and the other forces, and radios are the main equipment of the signals elements which provide the communications for the tank units and their supporting arms."_

As said before, the communication between the tank and it's supporting arms is vital. 

_"However visual signals are used up to company level as a replacement for radios in case of breakdowns."_ 

It explains itself. 

_"In combat these commanders will be right up front with their tanks, which means that armoured radio vehicles with full cross-country capability are *essential* for the panzer signals elements."_

It's said, time and time again, the tank forces need to be in communication with one another as well as with other arms for any kind of operational success. 

_"In combat the transmission of *orders* are conveyed to the rapidly moving armoured forces in different and much shorter forms than with infantry divisions."_

Most powerful aspect of a tank force? It's mobilty and quick reaction, which requires fast, powerful and clear communication.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 16, 2005)

> Aside from there being no source of evidence that you have provided to state this actually happened.



Shall I try to find the info?



> The tank is an assault weapon, it's capability to hold ground is practically nil without the aid of supporting infantry and artillery.



Who said anything about holding ground? Thats usually not a breakthrough tanks job (T34, Tiger and Comet)

Radios are unnecessary of the (succesful) Soviet techniques of rushing a point in a massed assault or creating carnage individually, though Stugs would not have this option, though some apparently did.  



> You will find that you are wrong in that statement.



Well, what I said was right, but your point is more common and makes more sense and I was aware of it.



> Most powerful aspect of a tank force? It's mobilty and quick reaction



To a point, Tigers and KTs were pretty crap here, but still effective.

If the enemy has air superiority it is essential though, but was lacking under these circumstances for Russia and Germany.



> The only possible destruction of the radio is in the Command Tank which was also bristling with radio equipment.



Well ISA bullets could do this, as could small-calibre HE rounds and non-penetrating AP rounds, if the 1 command tank goes down before an assault though, that assault then likely doesn't happen.

You've given a lot of seemingly good info, I'll have to read it thouroughly and dig up Achtunganzer!

I know radios are an advantage, I know that, just not always vital.

A point is that with radio a Storch could range targets to German tanks, a huge advantage that.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 16, 2005)

The tank during breakthrough needs the support of the infantry and artillery also. What good is a tank breaking through if the land is not held after it's moved on?

The Soviet attacks were not successful at the start of the war. They only began to gain radios around 1943. And the Soviets were successful on a tactical basis, not always on an operational basis. 

How can you possibly hope for the point of attack to change with speed without radio?

No, again, you're thinking of the basic speed of the Tiger and King Tiger. But you're not paying attention at all. It's the operational basis of the tank which means it's mobilty and speed is it's greatest strength. As long as the tank can go at least 20 km/h it's fast enough for the breakthrough. And it will not get tired like marching infantry. The Armoured Division is the greatest formation, it's fast and it can bring everything to bear. 

No, the Command tank doesn't need to be constant contact. An Armoured Division has radio tanks and other vehicles capable of taking over the role of the Command Tank if it gets knocked out. 

I advise you do get Achtung: Panzer! You'll learn the tactical usage of tanks, because your knowledge of it seems limited.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 16, 2005)

> What good is a tank breaking through if the land is not held after it's moved on?



Hit-and-run destruction or Kamikaze-style. Or more tanks than you could hit with a spade! (like Kursk)

The T34 was considered a 'Cavalry tank' remember.



> How can you possibly hope for the point of attack to change with speed without radio?



You don't! - Human wave tactics, like WW1.



> As long as the tank can go at least 20 km/h it's fast enough for the breakthrough.



Unless it breaks down and needs refuelling every 5 minutes - there were a few very embarrasing situations involving KTs like this.



> An Armoured Division has radio tanks and other vehicles capable of taking over the role of the Command Tank if it gets knocked out.



I think the Soviets had only 1 vehicle? certainly only 1 tank per company, though he/she usually led from the rear.

I have Achtung Panzer, haven't read much though and had it yonks!  

I advise you to read up on Soviet 'techniques'.

Only the Soviets really could do without radios. I understand no other Army could do this really.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 16, 2005)

You do not prepare for an operational assault on the basis of hit and run. That would be a tactical plan inside the division itself with no long term goals or operational objectives. The sole purpose of a tank is to breakthrough and exploit. The aim of a tank force should be far in the enemy rear to destroy, disrupt or encircle their rear forces such as reserves, artillery, supply stations and command HQs. You're thinking tactically, not operationally. 

You use WWI tactics? And suffer the exact some problems, then fail. Merely increasing the numbers of men does not win a war. It was discovered that you had to have at least 3:1 ratio of manpower to secure any kind of advance against enemy positions that are well fortified. Even then the chances of success were low. The tank was needed to be used as a mobile breakthrough unit, capable of quick changes of direction and movement. 

The King Tiger wouldn't need to advance very far. There's breakthrough and there's explotation. The King Tiger would only to break through the enemy's defence and the rear echelons would take over with faster and longer range tanks to wreak havoc in open areas, never letting up to deprive the enemy of any chance to form a new defence line. 

I do know of the Soviet tactical thinking pre-war, early-war and late-war. Pre-war they thought much like the Germans and also believed that radio was a vital aspect of operational success. 

Early in the war the Soviet Union lacked any kind of tactical thought. They had no radio, no unit cohesian, tanks were sub-ordinate to the infantry and acted individually, they had no support from aircraft. They lost so amazingly it's quite hard to comprehend. Soviet forces were encircled some many times due to lack of communication. The German forces could change direction at a moments notice because of their radio. 

The late-war tactical thought arrived back, somewhat, towards the pre-war doctrine. They lacked radio and communication. These massive assaults were extremely costly. And even in the days of German retreat the Soviets risked encirclement and destruction, which did happen from time to time. By 1944 the Soviet Union had radio but not in every tank, they had command vehicles supporting attacks and radio units with any assault. The Soviet Union understood the need for communication, without it even their vast armies would be encircled and destroyed.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 17, 2005)

> The aim of a tank force should be far in the enemy rear to destroy, disrupt or encircle their rear forces such as reserves, artillery, supply stations and command HQs.



Same for anything really, only fools rush in head-on. Though sometimes it's necessary.



> Merely increasing the numbers of men does not win a war. It was discovered that you had to have at least 3:1 ratio of manpower to secure any kind of advance against enemy positions that are well fortified.



WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War - worked OK there didn't it?



> there's explotation.



There's also exploitation too!  (Just getting you back for Sitfire)



> The King Tiger wouldn't need to advance very far.



Well, you can't surprise anyone with a KT, apart from defensive purposes, it was really quite vulnerable.



> Early in the war the Soviet Union lacked any kind of tactical thought.



Yes, but the Germans were seen as liberators then, who would rid them of tyranny.

Later on, they knew it was kill or be killed.

The tankovy-desant changed Soviet tanks role a little too, dunno if that would be a factor though?



> By 1944 the Soviet Union had radio but not in every tank, they had command vehicles supporting attacks and radio units with any assault.



They always had tank 1 per company with a radio for assaults.

Later on T34/85's had more radios - just more back-up really?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> > The aim of a tank force should be far in the enemy rear to destroy, disrupt or encircle their rear forces such as reserves, artillery, supply stations and command HQs.
> 
> 
> 
> Same for anything really, only fools rush in head-on. Though sometimes it's necessary.



Have you ever heard of the Armoured Cav? That is what they do. Spearhead ahead with M-1's and destroy everything in there path. Basically busting a whole for the rest of the army to come in. They get behind and destroy everything from rearl, supplies, basically everything. And it works quite effective out in open terrain. Look at the Gulf War and the War in Iraq in 2003 as an example.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 17, 2005)

Yes, but an Abrams can have Iraqi equipment any which way but loose.

Didn't the Tawalkana cause them severe problems once?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

The Armoured Cav would have made easy with anyone. They were trained and equiped to be that effective.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 17, 2005)

I don't think against T95's or Merkavas?

- Or other Abrams/Challengers or Leopards for that matter?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

What the hell are you talking about. You have completly lost me.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 18, 2005)

What are you talking about? I didn't mention a flanking attack! The aim of the tank forces is to break through, be it head-on or in the flank! You don't have to always aim for the flank. You take each situation as it comes. But the sole purpose of a tank forces is to get to the enemy rear and roam free without allowing them to set up new defence lines. 

Again, what the hell are you talking about? WWI, increase in manpower did nothing. It took the tank to achieve any great success. The Allies realised that. They increased the number of men, artillery and airplanes but it all achieved nothing. In WWII all the increase in manpower had to be given machines to win. 

Do you have ANY clue about operations? Any at all? You can surprise the enemy with King Tigers, you hide their presence until the attack begins. The enemy doesn't even know you had King Tigers in that sector = SURPRISE. My god, you don't have a single clue about operational use, do you? It's all combat in your head. 

What the hell are you on about? The Soviet Union lacked tactics because Stalin had killed all his freakin' generals! It has nothing to do with Germany being seen as liberators albeit not by all!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

Yeah I am lost also.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 20, 2005)

Right, sorry if I'm confusing.  



> Look at the Gulf War and the War in Iraq in 2003 as an example.



I may have been jumping to conclusions, but I guess the Armoured Cav 'snipes' them at a distance with lower numbers?

The best the Iraqi's had at that time were Polish-built T72 'pigs' (export models-twice removed!)

These were not up to Russian T72 standards, or to the T80 T90+.

Nor were the Iraqi crews any good whatsoever.

This would likely not work against Russian crews in T90's (certainly not T95's!) or Isreali crews in Merkavas.

Also German crews in Leopards etc, etc.

Am I making sense?

Sorry if I'm not.  




> I didn't mention a flanking attack!



I thought you did? I see what you mean now, thanks for explaining.

Going straight ahead does not require a radio, does it?



> The Allies realised that. They increased the number of men, artillery and airplanes but it all achieved nothing.



Yes, but they didn't outnumber the Germans silly-amount to 1 like the Russians, did they?

Also Rorkes Drift, you must understand?



> In WWII all the increase in manpower had to be given machines to win.



Did I argue that?



> You can surprise the enemy with King Tigers, you hide their presence until the attack begins.



Chris Foss said something like:

The KT was a large tank, difficult to conceal and also ponderous, prone to being left behind. - a fate that happened to many.


The point is, you couldn't sneak with a KT unless it was stationary. They had to come to you, impossible the other way round??

However the 1st were supposed to make the Russians think they were PantherII's - it didn't work!

Besides even if the Russians didn't know KT's were there (highly unlikely) then they'd usually pull back were they were unable to follow.



> you don't have a single clue about operational use, do you?



Yes I do, KT's (ideal) operational use = ambush, 'sniping' or mobile bunker - that's pretty much it!

You could ambush with a KT, but you'd be very, very lucky to do so.

The same goes for the TigerI Panther.


Yes, the purge, those under him though Hitler couldn't possibly be as bad? - they were wrong!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Right, sorry if I'm confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No the tactics of the Armoured Cav is to punch a big whole through so the Heavy Divisions can punch right on in. The Armoured Cav can take on a any kind of tank and they dont do it at a distance. If you are talking about the Light Armoured Cav Recon then yes they attack at a distance if they attack at all since there main mission was to Scout out the enemy. The Heavy Armoured Cav hits you hard and fast before you know what hit you with There M-1 Tanks and Artillary in conjunction with Apache helicopters and OH-58D Kiowa Warrior Helicopters. It is sort similar to the Blitzkrieg tactics of WW2.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 25, 2005)

That's interesting DerAdler.

How do they achieve the element of surprise?

I suppose the choppers could act as a diversion, but wouln't you expect tanks then?

- Though I suppose if you're too busy with the choppers??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

Its not about the element of surprise. You just punch through as fast as you can and destroy anything in your path. The enemy knows you are there.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 26, 2005)

I don't get it, sorry!  

I don't think those tactics would work against armies like, say, Britain?

Surely, they'd be able to counter those tactics easily?

Is there a way I can read up on it?


----------



## Glider (Sep 26, 2005)

This isn't my field but it strikes me as one of those tatics that depends on aggression and shock. If you hit them hard and fast, then its possible that they will freeze and then they are finished. The enemy may know you are there but not when you are going to strike and being light the Cav have the oppertunity to be fast.

Schwar, like you, it also strikes me as a fairly high risk approach as if the defenders are able to take the initial hit, then the attackers could be in trouble. From what little I know the Armoured Cavalry are lightly equipped and not designed for a slugging match.

DerAlder. Feel free to correct me, as I could be way off beam on the above statement. Just trying to think it through.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2005)

No you are exactly right Glider. The lighter units go in and hit you hard and fast. Shock you before you know what hit you. Then the Main Divisions come through the hole that you just punched through and wipe everything out.


----------

