# Infantry VS Armor



## MacArther (Apr 10, 2008)

I'm looking for notable actions where infantry (from any side) were able to combat enemy armor enough to force a withdrawal, or reassessment of the situation. If possible, the actions *without* AT guns (i.e. 57mm M1, and other towed things) would be very interesting. I've found very few documentations of infantry against tanks at all, so it would be interesting to see how well some infantry did.


----------



## DBII (Apr 10, 2008)

Interesting subject. My first thought would be that without AT support the inf would be hard pressed to turn back Armor. Are you asking about WWII or in all periods? You may be able to find something from early WWII. By the end, I think that everyone was pretty much fighting combined arms. I am at work so I can not do much research. I would love to read examples of it also.

The British Abn took a beating during Market Garden and The German armor rolled over everything during the Bulge. The Inf will need the AT weapons and airpower to repluse the armor attacks. Unless the armor is attacking in Inf country, rough terrain, mountians, cities, the armor should win. As long as the tanks have freedom of movement, they win. 

There are many factors that effect the outcome of the battle. Once airpower and AT are added along with Arty, the battle changes. The best defense against tanks are other tanks. Attack Helos, Frogfoots and Wart Hogs are tank killing machines. The supply lines for armor also play an important role in battles. If all factors equal, armor will win. That being said, I cannot tell you how helpless I felt as a Tank Platoon leader during REFORG when we rushed for a woodline and found it crawling with light Inf and their AT weapons.  

DBII
clank, clank, I'm a tank


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 10, 2008)

The American 5th Army under General Mark Clark renewed the offensive on the west of the peninsula on October 2. The Eighth Army began a simultaneous drive on Ravenna, with the Canadians in the lead on the coast. On the night of October 21-22, one of the Canadian brigades was ordered to force a bridgehead over the River Savio which flowed north-eastwards to the sea. According to the official record, the weather was “most unfavourable to the operation”. Torrential rain had caused the Savio, to rise 6ft in five hours and the soft, vertical banks made bridging for light tanks or anti-tank guns temporarily impracticable. Hence the infantry crossed in assault boats with the Canadian Seaforths as spearhead. 

As the right-hand forward company was consolidating its position on the north bank, it was counter-attacked in typical German tactical manner by a small mixed force of infantry, tanks and self-propelled guns producing seemingly overwhelming fire power. Private Smith, as he then was, led his two-man team with the PIAT (projector infantry anti-tank) — a primitive form of bazooka — to a point from which they could hit the Mark V Panther tanks in their less heavily armoured sides. Having got his team into position, Smith dashed back for a second PIAT, but the Panthers were by then moving down the road firing their machineguns into the ditches, wounding one of his companions. 

Smith fired his PIAT and hit the first tank. A group of German infantry appeared from behind it and charged the Canadians. Firing his Thompson sub-machinegun at a few yards range, he killed four of the enemy and drove the others back. Almost at once a second Panther opened fire and more infantry appeared. Grabbing fresh magazines from his wounded comrade, Smith reloaded his Thompson and held off the enemy infantry until they withdrew. He then dragged his comrade into cover and applied a field dressing to his wound. 

Instead of returning to the company’s main position, Smith remained throughout the night on the right flank to cover that approach in case of any further counter-attack. None came. The Canadians held their ground north of the Savio until bridging could be put in place. The bridgehead was then used to open up the advance on Ravenna before the winter and, subsequently, into the strategically important valley of the River Po the following spring. 

“Smokey” Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross for his outstanding bravery and determination in the face of greatly superior enemy firepower. He received the decoration from King George VI at a private investiture at Buckingham Palace on the evening of December 18, 1944
Audie Murphy might also be a possibility but all I know about him is from the movie


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2008)

The places where armor really suffered was in Urban areas, the disadvantages being quite obvious. 

However out on the countryside and without AT support I'm afraid you will find very few examples of infantry pushing back or even halting an armored advance. 

The Allied infantry was absolutely dependant on AT support in any way or form when faced with German armor, otherwise it was a one way trip outta this world. The German infantry were fortunate enough to have a wide array of powerful handheld AT weapons such as the Panzerfaust Panzerschrek, both capable of piercing the armor of any Allied tank.

That having been said the Soviets had a somewhat effective infantry AT weapon in the very beginning of the war, the 14.5mm AT rifles. Being powerful enough to punch through the side armor of the Pzkpfw. I II, and whilst not devastating such a thing was always a nasty surprise for any German tanker.


----------



## JimmywiT (Apr 10, 2008)

The Germans had a lot of trouble in Stalingrad where the Russians learnt that if they went to the top floor of a building, or the basement, the German tanks could not elevate/depress their turrets eneugh to get a direct shot, leaving them free to engage them with molatov cocktails, plus the PTRD talked about by Soren above ^

The story of what Major Robert Cain (VC) did at Arnhem is amazing. A summery is that he disabled several tanks with only a PIAT and when that ran out of ammo engaged them with a two inch mortar, fired almost horizonally with the base off the ground as they were that close! He accounted for 6 tanks, 4 of which were Tigers, and an unknown amount of SPGs. Heres the full story:



> The South Staffords were being heavily attacked by tank and self-propelled guns, but they weren't able to bring up any anti-tank guns to repel them. Mortars were effectively being fired at point blank range upon German infantry, but the Staffords had to rely on PIATs to deal with the armour. Lieutenant Georges Dupenois kept several tanks at bay with his PIAT, while Major Jock Buchanan and Cain drew a lot of enemy fire by running around searching for ammunition for him. Cain did not believe that any tanks were actually disabled during the action, but the hits did encourage them to withdraw; even firing at the turrets with Bren guns forced them to move. The PIAT ammunition ran out at 11:30, and from then on the tanks had free rein over the area and proceeded to blow the defenceless troopers out of the buildings they occupied. Lt-Colonel McCardie came to see Major Cain and he ordered him to withdraw from the dell. As they were talking, Cain recalled seeing an entire bush being blown clean out of the ground. Putting down a rear guard of about a dozen men and a Bren gun, the Company withdrew from what Cain later described as the South Staffords Waterloo. However only he and a handful of other men succeeded in escaping.
> 
> Falling back through the 11th Battalion, Major Cain informed them that the tanks were on their way and requested they give him a PIAT, though sadly they had none to spare. He withdrew his men beyond the Battalion and gathered all the remaining South Staffords under his command. Though C Company was largely intact, at this stage he only managed to form two platoons from the entire battalion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Juha (Apr 10, 2008)

MacArther
read something on the Winter War between Finland and Soviet Union. At the beginning Finns had under 100 A/T guns and SU had over 2000 tanks with the troops operating against Finland. At the end Finns had some 150-200 A/T guns and SU over 5000 tanks. You will find lot of combats between tanks and infantry using Molotov's Cocktails and explosives.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Apr 10, 2008)

"The Allied infantry was absolutely dependant on AT support in any way or form when faced with German armor, otherwise it was a one way trip outta this world."

Soren
I recommended that You read what happened to 106th Pz.Brig when it attacked US 90. Div.

Juha


----------



## timshatz (Apr 10, 2008)

There was a fight during the Battle of the Bulge in the Twin Cities of Rocherath and Krinkelt. It was a key road junction that US troops were retreating through and needed to be held for that purpose. The 2nd USID was charged with doing it. 

The fight developed between the attacking German troops and the defending US troops. I think the fight lasted about two days. During which, the US troops held the German attack and destroyed any number of tanks with limited AT/Armor help. It was a bazooka fight, with US teams stalking German tanks and a generally confused situation for all players. 

Ended after the 2nd pulled out and back to Elseborn Ridge where the German attack went no further. 

There is probably plenty of stuff about it on the web.


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2008)

Juha said:


> "The Allied infantry was absolutely dependant on AT support in any way or form when faced with German armor, otherwise it was a one way trip outta this world."
> 
> Soren
> I recommended that You read what happened to 106th Pz.Brig when it attacked US 90. Div.
> ...



I suggest You read what happened Juha!

Allot of AT artillery was used as support to the 90th Div in that battle around Metz, namely the attached 607th Tank Destroyer battalion and 712th Tank battalion. And as if this wasn't enough the Commander in charge of the 106th Pz.Brigade's attack (Franz Bake) hadn't even used reconnissance prior to the attack and he didn't have any artillery support. Bake in short drove the 106th Pz.Brigade right into one large ambush, being pounded by artillery and having his flanks exposed to US AT guns TD's as-well as the 712th tank battalion.

So why did you bring this incident up Juha ? It has nothing to do with what we're debating here.

Like I said, the Allied infantry were absolutely dependant on AT support when faced with German armor, otherwise the German tanks would be over them in no time. (And that happened ALLOT during WW2)


----------



## JimmywiT (Apr 10, 2008)

Yes, taking out tanks without AT support generally requires you to be very close to the enemy tanks (less than 100 yards really) so most of the successes in repulsing armor by infantry accur in areas where the infantry is able to get close to the enemy tanks, and flank them to hit their vunerable bits, like heavily forested areas or urban areas and villages

infantry without this advantage would find it almost impossible to repulse armor, like on the Eastern steppe during operation Blue or operation Uranus, where infantry were without the ability to attack tanks without infantry support up close, and suffered accordingly, in the first case the russians, and the second the germans/romanians.


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2008)

Very correct Jimmy.


----------



## DBII (Apr 10, 2008)

Every battle has a special situation and exception. In the case of the Bulge, many people believed that the woods would not support an armor advance. This was one of the reasons why the Ardense was choosen for the Amercian units to reconsitute. Also green units were there to get trained before rotating to the front. The terrain was made for Inf not Armor. That is one of the reasons why the attack was a surprise and worked as well as it did. It is also one of the reasons why the atack failed. American Inf was able to create choak points at major intersections and it restricted the Armor ablity to move. Without movement, tanks become pill boxes. Inf can beat armor in the mountain, Soviets in Afgainistan (sp?), rough terrain, thick woods, and urban areas.

DBII


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2008)

The Ardenne offensive stalled for namely ONE reason; NO FUEL. A large amount of Tigers, Panthers and TD's were abandoned by the Germans as they ran out of fuel, however first they were most blown up by their own crews, but a few were seized intact.


----------



## Juha (Apr 11, 2008)

Soren
“So why did you bring this incident up Juha ? It has nothing to do with what we're debating here.”

Because lot of 106's losses were due bazooka teams and also because the tought reaction of supposedly “soft” American soldiers to German armoured surprise attack surely surprised Germans.

“Bake in short drove the 106th Pz.Brigade right into one large ambush, being pounded by artillery and having his flanks exposed to US AT guns TD's as-well as the 712th tank battalion.”

Now how you define an ambush, I understand it something that was laid down, in this case 106.PzBrig hit unexpectedly at the flank of 90. Div, first firefight was around bivouacked divisional artillery HQ. 

To me ambush is something like the one by “A” Coy/5 DCLI/214 Brig/43 Div in 22 Sept 44 when it destroyed 5 Tigers of sPzK Hummel west of Elst by PIATs and mines.

“Like I said, the Allied infantry were absolutely dependant on AT support when faced with German armor, otherwise the German tanks would be over them in no time. (And that happened ALLOT during WW2)”

Because war ended when Allied reached Elbe, in all probably German infantry was overrun by Allied armour more often than Allied infantry by German panzers.

“The Ardenne offensive stalled for namely ONE reason; NO FUEL”

Now lack of fuel had big influence to the downfall of 2nd PzD but for example 116th PzD was stopped near Hotton by tenacious defence by US troops and KG Peiper was first deflected by US combat engineers who constantly blew up bridges at the face of Pieper’s point Panthers and finally stopped when some Shermans knocked out the point Panthers of the KG

Juha


----------



## DBII (Apr 11, 2008)

I would not say that lack of fuel stalled the attack. The Germans did not meet their early objectives of crossing the Meuse River. They were not expecting the Americans to put up a fight at places like St Vith and then Bastone. The delay of controling St Vith and failing to capture Bastone resulted in the avenue of attack being choaked off. The terrible winter weather made off road travel difficult. The Germans started to operations knowing that fuel levels were an issue. The plan was to capture fuel from the Allies but this never happend. 

I am at work so I do not have the details with me. If I make it to the college over the weekend, I will post some notes. While stationed in Germany, my unit studied this battle and did a week long terrain walk over the area durning the winter. My Sqdrn Cmdr's father was the Bn Cmdr that lead Patton's road march to Bastone. I have pictures of the Plt leader that made the first contact with the 101st Abn if anyone is interested in seeing them.

DBII


----------



## renrich (Apr 11, 2008)

Do naval guns count? The Germans in Italy found that infantry supported by naval gunfire was a nasty proposition. The 24th division in Korea had to do a lot of fighting against T34s without much armor support. They found the WW2 bazooka was not very effective against T34s.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 11, 2008)

DBII said:


> I have pictures of the Plt leader that made the first contact with the 101st Abn if anyone is interested in seeing them.
> 
> DBII



Of coarse we'd like to see..

They may be worthy of their own thread.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 13, 2008)

It is true that generally infantry can only repulse armour in urban areas, and most have some handheld AT weapon at hand. 

I don't want to hi-jack the thread but for me the Ardennes Offensive was going to fail with or without fuel. There were no reserves for the advancing German forces, so there would have been nothing to fill in the bulge they would create. I do not see any possibility of that force holding the British in the north and the Americans in the south for any length of time without reserves to fill in the gaps along the German lines.


----------



## DBII (Apr 14, 2008)

I agree. If the Germans made it to Antwerp the Allies supply lines would have been messed up but the Germans could not have held their gains. Patton's relief of Bastone would have become an flanking attack on the Germans. Would the sucess of the Germans resulted in a cease fire or surrender terms? I think that Hitler would demand continued offensive operations after feeling good about the operations.

DBII


----------



## Juha (Apr 15, 2008)

Plan D
"It is true that generally infantry can only repulse armour in urban areas"

I'd say that infantry has a chance in any terrain which clearly limited tanks ability to manoeuvre and the ability of their crews to observe the neighbourhood. I was trained to fought against overhelming tank-heavy enemy in heavily forested terrain. Afgans showed the effects of mountainous country and Vietnamese the effects of jungle and rice paddies.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 15, 2008)

Juha there's a big difference between your AT training and that given to Allied soldiers of WW2. Today handheld AT weapons are used by everyone everywhere, very much affecting how soldiers today are trained. During WW2 US UK only had the Bazooka and PIAT at their disposal, which were completely useless in open terrain.

In the incident at Metz you refered to the 90th Div. directed a mass of artillery and AT fire at the 106th Pz.Brigade, which is the only reason that attack got repulsed. Had this support not been available to the 90th division they would've been overrun in no time.


----------



## Juha (Apr 16, 2008)

Soren
we combat engineers had at the time when I was in the army, ie many years ago, only A/T mines and one RPG per squad as A/T weapons, our S55 RPG had max range of some 100-150m against moving tanks. And our secondary function was that of A/T reserve! And of course we got some training with Molotov's cocktails, effective range say 10m. Not so much difference with that of 1944-45. So I know what close combat with tanks means, not very healthy occupation. I even made some shooting with WWII Suomi smg, got excellent results but what a disappointment after assault rifle, no kick to mention, only brrrr, really a pop gun. Also got some training with Degt... the soviet lmg/BAR with big flat magazine on the top, but never fired one, instead did some shooting with new (then) Finnish LMG, was that Model 62. but I was trained to disassemble and assemble Degt.., the Finnish WWII BAR Lahti-Saloranta Model 26 and even the WWII bolt-action rifle. But did shooting only with Suomi, assault rifle RK 62, LMG 62 and RPG S55.

Now 106.PzBr vs 90. InfD. The firefight began at night, US tanks were during darkness mostly rather passive in fear of friedly fire incidences. And heck, if tanks attacked infantry division of course there was also A/T guns and artillery around. The US artillery fire was so effective because US infantry/AT defences succeeded in forcing Germans to bunch up and at least one group of German AFVs got so confused that they bunched up onto one sunken road to perfect target to US artillery.


Juha


----------



## Glider (Apr 16, 2008)

Juha said:


> I'd say that infantry has a chance in any terrain which clearly limited tanks ability to manoeuvre and the ability of their crews to observe the neighbourhood. I was trained to fought against overhelming tank-heavy enemy in heavily forested terrain. Afgans showed the effects of mountainous country and Vietnamese the effects of jungle and rice paddies.
> 
> Juha



I have to agree with this statement. The key is the lack of mobility of the AFV and the lack of visibility, be it caused by buildings, forests or mountains.

The obvious difference between WW2 and modern AT weapons is the increased range and accuracy. 
I admit I don't fancy the idea of having to use Molotov's cocktails!!


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2008)

The first true allied victory of an Infantry force, against armour was by the Australian 9th Division at tobruk, April-June 1941.

The battle was one for a number of reasons, and cannot be attributed to any one factor really

The 9th had 2pdr AT guns, which did help, but were not solely responsible. The Australians were the first to use 25 pdrs over open sights, even though there were no AT rounds as such, a direct hit by a 25 lb shell was found to be enough to blow apart a Mark II, Mark I or even a Mark III. The Germans lines of advance had been carefully laid out so that the support indirect fire was able to lay down very accurate fire to break up and isolate the attacking armour from its Infantry support. the Infantry support for the axis attack was at first halted, and then pushed back by the ferocity of the Australian Infantry's counterattacks, which continued, without respite, day and night until the Axis Infantry had had enough and withdrew. Meanwhile, the Axis armour continued to push forward, unsupported, and into a trap. The Australians were fortunate in that on the second day (I think) ther was a heavy dust storm. This allowed the Australian assault teams to stalk and attack the german Tank force with great efficiency. At the end oif it all, the Germans had lost something in the order of 40 tanks.

During Crusader, it was the New Zealand Division who blunted Rommels armoured attacks, not the british armour. The Brit armour time and again let down the supporting Infantry.

Finally it was the french general Weygand who in the latter stages of the battle Of france worked out the best means for Infantry to defend against armoured attack. It was called the "Quadrillage" system of defence, which i think means "checkerboard". The Russians used a variation of this technique at Kursk. The Infantry basically does not try to hold a continous front but forms self supporting strongpoints (the British called them "boxes, or "Hedgehogs" in the desert. The objectives of these strongpoints is simple, to resist for as long as possible to impede the enemy armours mobilty, impede his logistical support, and tie down the enemy supporting Infantry. If help is likely to arrive, the hedgehog stays in place, if not, at some point it must prepare to break out and make for safety.

What is required for this kind of defence to work is good nerves. if people panic they will lose. If air support is available it can be a big help. A mobile counterattack force is also pretty important. this was lacking in the Battle Of France, and for the germans (who also used it) in many parts of the Eastern Front after Kursk (their armoured reserves were just too weak to effectively stop the russians). Ardennes saw the US forces hedgehog in exactly the same way, until the armoured reserves arrived. The germans were going nowhere fast in the Ardennes, which was admittedly excacerbated by their fuel shortages, meant that they could not manouvre properly. Once the weather broke, it was all over 

Armour is generally surpisingly weak against determined Infantry. it needs plenty of support from the other arms in order to be effective. Armour in urban situations is vulnerable, and has to trade places with the Infantry, ie, the Infantry leads, and the armour provides the support.


----------



## Juha (Apr 16, 2008)

I have known maybe since I was some 13 years old that Molotov’s cocktail was a weapon only used when better weapons were not around and I have been since both angry and sad that Finnish Army had to use them as one of its main AT weapon during the Winter War. Using it myself during training reinforced my view but of course also increased my admiration to those Finns, Spaniards, Russians and Japanese who had had guts to use them effectively under fire. Really suicidal weapon to use against groups of tanks with some infantry support. How near our experience was to that of WWII is shown by the facts that we used the cocktails against old Vickers 6 tonners or T-26s and our training with or against running tanks was made in co-op with Charioteers which were WWII Comets with new bigger turret with 20pdr gun. And our RPG S55 was effective only against side and rear of MBTs just like bazooka was against Pz Vs and VIs. I was also trained to lay some WWII era mines such as Tellermine 42, S-mine (the jumping mine), but on the WWII era mines used as live only Finnish pipemine Model 43 and wooden box mine, used by Russians, Finns and Germans during WWII and of course some 60s types.

Parsifal
first "victory" during WWII against tanks I'm aware was at the beginning of the war when one Polish cavalry brigade stopped 4th PzD for appr 24 hours and inflicted to it rather heavy losses with its 37mmA/T guns and A/T rifles.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2008)

Parsifal
first "victory" during WWII against tanks I'm aware was at the beginning of the war when one Polish cavalry brigade stopped 4th PzD for appr 24 hours and inflicted to it rather heavy losses with its 37mmA/T guns and A/T rifles.

Juha[/QUOTE]

Hi Juha

There were many occasions where delay against the Panzers was achieved. However, within a reasonable time frame the germans were back and had taken, or achieved, their objective.

in the case of the Tobruk battle, this was the first time that this did not occur. Despite being outnumbered, the germans were forced to abandon their attack, and did not achieve it subsequently. As far as I am aware, this did not happen prior to this date.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Apr 17, 2008)

the Finns were very effective to combat the armoured units of the RKKA indeed, the whole brigades were encircled and wiped out by their mobile anti - tank units. 
But as I always say, that's not an infantry job - in fact, if you as a grunt are facing the tanks with your bazooka, that means something went wrong))


----------



## Juha (Apr 17, 2008)

Parsifal
” There were many occasions where delay against the Panzers was achieved. However, within a reasonable time frame the germans were back and had taken, or achieved, their objective.”

Yes I know, therefore I used “ ”. I was also too cautious, it seems that the cavalry brigade held its front more or less intact almost 40 hours and an important reason for its disengagement was that the southern neighbour of 4th PzD, the 1st PzD, had achieved a breakthrough further south and the southern flank of the cavalry brigade hanged in thin air, the point of 1st PzD being some 20km further east. 
After tanks were able to freely use their mobility, cavalry was in big troubles and 4th Pz were ready to begin its dash towards Warsaw, where it was to suffer more heavy losses when it tried to force its way into the city.
I think that the cavalry brig. did very well even if it was supported by an armoured train. In the defence of the 4thPz, IMHO it was easier to be in defence than attacking in one’s first real combat. Also 4th was one of the “new” PzDivs, maybe not yet as well trained than the 1. – 3.PzDivs or the light divs (later converted to 6. – 9. PzDivs)


Ramirezzz
“in fact, if you as a grunt are facing the tanks with your bazooka, that means something went wrong))”

Or that the politician of a small country had been too stingy before the war and the soldiers must pay a heavy price for that. Of course in democracy and with a conscript army the soldiers were partly guilty because they were/are also voters. 

And we got some touch on what it had been during the WWII when shooting with Suomi smg with WWII era helmet on our head and WWII era great coat rolled on our back, boots were also like those used during WWII, almost only "modern " gear being our camo uniform.

Juha

Juha


----------



## MacArther (Apr 17, 2008)

Gimme some time, I'll post an article that I have about an infantry man knocking out a Panther with a rifle grenade, and then using said Panther's AA machine gun to attack German troops.


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2008)

Juha,

The two worst places for a tank to be are urban heavily vegetated areas such as dense forrests. 

Out in the open you guys wouldn't have stood a chance, you would've all been blown to smithereens within seconds. And based on the equipment you said you had available you guys wouldn't have lasted long against even 3 well commanded tanks in pretty much any place but very dense forests and urban areas.

Besides I'm sure most soldiers will scoot when then only have a single RPG and see two or three tanks coming their way. Just the sight of a tank is enough to make many panic.

Now back to WW2 imagine a squad seeing a Tiger coming their way when they only have a PIAT at their disposal ! Sheer terror mate! Sheer terror! If Allied tankers suffered from Tigerphobia think about the poor infantry who bumped into one without any AT support!


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Juha,
> 
> *Out in the open you guys wouldn't have stood a chance, you would've all been blown to smithereens within seconds. And based on the equipment you said you had available you guys wouldn't have lasted long against even 3 well commanded tanks in pretty much any place but very dense forests and urban areas.*
> If the Finns even possessed 75 mm artillery guns, they could have used them to disable the light and medium tanks ranged against them. This is a nonsense anyway. The Finns wre in cover, so the argument is spurious. But there are many situations where Infantry was confronted by armour, without the benefit of proper AT, in the open and lived to tell the tale. Infantry that is not dug in is a different story. All the comabatants, from the latter stages of the BOF onwards, employed variations to the Quadrillage defence system, to counter this effect precisely
> ...



Its scary, i am sure, but for the Infantry to survive, it has to resist that natural and understandable fear. Dig in, look for the flanks, and start to stalk the target. Standard tactics for nearly every army fielded during the war, I daresay


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

Hi Juha

I did know that the Poles put up some pretty impressive defences against the Panzers, did not know it was quite that long.....but even 40 or 50 hours, in my opinion is not a totally successful defence. It is obviously a very heroic and stubborn defence, but it did not ultimately succeed.

My post was not intended to say that the Aussies were some kind of supermen, or that everything before that ws a complete unmitigated disaster. What i was trying mostly to say that this alleged invincibility of tanks to Infantry is a sham. What defeats pure Infantry is not pure tanks, its really an all arms effort, with the tanks keeping the enemy Infantry occupied and pinned down, whilst the supporting elements friendly to the tanks finish the job.

This is why the russians in 1939 could not defeat the finns...no co-operation between the various arms


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

*Now back to WW2 imagine a squad seeing a Tiger coming their way when they only have a PIAT at their disposal ! Sheer terror mate! Sheer terror! If Allied tankers suffered from Tigerphobia think about the poor infantry who bumped into one without any AT support! [/QUOTE*]

Further to my last post, BTW, this is about the worst possible way of using Tigers, which were designed as heavy support tanks. They should not be used as in Infantry assault like that...they are not that good at it. Far better to send in your lighter, more manaouverable types, andd leave the tigers on the hill, to provide long range covering fire


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2008)

Parsifal,

My comments take into consideration that the infantry in question has NO AT support what'so'ever, in which case they wouldn't have stood a chance at all out in the open, esp. not if they only had available ONE RPG. 



> Sorry, but no, as a general rule, you do not run from tanks. You find, or make cover, and use various means to hit back. This may, or may not, include dedicated AT defences.



They don't have any AT support, that's the whole point!! So how are they going to hit back exactly Parsifal ??



> What Juha is describing is classic Infantry defences against armour.



In heavily vegetated and Urban areas yes, all of which is useless out in the open.


----------



## Juha (Apr 18, 2008)

Soren
“Juha, The two worst places for a tank to be are urban heavily vegetated areas such as dense forrests.” 

I agree.

”Out in the open you guys wouldn't have stood a chance, you would've all been blown to smithereens within seconds. And based on the equipment you said you had available you guys wouldn't have lasted long against even 3 well commanded tanks in pretty much any place but very dense forests and urban areas.

Besides I'm sure most soldiers will scoot when then only have a single RPG and see two or three tanks coming their way. Just the sight of a tank is enough to make many panic.

Now back to WW2 imagine a squad seeing a Tiger coming their way when they only have a PIAT at their disposal ! Sheer terror mate! Sheer terror! If Allied tankers suffered from Tigerphobia think about the poor infantry who bumped into one without any AT support!”

Now, I recommend some good infantry training to you. In the open our chances would have been slim, I agree. But in the open terrain there are often some cover and one can use smoke, or could at the time when I was in the army, thermal image sights were not so common and so good as nowadays, etc. Yes, if the tankers in other side were good and had good situation awareness we could easily have been dead soldiers. But you never know that beforehand. And good solders do not bolt away when they saw 3 tanks. Heck, Finns in Karelia Isthmus saw many times 30 - 50 tanks coming with hundreds of infantry towards them after after very heavy artillery preparation. And they did not have even one RPG, only Molotov's Cocktails and bunched explosives, if lucky one 37mm A/T gun lurking somewhere and very meagre artillery support. And many their positions were in fields or in sparse wooded dry peaty forests. And that went on weeks. Of course Finns took heavy losses but Soviet losses were much heavier and they also lost many tanks. Finns tactic was the shoot the infantry down, let the tanks through, trying to destroy as many of them as possible with close combat A/T weapons. They knew that if they could keep the Soviet infantry away their positions the tanks will return from the rear before darkness because without infantry they would have in trouble with Finnish A/T teams in darkness.

Heh, in the example I wrote earlier, when the “A” Coy/DCLI saw Tigers and Panthers driving past a crossroad towards “B” Coy, what they did? They calculated that “B” can hold out, advanced to crossroads, laid down some mines, asked more PIATs and waited. After a while the Germans truly came back, end result was 5 destroyed German tanks, mostly Tigers but when I checked from photos, at least one seemed to be Panther. And that in the Holland. “Sheer terror mate! Sheer terror!” really.

Now that was only one case. Of course there are also examples where infantry, be it Finnish, British, German, Russian etc panicked but there are also many cases were they fought successfully against tanks.


Juha


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2008)

Soren said:


> Parsifal,
> 
> My comments take into consideration that the infantry in question has NO AT support what'so'ever, in which case they wouldn't have stood a chance at all out in the open, esp. not if they only had available ONE RPG.
> 
> ...




Contrary to the main thrust of what you are saying, unsupported tanks versus Infantry in nearly every situation are vulnerable. In an assualt on an Infantry position, they need to adopt an all arms approach. If they do that, and they can suppress the enemy infantry, then the enmy Infantry has a real problem. but this is not the supposition yuou are trying to pedal at the moment


----------



## Juha (Apr 18, 2008)

Parsifal, I agree with you. One main reason for the effectiveness of German panzer units during early and middle war years was that PzDivs were well balanced all arms formations. Guderian and co. saw that need well. And after Polish Campaign also the conservatives in the Heer hierarchy gave in and allowed to convert Light Divs to PzDivs. And in the eve of Polish Campaign independent PzRgts were taken under command of more or less ad hoc PzDiv Kempf (later 10th PzD). 

Yes, tanks without infantry and artillery support can be stalked by enemy infantry if there is some cover even if only low visibility. Even if tank is a formidable weapon it cannot fire all directions at the same time, its ability to change direction of fire is much slower than that of an infantry man. The movement of turret with its long barrel is easy to notice and it is much easier to see a tank than a man, not to mention hearing. Tank is a hard and difficult target but not an impossible one.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2008)

Hi Juha

Sorry to get so annoyed, but anyone who knows even a little about Infantry tactics, knows that the Finns were among the very best Infantry in the world. They really knew their jobs, and werent scared into running away by tanks (I could not believe what i was reading). And, the AT Guns were just a part of the defensive measures that could be used....things like Mines, AT Ditches, even barbed wire, barricades, even blown bridges, can all be used to slow or disable an enemy tank formation. Infantry versus pure armour is a no brainer, for anyone with any Military experience. 

Did you know that the germans actually used the French 75 as a significant AT Gun during the war. They produced an AP round for it. It was used in considerable numbers. Even without AP ammunition, artilery can be used against tanks, firing HE smoke and the like. I was taught to fire basically everything at the attacking tanks, and to also try and separate those tanks from any supporting Infantry. The enemy Infantry was the considered the biggest threat, but the tanks could make you keep your heads down, and that was a problem. 

I am not familiar with the S-55 weapon. We trained with Karl Gustav. Are they similar. i am not at all familiar with AT weapons, being ex-navy


----------



## DBII (Apr 18, 2008)

I have talked to several older light Inf types and most have told me at first they were worried about tanks. Once they understood the weaknesses, they learned how to work around them. The appearance of tanks in the area with out AT does not mean that the Inf would break and run. A well train unit would stay in place as long as possible. Even with AT support, a green unit could break at the site of a tank formation. It all comes down to training and leadership.

The original question was could Inf units repulse Armor units without AT support? Without the AT weapons the Inf would have a difficult time replusing armor. There are other factors that come into play, terrian, weather, quality of troops etc. Tanks were designed to destory Inf. The Inf is in the same postion against tanks as tanks are against air power. Without the proper support, they will be killed. 

DBII
clank, clank


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2008)

Hi DBII

Well, put in those terms, of course it would be more difficult to withstand tanks without proper AT. But you know, Juha is right, its not impossible. During the BOF, the French, (not my favourite army) using weygands checkerboard defence ideas, were able to resist far more effectively than they had done using their "continous front theories of the first half of the campaign. Unfortunately for the french it was allover by the time they realized even the elementary characteristics of AT defence. By the beginning of the June campaign they were usung such expedients as using their 75s over open sights. The british Infantry in the desert found the 25pdr to be their most effective AT defence.

The Russians in 1941 were conceptually, far ahead of everyone in terms of the use of artillery (their actual usage of artillery was, as we all know pretty poor however). their army regulations laid down the following principals.

1) All defence is primarily AT Defence and all artillery is also AT artillery.
2) In offensive operations direct fire from masses of guns should be encouraged and area fire weapons extensively

(my apologies in the translation of their army regulations...its the best i can do i am afraid)

So my opinion remains, although somewhat modified....whilst dedicated AT weaponary was an advantage, lack of AT weaponary did not render defence against tanks impossible, IMHO.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2008)

Now, there will be more than a few of you saying to yourselves something like" well, if tanks are not able to easily beat Infantry how come the germans (and others) used them to spearhead all their offensives?" The answer is quite simple. its not just tanks that did it. nor was it just Infantry, or just artillery. it wsa the successful combination of all arms, in just the right blend, and using just the right technique to break the defending Infantry, or force. I am not saying tanks are not immensely powerful. What i am saying is thay cant do the job on their own. i am also adamantly saying that AT defence does not end with the AT Battalian in a division. I am even saying that the dedicated AT force is not even the mainstay of the AT defence


----------



## Juha (Apr 18, 2008)

Hello Parsifal

“Did you know that the germans actually used the French 75 as a significant AT Gun during the war.”

Yes, that was 7,5cm Pak 97/38, also Finns had them during later part of Continuation War (1941-44). 
We did not use artillery pieces as A/T weapons during Winter War because we had so few of them, only 420 pieces at the start of the Winter War, 306 of them old Russian 76,2mm Model 02 field cannon. 02 means that the gun began to serve in the Imperial Russian Army in 1902. All or almost all other guns were also models designed before WWI. One arty battalion had 150mm Japanese howitzer which were originally Russin war booty from Russian-Japanese War of 1904-05. Of the 10 division we had at the beginning of the war, only 9 had a weak arty rgt each, the 10th did not have any arty. But no problem the one without arty got soon better field guns than the others had, namely good new war-booty Soviet 76,2mm fieldcannon model 36s.

Yes, S55 was similar to early Carl Gustav but it was smooth bore firing fin stabilated rockets usually HEAT but we also had HE warhead, which was useful up to 300m against soft targets, of course at that range target must be stationary or slow moving if we hope to hit it.

Juha


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 18, 2008)

Soren said:


> Juha,
> 
> Sheer terror mate! Sheer terror! If Allied tankers suffered from Tigerphobia think about the poor infantry who bumped into one without any AT support!


Yep they all scurried away because the German supermen with all there fabulous untouchable weapons were coming even as the approached they Reichstag


----------



## Juha (Apr 18, 2008)

Hello
did some checking
"We did not use artillery pieces as A/T weapons during Winter War because we had so few of them" 
That isn't entirely correct, some field cannons were used in A/T role during the Winter War.

"One arty battalion had 150mm Japanese howitzer which were originally Russin war booty from Russian-Japanese War of 1904-05. "

Now, in this my memory made a trick, the howitzers were in fact ex-Russian which had been participated in Russo-Japanese War.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2008)

Hi Juha

Thanks for the correction.

Are you basing your statement about Finn artillery not being used in an AT role on the fact that there was no dedicated AT rounds for them. It does not necessarily follow that just because you have only HE that you cant be used for direct fire, or even indirect fire. Heck even howitzers and mortars have some use against tanks in a sense.... Russians would not hesitate to use these weapons...at least it gives any accompanying Infantry some discomfort, and you might throw a track or bog a tank, who knows?


----------



## Juha (Apr 19, 2008)

Hello Parsifal
"Are you basing your statement about Finn artillery not being used in an AT role on the fact that there was no dedicated AT rounds for them."

No, on the fact that our artillery was so weak, division had only 36 pieces, 24 light field cannons (75 or 76,2mm) and 12 field howitzers (105-152mm). Every cannon moved to direct fire job was away from indirect fire job, which after all was the main function of artillery and very important to hinder enemy infantry which greatly outnumbered ours. Even more so because 75-76,2mm shells were rather ineffective during the winter because of heavy snow. As comprasion Soviet 1939 infantry div had 78 pieces of arty (38 light field cannon and 40 howitzers) and the pieces were more modern. Plus lot of Corps and Army artillery. Most of our artillery was organic to divisions, with 420 pieces not much was left to higher level arty units.

But as I wrote I was not complety right in my claim, some fieldguns were used in A/T role, with HE shells. I only had completely forgot that. 

Soviet had plenty of artillery and their 76,2mm light field cannon had high muzzle velocity, so they suited well to A/T work, Germans used their war booty 76,2mm often as A/T guns and rebored many of them to 75mm to ensure ammo supply in long run.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2008)

Well all I can say is hats off to the Finn Infantry. They must have had nerves of steel. i am truly impressed


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2008)

I thought these extracts from the 1937 Infantry Training Manual might be of some use. They are a near perfect reflection of how the defence of tobruk was undertaken some 4 years later. 

I t reinforces the argument that AT defence was not just a question of AT guns, at least not in the first half of the war. There were modifications of course to this theory, as the war progressed, but that certainly was not that if you are confronted by enemy tanks that you should run and flee

Not all Allied training was a wate of time. they pretty much had the infantry stuff under control, but Tank formations are another story


----------



## Juha (Apr 19, 2008)

Parsifal
thanks for posting those pages, they are very interesting. 
Principles are same than those in 70s. The effects of small arms fire on the slits might be a bit overstated but shooting back always gives some “feel good” effect to shooter and the manual doesn’t give too much hope for spectacular effects, which is good. Disappointments being bad to morale. On A/T rifles, oh, British Boys was a poor weapon, not much penetration power. Finns did not have A/T rifles at the beginning of the Winter War, which was a very bad shortcoming. Got some before the end from abroad, some Boys, I cannot recall if we bothered to distribute them to troops and some ex-polish from Hungary, arrived near the end of Winter War, which were a bit better. Finn could have a reasonable 20mm A/T rifle in some numbers but for slow decision making of some high ranking officers. There was much argument on the calibre of the rifle and the general who had the last word preferred 13mm. Even after many tests which all showed that 20mm A/T rifle was clearly better, he delayed his acceptance whole summer of 39 and so only 2 or 6 protos arrived in time to take part of the fighting, production weapons began arrive some months after the end of Winter War.

Thanks again 
Juha


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2008)

Sorry about the very poor scaling. Dont know what i am doing, and how to control. Might try to adjust image size before posting on thread next time


----------



## Juha (Apr 19, 2008)

One more correction, I wrote earlier that Charioteer was based on Comet, that’s not so. Charioteer was Cromwell VII with a bigger turret with a 20pdr gun. So even more clearly mostly WWII era vehicle. Finns bought some Comets same time as they bought the Charioteers, maybe that was the reason why I wrongly remembered that Charioteer was returretted Comet. Also at first British had thought to use Comets for the conversation but they were needed as gun tanks so they turned the second best option, Cromwell VII..


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2008)

Juha, I don't need any additional AT training.

I guess we all have a different understanding of what "out in the open" means..

Out in the open, as in with no trenches to hide in but only perhaps some bushes, trees, a ditch or crater, and with ONE RPG, against three well manned tanks complimenting each other not even 100 men will stand a chance, it will be a turkey shoot. So what to do in that situation?? Scoot! But not by running blindly into fire ofcourse (Are we stupid ??), but by crawling away in cover, or dashing between cover in both direction in order to divert fire as much as possible. But all in all it's a disasterous situation to be in as casualties is assured.

Also don't confuse German tankcrews AND tanks with Soviet ones! Totally different opposition to be up against. The German tankers were expertly trained and manned superior tanks, the Soviet tankers were not very well trained and they were manning what many would call death traps (Atleast that's what Tom Clancy describes them as, and I'd agree for the most part).

Furthermore the Finns were often defending from trenches built specifically to combat armour, and in wooden and snowfilled areas. And again the Soviet infantry was poorly trained led, assaulting as if they were immune to smallarms fire. PLUS, soviet infantry armour were very poorly coordinated, esp. at that point in time.

PS: Smart tank commanders don't allow formations to bunch up, but makes sure each tank can effectively cover the other. And if infantry is assisting he will allow them to seek cover behind the tanks as they advance.


----------



## Juha (Apr 21, 2008)

"I don't need any additional AT training"
So You had got some AT training, where and when, if i may ask?

We seemed to have uderstood open similarly.

Its rather difficult to see a soldier lurking among bushes, I mean in 70s, especially because he could use his hearing to follow the movement of the tanks

"Also don't confuse German tankcrews AND tanks with Soviet ones!"

How the "A" Coy/5 DCLI made the trick, I don't recall any Soviet tankcrews fighting in Tigers in Holland. Do You? And the men of "A" Coy just had some bushes and ditches from which to fight the Tigers.

"Furthermore the Finns were often defending from trenches built specifically to combat armour"

Really, during the Winter War? I recall only some short slits trenches and foxholes at ambush sites but the MLR trenches were really not built for combat armour.

Now in summer 44 that might be true but then Soviet combined arms attacks went through Finnish prepared lines rather easily and were stopped only in hastily prepared foxhole-lines further back.

And as I wrote earlier most of heavy fighting in Karelian Isthmus at the Finnish main defence line was fought in rather open area, in open fields or sparcely wooden area. Soviet of course put their main effort alongside and nearby the main road to Viipuri/Vyborg. And same time the best tank country in the area.

"Smart tank commanders don't allow formations to bunch up"

There are many stories of German armour bunching up, just because of stupid German commanders or what are you driving at?

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2008)

Soren

Is the sort of terrain you are envisaging that which you might find in the desert????


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> *Juha, I don't need any additional AT training.*
> 
> Please, we would all like you to elaborate a little on your AT training, what equipment, when, which army. We need to know your practical experience, so we can guage the veracity of your claims soren
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2008)

Parsifal,

There are examples of one or two Panzers halting the advance of entire Allied battalions, and these Panzers were unsupported, and I'm sure you know some of these incidents. 

I'll give you a smaller a typical scenario:

Place: Normandy 
Surroundings: Farmland, large open field which has to be crossed to access and capture town. The town is surrounded by open fields except for a few vegetated spots in the fields with some trees and bushes and a road lined with trees on either side running into the town. 

Your forces: 100 soldiers mainly equipped with rifles, a few MG's, handgrenades and a few Bazookas. And if an engineer is present some explosives. (Your choice) At your disposal is two M4 Shermans and light artillery support.

Your job is to cross the field and capture the small town on the other side within nightfall.

The field needed to be crossed would look somewhat like this: 





And as for intelligence here's what you know:
1.) No activity around the town has been observed, however civilians have been spotted wlaking around inside the town.
2.) Aerial recon and your own scouts spotted no enemy armour or AT guns from afar, but you know they could easily be hidden away.
3.) A caught enemy radio message talks about getting fuel to the town.

But there's also something you don't know, which I'll you after you respond to the question below.

So what do you do ? How do you move forward and capture the town?


----------



## Juha (Apr 25, 2008)

Soren
You think you are clever? When it got difficult to you, you changed the subject. We had been talking on the chances infantry in defence had against tank attack and when you have revealed your ignorance on that you chanced the subject to infantry attacking tanks in defence!

On your scenario a platoon with some mgs and an an artillery forward observer with some arty to call would have been enough and much better than a couple tanks after nightfall.

But solution, use your arty to create a couple smoke screens. If the village was hold only by a couple tanks, the idea that a bazooka team or two being infiltrating into village in the cover of the smokescreens would make them very uneasy. If they opened fire or began to move you could hear them and so pinpoint them.

Still curious where and when you got your A/T training?

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Apr 25, 2008)

Id infiltrate the town at night, ie in small groups, silently, and with a minimum of visibility. the aim in the first place is to get a toehold in one of the buildings that can be observed.

Juha is absolutely correct, of course, all of a sudden the parameters have changed. The infantry was defending, now it is attacking. thats a completely different ballgame. I never claimed that attacks can be undertaken without tanks in support

Statistically, for every tank you call up in this scenario, we are going to have about twenty. For every division we deploy we are going to be supported by about 200 aircraft. For every Division committed, there are going to be approximately 140-200 Corps or army level guns in support, and of course the divisional artillery. 

In addition to that i am going to have nearly 100 AT guns attached, by 1944 if i am a US formation, I am going to be supported by at least a battalion of fully tracked Tk destroers. My Infantry is fully motorized, by this time yours is generally not, and if it tries to move in Daylight the FB circling overhead are going to annhilate it anyway.

If i am a smart Alied commander, I am going to use my artillery to flatten the place, thereby removing the cover that your two or three tankss enjoy.

Of course, if we are going to remove some or all of the advatages that the allied forces enjoyed by that stage of the war, then it must follow that some or all of the advantages of the defending forces. like, the tanks are out of petrol, or have thrown a track, or are short on ammunition. If the inherent advantages of a late war allied force are to be knobbled in the way you have described there must be a quid pro quo to balance up your scenario.


----------



## Soren (Apr 25, 2008)

> Soren
> You think you are clever?



What kind of question is that ? Do you think you're clever Juha ?

And no Juha I didn't change the subject as my original comment was that the Allies were aboslutely dependant on AT support when fighting the German panzers. Then we suddenly got dragged into the Finnish wars by you where they were defending against Soviet tanks from trenches, foxholes and what not.. Can't even be remotely compared to what was going on in Western Europe.

As for my AT training, well I served for over 20 years and got my fair share of training on how to combat tanks in various ways - it depends allot upon the situation at hand. Also we never lacked the equipment needed (don't know about you). With the right equipment and in the right terrain you can very effectively combat tanks, no doubt and I never disputed that. But lets also not forget that with the advent and large procurement of the RPG the tanks suddenly became allot more vulnerable than before.

Now back to the scenario, well if you don't like it then we can have the Germans attack FROM the town as they spot the Allies ? I only created this scenario as there are a good number of similar incidents which happened in Western Europe.

As for the scenario above, I'll first respond to Parsifal; 

You can't wait till nightfall, I said that already. If you do you're risking that German reinforcements arrive and firmly entrenches themselves in the city. 

As for the light artillery support you have and your use of it to level the town, well like I said it's LIGHT artillery support and lets not forget that there are plenty of civilians inside the town, your spotters observed that.

Now for Juha;

Laying out a Smoke screen first is a good idea, but with the fields being so large how are you going to lay down enough smoke, esp. only with light artillery support? 

Also what if there are Germans nesting in the small vegetated spots out in the field ?? A single MG nest could cut down your small bazooka team in no time, and if you're really unlucky a Hetzer could be hiding in wait for anyone to cross the field. (Although I'll admit the Hetzer wasn't part of the original scenario, in the original scenario there is only ONE tank in the vicinity of the town) The point however is you don't know this.

Still I like your way forward so far, but I'll let you think for a little longer to perfect your advance.

Parsifal you also get another chance, this keeping in mind that the town must be taken within nightfall.

PS: I understand the mods have sharpened the rules on respect towards other members, so lets keep it friendly, despite previous arguments.


----------



## Soren (Apr 25, 2008)

Man I hate it when the windows gets expanded out to the side like that, can't you upload the pictures at Imageshack and then place them beneath each other Parsifal?


----------



## Glider (Apr 25, 2008)

Its hard to tell from the phot but it seems to me that there is a fair bit of cover behind and to the left of the village and thats the way that I would go. 
Smoke screen doesnt have to cover the entire area just in front of the village as any armour will be in the village. The troops will be moving at the same time not just the bazooka with MG's in overwatch. If you have an MG post outside in a bunch of trees outside it will be isolated from support as the smoke will be behind it. There you have one MG against all the attacking forces and it will last seconds. As a result the atackers will be able to get close. When they are close enought to assult the village, artillery will move to bombard the area just behind the area to be assulted and the civillians will just have to take care of themselves.
You underestimate the artillery support the allies will have, British observers had direct access to 24 x 25pds and within (on average) two minutes could call up and additional 48 x 25pds if the defence was difficult. Americans have slightly less but still considerable. The emphasis is on taking the ground with as few losses as possible. If that meant flattening the village then so be it.

The scenario you describe I would consider to be very unrealistic. No one would send 100 troops across an open field without support if they believed or suspected that German armour was around. Some form of support from AT guns or a platoon of tanks, plus artillery support would be the norm. 

If the defenders had a company defending you would expect the attackers to have a 3 to 1 advantage without armour and they would still have artillery support


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> As for my AT training, well I served for over 20 years and got my fair share of training on how to combat tanks in various ways - it depends allot upon the situation at hand.



My I ask who you served with? I am not doubting you, just wish to know.


----------



## Soren (Apr 25, 2008)

> No one would send 100 troops across an open field without support if they believed or suspected that German armour was around



Bingo! 

I'll address th rest of your post later.


----------



## Soren (Apr 25, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My I ask who you served with? I am not doubting you, just wish to know.




I won't tell you Adler, I'm sorry. I infact never talk about it, it's an ended chapter in my life.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 25, 2008)

there were civilans in Caen and that did not deter the allies from levelling that place. The allies were not that sensitive to collateral damage when it came to military imperative. So, in come the bombers, and the Corps level artillery. I stick to that plan. I could care less about civilian casualties. TGher Germans are in breach of international law by trying to use the civilans as human shields. After the war, the german commander will be tried and punished accordingly. 

As for having to take it by nightfall. I am in an allied army, not a fascist. I am the man on the spot, and if the report comes back from me that the assault should wait till nightfall, then wait for nightfall it would be. I am intrinsically allowed far greater latitude as to the timing of my attack, and even if the force will attack. It was one of the great advantages of the allied armies in the late war period. 

I know one thing I would not do, and that is cross that field in broad daylight unsupported, without the slightest idea of what i am up against. 

As for the reinforcements issue arriving. I assume that the allies have total air superiority, and any movement by daylight by the Germans is going to attract interdiction by the allied airpower aloft, which is on call cab ranked style, for any detected movement. We are pretty safe in that regard.

We cannot really move until we have proper maps of the area. So the starting parameters are cockeyed anyway. But judging by what is shown at the edges of this photo, and in the background, it appears that there is cover on the flanks, and at the rear of the target. There is also some reverse slope happening in places, which might assist in working around the flanks, and to the rear of this positions. There is also some possibility of using the artillery availbale to create the cover needed by cratering the ground, and creating safer lines of advance. (using the craters formed by the artillery as cover for the fire teams)

Because I dont know whats in the town, and the advance is just too open to make it safe for the infantry to advance, and because i have been robbed of all the inherent advantages that the allies enjoyed at this time, and you will not apply any quid pro quo to the defenders, it becomes an almost impossible task for the infantry to take this position. It is obvious that you have never undertaken any staff excercise, by the very nature of this scenario. But despite all these impediments, it is not impossible

I would invest the position by moving carefully, and unobserved, out of range of the defenders guns, or where possible, by using natural cover. It appears from the photo that either and both flanks provide this sort of cover.

The principal to apply here is to contain this little hornets nest, not to stick your head in the meat grinder

Knowing now that germans are moving to reinforce the position my force needs to do a few things. 

We need to detail a few people to keep a close eye on any movement within the village. The artillery that is now shelling and flattening the village should keep the village under constant barrage, and also be used to create cover where needed. The engineers, (which in the allied formations are mechanized, and able to complete combat engineer tasks at approximately ten times the speed of their axis counterparts will mine all of the exits from the village (unseen by the enemy). Meanwhile the main force has entrenched itself in preparation to repel the German reinforcements you mentioned, using once again mines, barbed wire, trenches and the like. If there is time, the approach lines and ranges for the expected MLA of the reinforcements is also marked out, to assist in ranging for the artillery

Essentially, I am using classic containment strategy, to force the defnders out of their concealment, whilst at the same time adding concentric rings of defences that wil make any breakout by the defenders increasingly difficult to tackle. I am forceing the defenders to reveal their strength, disposition, and intentions, before i commit my own forces. i am placing my own forces in positions to repel these reinforcements you are talking about. if the reinforcements are going to be overwhelming, I will know that even before the defenders, by allied air recon, and ultra. by 1944, ultra was providing so much detailed information on Wehrmacht deployments almost down to squad level. If, for example there was a battalian moving toward me, I would know it. If there were no reinforcements available to help me, I would not risk my forces on a suicide mission. If the reinforcements are manageable for the Platoon to handle (which is what you have given me) I would make sure they never make it to their intended destination.

The best chance for the Germans would be to try to co-ordinate their break out, with the arrival of the reinforcements. However, if they do this, they hit the AT defences I have spent the day putting into place. The minute I observe the the movement of the defenders out of the town, I would detail two of the reserve squads (about 20 men) to start moving into the town behind these mystery tanks that you are describing. If ther are Infantry supporting your tanks, you have broken the rules of ewngagement, and have cheated basically. Your tankers cannot lay mines, or build defences, in the same way that my force can because they dont have the equipment, and they dont have the numbers. The rules of engagement are, you have tanks, we have everything else

Once the reinforcements have been sent packing, it then gets down to a waiting game really. We either get the information we need to determine the strength of the defenders, the village gets totally destroyed by our artillery , or we force them out by the time honoured technique of containment. Your people will be starved out (or more probabaly forced out by thirst) within two or three days. Its not spectacular, but it is the textbook method for dealing with this sort of situation. And no allied commander is going to force me to take unneccesary casualties, break all the rules of the Infantry handbook that we have trained for, by demanding that I take the town by nightfall. If they did, they would get themsleves courtmartialled in the allied army


----------



## parsifal (Apr 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bingo!



What are you saying Bingo to. The starting point for this strand of the thread, was that in your opinion unsupported tanks could overwhelm defending Infantry defending in the open. There has been some discussion about that, but now the parameters have changed. No longer is the Infantry defending, it is attacking. A number of us have pointed that out to you. I personally have said that I never asserted that Infantry could effectively attack without proper armoured support. It can do it, but its difficult.

However, for the purposes of the excercise, we have tackled the problem. Its interesting that those of us with combat trainig that we are prepared to talk about, have pretty much come up with very similar solutions to this battle problem.

So i dont know what you are Bingoing about....


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 25, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My I ask who you served with? I am not doubting you, just wish to know.


as well


----------



## Soren (Apr 25, 2008)

Ofcourse, being curious is what makes us human so I don't blame you.


----------



## Juha (Apr 26, 2008)

Now I woke yesterday at 10 min to 7 am and noticed that my daughter still not had shut off my pc. So I gave a look on this thread, spent a minute to read your post, solution took a minute, typed the answer some 15 minutes, my English isn’t very good, sign-off shut the pc, gave a quick look to morning paper, a quick breakfast and at 10 min to 8 went to work. So my solution was a snap decision and we have been talking what chances infantry had against tanks. 

Your opinion seems to have been that panzers were all powerful against infantry without good A/T support.

“The Allied infantry was absolutely dependant on AT support in any way or form when faced with German armor, otherwise it was a one way trip outta this world.”

“Like I said, the Allied infantry were absolutely dependant on AT support when faced with German armor, otherwise the German tanks would be over them in no time. (And that happened ALLOT during WW2)”

“Out in the open you guys wouldn't have stood a chance, you would've all been blown to smithereens within seconds.”

“Besides I'm sure most soldiers will scoot when then only have a single RPG and see two or three tanks coming their way. Just the sight of a tank is enough to make many panic."

“Now back to WW2 imagine a squad seeing a Tiger coming their way when they only have a PIAT at their disposal ! Sheer terror mate! Sheer terror! If Allied tankers suffered from Tigerphobia think about the poor infantry who bumped into one without any AT support!”

“Out in the open, as in with no trenches to hide in but only perhaps some bushes, trees, a ditch or crater, and with ONE RPG, against three well manned tanks complimenting each other not even 100 men will stand a chance, it will be a turkey shoot. So what to do in that situation?? Scoot! But not by running blindly into fire ofcourse (Are we stupid ??), but by crawling away in cover, or dashing between cover in both direction in order to divert fire as much as possible. But all in all it's a disasterous situation to be in as casualties is assured.”

None had questioned the usefulness of tanks but I and Parsifal had pointed that tanks alone were not invulnerable and good infantry could fight against them successfully. Not in every time, I can immediately recall some instances were panzers overran US infantry rather easily but also cases were infantry was successful.

And when asked how you explained A” Coy/5th DCLI very successful fight against Tigers and Panthers in 22 Sept 44 W of Elst, of course no answer from you.

And how you explain all those difficulties German armour had when fighting against Paras in ETO? Even if panzers were successful it took very much longer than seconds to subdue paras and many times Paras succeeded to hold their positions.

On the scenario
How many Hetzers there were in Normandy, IIRC none.
now where I say that I sent bazooka team over, I wrote “the idea that a bazooka team or two being infiltrating into village in the cover of the smokescreens would make them very uneasy.” One can lay smoke to test the situation. 
If we returned the original question infantry vs tank and the village was occupied with 1-4 panzers without support. I fired a couple smoke screens because chances are than one was blanking a sector not properly covered by the panzers because unseen panzers in a village didn’t have good fields of fire. One panzer would in very high probability cover the best line of approach so no use to use smoke to cover it. As I wrote panzercrews would not like the idea Bazooka teams infiltrating into village, so chances are that they would open mg-fire into screens or at least move panzer(s) to cover screen(s) badly covered from their initial positions. So probably if there are panzers you can pinpoint 1-2 of them and you can guess roughly where the one covering the best line of advance is. Of course you cannot be sure on situation but that was normal in WWII. If no reaction and you have to attack then again lay some smoke screens now to cover a bit different sectors, in case that the first set of screens covered sectors well covered by the panzers from their initial positions and the panzermen having good nerves. If there had been movement use one of the screens to cover the sector you think the panzer had covered from its initial position (probably panzers each has had its own sector to cover, to cover as much ground as possible) and other to cover the same sector that had earlier forced a movement irrespective if it had returned back to its initial position or not. Plus at least one more screen. And use the screen you think now uncovered by panzer to cover your advance. If you can get into village, IMHO your chances are good to force Germans out, of course panzers once outside the village can make your life miserable afterwards. I know that there are many ifs in the plan but maybe worth of trying if attack is mandatory and the wind conditions allowed effective use of smoke. 

And I’m still interested in your military training, because
I really want to know in which army the practise was that if they were without good A/T support and saw 3 enemy tank approaching they run like a hell away. I cannot see much use of that kind infantry.

Now it well past midday and sun is shining, so end and over.

Juha
ex alik (Corporal >>) of 2./KymPionP


----------



## parsifal (Apr 26, 2008)

Guys

You have to respect Sorens wish not to talk about his military service. I know it looks suspicious, but we dont have to sink so low a to tear someone to pieces because they are unwilling to talk. I dont know if soren is full of Sh*t or not, and i will say if he didnt want to talk about his experience, he should not have used it as a defence, but I also refuse to tear anyone to pieces over their military service, or lack of it. We win this argument using our intelligence and experience, not by becoming as bad as our opponents. That is no way to win an argument. Hopefully at the end of this everybody will have learnt something of the issues, and come away from the discussions the better for it.


----------



## Soren (Apr 27, 2008)

Guys, I don't talk about it because it's over and because I enjoy my anonymity. I've had some rather bad experiences which keeps me from posting my real name, address, country of origin etc etc..Now for anyone who hasn't experienced the same that is bound too look somewhat suspicious and there's nothing to do about that..

So I could tell you where I served but I would blow it all to pieces then. What I can tell you is that I was a Spec Ops member for many years. In some years I might open up more, but not now. 

Juha,

Don't try to misunderstand me on purpose. Ofcourse one shall not run in the face of stiff opposition. BUT against three tanks, in open ground, with ONE RPG, you stay low a get them to pass without getting noticed and then you notify what'ever support you have in the area. Now if you're certain you can get away rather easily, if lets say your watching them from a treeline, then take one out and scoot, shoot scoot as they say. So by running away I obviously didn't mean get up and run, cause then you're really in it to your neck!

Also keep in mind that facing tanks with ineffective weapons is a freaking scary business.

With effective handheld AT weapons, and/or explosives there's no doubt that very few men can effectively combat tanks, esp. in Urban and heavily vegetated areas.


----------



## Soren (Apr 27, 2008)

> On the scenario
> How many Hetzers there were in Normandy, IIRC none.



IIRC a very few, but it was merely to prove the point that a TD could be lurking in one of those spots, be it a Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV or StuG.



> now where I say that I sent bazooka team over, I wrote “the idea that a bazooka team or two being infiltrating into village in the cover of the smokescreens would make them very uneasy.” One can lay smoke to test the situation.
> If we returned the original question infantry vs tank and the village was occupied with 1-4 panzers without support. I fired a couple smoke screens because chances are than one was blanking a sector not properly covered by the panzers because unseen panzers in a village didn’t have good fields of fire. One panzer would in very high probability cover the best line of approach so no use to use smoke to cover it. As I wrote panzercrews would not like the idea Bazooka teams infiltrating into village, so chances are that they would open mg-fire into screens or at least move panzer(s) to cover screen(s) badly covered from their initial positions. So probably if there are panzers you can pinpoint 1-2 of them and you can guess roughly where the one covering the best line of advance is. Of course you cannot be sure on situation but that was normal in WWII. If no reaction and you have to attack then again lay some smoke screens now to cover a bit different sectors, in case that the first set of screens covered sectors well covered by the panzers from their initial positions and the panzermen having good nerves. If there had been movement use one of the screens to cover the sector you think the panzer had covered from its initial position (probably panzers each has had its own sector to cover, to cover as much ground as possible) and other to cover the same sector that had earlier forced a movement irrespective if it had returned back to its initial position or not. Plus at least one more screen. And use the screen you think now uncovered by panzer to cover your advance. If you can get into village, IMHO your chances are good to force Germans out, of course panzers once outside the village can make your life miserable afterwards. I know that there are many ifs in the plan but maybe worth of trying if attack is mandatory and the wind conditions allowed effective use of smoke.



Ok, so you want to pinpoint any possible threats, but let me counter you tactics here;

As you lay down the smoke the few Germans present in the town hold their fire, knowing that opening up will ofcourse reveal their position. So no reaction. Now after this do you then put down another smokescreen or do you advance on the city with full visibility so that your two Shermans can locate and open fire on anyone who tries to lay down fire on your men?

One option is best if there's no immediate threat of enemy armor, while the other is best if there is.

But now I'll let you know some of what you in the scenario don't know;

There is infact a single tank inside the city, a Tiger with a crack Waffen SS crew from the eastern front, so very cocky and used to just head on assaulting any opposition. And on top of that there's an observer at the edge of the city, prepared to radio any sighting of enemies to the Tiger.

What for example are you going to do if suddenly this Tiger comes full steam through your smokescreen straight at your men ? I think a hint of Tigerphobia would start to kick in amongst quite a few of your men. Remember the reputation this tank had, it was seen as nearly indetructable, and its certainly no joke when veterans say some panicked just by the mention of one on the battlefield.


----------



## Juha (Apr 28, 2008)

Soren
Sorry Your crack crew probably Killed as they emerged through smokescreen. The idea of use the first smokescreen only was to test enemy reaction and your observer would not see through smoke either. Secondly, tanks never came through smokescreen suddenly, you can hear the starting of engine and hear it constantly after that. Now, what you didn't know that one of the Shermans was Firefly, which of course moved into overwatch position as the smoke shells began to explode near the edges of village. So when your crack crew emerged blindy out of smokescreen the will take a couple of 17pdr shots and so probably follow the path of Wittmann.

Really your plan doesn't sound like one made by one with 20 years of military experience, more like like one made by an eager teenager with fixation of over-heavy tanks and so on.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2008)

It's not my plan and I don't give a **** what you think about me, it's completely irrelevant and only meant to start a fight, I guess you didn't get the warning let out by the mods about this.

Furthermore there are no fireflys available (Do you even have a clue how many Fireflies there were in Normandy ??), you have two M4 Shermans, now what the heck are they supposedly going to do Juha ?

Also there's nothing unrealistic about the Tiger suddenly coming full steam through your smoke to engage you, Tiger crews were used to just head assaulting any opposition - remember what Wittmann did, he charged full steam out in the open to engage what he thought as regular Shermans, much to his surprise it was a bunch of Fireflies.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 28, 2008)

Soren, would you agree that using a Tiger as an assault tank is not the best way to employ such a high value piece of hardware. The tiger, with its slow speed, slow turret traverse is at a disadvantage compared to lighter tanks. It is just as likley to lose a track or become immobilised by AT Mines and the like (which Juha did forget to put into place). Your tank advancing out of the village means that that the Infantry advanicing is going to immediately know, and manouvre to avoid it, moreover this will happen at considerable range, because the field is so open. Being such an open field is a two edged sword, you see us early, but we see you early. if you adopt a plan that witholds your fire until the last minute, you are going to get a few of the Infantrymen, but the arc of fire would have become so wide, that you have no hope of getting many of the targets. The Infantry, faced with that iemergency would have to make a run for it (say 100 yards or so) into the Village itself . 

Wherever that tank is, the infantry will be busy flanking it and avoiding any frontal assault against it. So in that sense, your comment that the Infantry is scattered is true, but the second part of your argument, that the Infantry is cut to pieces is not. The Infantry is simply using its "manouverability" to work around the tank, and stalk the tiger. There are tactics for dealing with tanks in the open

If I were confronted by a tank sallying forth from the village, I would immediately scatter the Infantry in the immediate vicinity of the tank itself. These forces in the immediate engagement area are only demonstrating in front of the tank, keeping it busy for the rest of the force, which cannot be engaged by the behemoth. At the same time they are moving into the smoke (for concealment...they can discharge smoke grenades themselves, and/or call it down from the support artillery). The visibility advantage that your heavy tank is relying on is pretty quickly netralized, and all of a sudden it is surrounded by multiple targets, which it cannot see. Neither can the infantry see the Tiger, but whereas the infantry is more or less moving silently, the Tank is making a hell of a racket. All of a sudden, the hunter has become the hunted. Moreover, the Tank might get a few of the soldiers, but not nearly as many as you are arguing.

Meantime, the bulk of the force, which by definition is not engaged by the tank. (most probably attack by the Infantry is that it is flanking the position on either side of the town, and at the rear. At best the tiger is engaging 1/3 of the attacking Infantry. This means that even if the tank is 100% successfrul in defeating the Infantry force it has engaged (and it wont get anyway near that level of efficiency, if it hits five men, it will have done well). This means that the assaulting Infantry has, in the main, captured the village, with about 95% of its force intact.

As for the two Shermans, well, there would need to be four or five of them to adequately engage the tiger, again by exploiting the lack of mobility and slow turret traverse, to try and get a flank shot into the beast. But in my opinion, us having tanks is against the rules of engagement anyway, so I discount their presence. 

You mentioned also the presence of an observer in the city, whioch is contrary to the original scenario parameters, so yet again the scenario has changed. You now have some supporting Infantry. 

But your observer is useless, if the assault is occurring under the cover of smake. The Infantry that is advancing should be in the smoke, not behind it or otherwise outside of the smokescreen. The last thing the infantry wants, with its short ranged weapons, is range with which to engage. So the allied infantry is in the smoke, not outside it. And the smoke screen is enormous by the way, given the amount of firepower at the Platoons disposal. 

Oh, and your statement about Tigerphobia is not true for this scenario. This almost never happened, except in the most gree of units. In fact the Infantry is probably salivating at the prospect of taking out a crack Tiger crew

You also failed to address the plan I had put together, which would never see this situation arise at all.

We have no real life way of testing any of these theories, so we have pretty much reached an impasse. There are however, commercial military simulations that might be able to do this . There is of course "Squad leader" also "panzer leader", and I have a couple of editable computer games that we could run this scenario past (most notably "West Front and "East front, by talonsoft). Would you like me to test this scenari0o against some of these simulations, and see what the outcome is, according to those designers?


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2008)

Parsifal,

There's around 1,000m to the village from the tree line, and I'd think that for the smokescreen to be effective it will be put rather close to the village. Giving the Tiger quite a good field of view and a heck of a long way for your men to be running. And trust me allot more than five men would get killed in this scenario, the Tiger's two machineguns, esp. the Radio operator's alone proving devastating. (Not to mention an 88mm HE shell packed with 7 kg's of high explosives, it will create a heck of a mess) Also, if you have served (I suspect you have) you will know just as well as I that with all the fire going on it's hard to hear anything much less a tank coming rolling a 3,000 ft away. 

As for the Tiger, well it is infact quite fast and an experienced crew used the whole tank to get the gun on target, the Tiger being an ideal gun platform remaining stable, the Regenerative steering turning the tank around on the spot. And the vision from the inside the Tiger is actually quite good, esp. the commander has a good view. Many commanders also used opened the top hatch and just stuck the top of their head up to see even better, like below:







And as for Tigerphobia, well no it wasn't just green units Parsifal, it could strike anyone but esp. Allied tank crews were afraid. And when a single Tiger can take out an entire British tank collumn there's also good reason to be afraid. (It would be similar to facing a Leopard 2 or M1A2 Abrams in a T-55 today)

And about commercial simulations, well I'd recommend Combat Mission 3 then, it's the only realistic WW2 strategy game out there. So we could try this if you will ?


----------



## Glider (Apr 28, 2008)

A couple of small points. 
a) The Tiger would be closed down and almost blind. The alternative being open in which case everyone will be firing at the tank commander who will be dead in seconds. So its effectiveness will be greatly reduced
b) Your experienced Tiger commander would probably tell you where to stick a plan as foolhardy as this. If you want to argue, he has the tank.
c) As to the number of Fireflies, there were probably at least as many as there were Tigers. The norm was one in each platoon although some units preferred to group them all into one platoon. So your two Shermans would almost certainly have a Firefly with them
d) Why do the people fighting German always have Tigers? PzIV's, Stug III's, Panthers were at least as common and for individual fighting more common as the Tigers were in special units and infantry support was normally left to the SPG's.
e) How many people were in this town anyway? something that was never mentioned.
f) Charging through a smokescreen into an unknown enemy, of unknown strength and disposition. Who will hear you coming first, see you coming first is the daftest plan I have ever heard of.
g) I make no claim to any AT training but can see holes in this the size of a double decker bus.


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2008)

> b) Your experienced Tiger commander would probably tell you where to stick a plan as foolhardy as this. If you want to argue, he has the tank



Tell that to Wittmann one of the most successful tank commanders of all time.

Fact is that in war no plan is 100% safe and you have to occasionally gamble if you want to win.


----------



## Glider (Apr 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Tell that to Wittmann one of the most successful tank commanders of all time.
> 
> Fact is that in war no plan is 100% safe and you have to occasionally gamble if you want to win.



Absolutely confident that he never charged out blind through a smokescreen into an unknown enemy. People who do that, don't last long enough to become that good.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 28, 2008)

I dont have the game you mention, but the east front series has won a total of five realism awards that I know of, whilst squad leader has been around forever, and is very realistic. Incidentally we dont need a "strategy" simulation, we need a tactical simulation

In order for me to let the computer test your scenario, you will need to send me a rough sketch of your map, a well as the forces you want me to feed into the simulation. I can also get some of my colleagues in the design group that i contribute to, to test out the scenario as independant observers. Its about a fair as I can gat i am afraid.

PLease give some thought to your map, and send it to me, I will then be able to complete the excercise and get back to you


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I dont have the game you mention, but the east front series has won a total of five realism awards that I know of, whilst squad leader has been around forever, and is very realistic. Incidentally we dont need a "strategy" simulation, we need a tactical simulation
> 
> In order for me to let the computer test your scenario, you will need to send me a rough sketch of your map, a well as the forces you want me to feed into the simulation. I can also get some of my colleagues in the design group that i contribute to, to test out the scenario as independant observers. Its about a fair as I can gat i am afraid.
> 
> PLease give some thought to your map, and send it to me, I will then be able to complete the excercise and get back to you



Ok will do Parsifal.

However the reason I recommend Combat Mission 3 is because it uses an advanced armor penetration calculator taking into effect armor slope, angle of impact etc etc and it uses the the real life penetration figures as reference as well an advanced lethal range of explosive rounds. 

I am not familiar with any of the games you mention except Panzer Leader, which is far from realistic.

You can read about Combat Mission here: Combat Mission: Afrika Korps Overview Page


----------



## parsifal (Apr 28, 2008)

Glider

Of the 2740 tanks attached to the 21st army group, some 1900 Shermans were maintained on establishment, whilst of this number, some 500 (approximately) were maintained as Fireflies. About 1 in 6 of british tanks held on strength at any given time were Fireflies. 

The germans actually outproduced the britsh in terms of their Tiger production (as compared to Firefly conversions) , but the majority of these were serving on the eastern front. moreover the numbers produced in Germany (for all their heavy tanks) were the absolute maximum that they could put into the field, whereas the british were not constrained nearly so much by production difficulties. It was just that 500 fireflies was all they ever needed. by 1944, the british were fielding blended formations, because this was the optimal way of tackling the german threat.

It should not be forgotten as well that the US also fielded some better tanks than the standard Sherman. the 76mm equipped tanks, such as the M4A3E8, were not as good as the Firefly, but were nevertheless quite capable tanks.

Sherman tactics against German heavy armour was limited really to exploiting the superior turret traverse, and speed, coupled with the generally better crew training that existed in the allied units by that stage of the war. The aim was to try and get stern shots into the slower german tanks, at ranges below 500 metres. Against an expereinced tiger crew such as being described by Soren, the Allied tankers definately had their work cut out for them. However, by 1944, an experienced tank crew in the Wehrmacht was starting to become a rare commodity.


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2008)

Glider said:


> Absolutely confident that he never charged out blind through a smokescreen into an unknown enemy.



He charged straight at a British tank collumn and blew it to pieces, he later charged straight at what he thought was M4 Shermans, but were infact 7 Fireflies. 

Also I don't think you quite understand the regular role of the Tiger tank on the battlefield. The Tiger tank was a breakthrough tank, thus it was mostly used to punching straight through enemy lines, often not knowng what it was up against and what was waiting on the other side.



> People who do that, don't last long enough to become that good.



If sitting in a Tiger they obviously did, and there are many examples. For example Karl Körner who engaged 120 - 150 Soviet tanks and succeeded in knocking out 11 IS-2's and 28 T-34/85's in this single action. 

Perhaps you should read this: PzKpfw VI TIGER I in ACTION!

Sure, Tigerphobia was rare


----------



## parsifal (Apr 28, 2008)

Smoke can be laid as a creeping barrage to cover the advancing Infantry itself. An area of 1000 metres by 1000 metres (approx) is chicken feed as far as laying smoke is concerned. A good fireplan from the 24 supporting 25 pdrs (which someone pointed out would be a realistic number of support guns for an assault of this size) would be a snap. 

IMO you would know the assault was coming, because you can see the smoke, but you would not be able to observe the individual members of the Infantry group, because they are shrouded in smoke. You can lay down suppressing fire with your tank mounted MGs, and maybe let off the occasional main armament discharge, but essentially it would have to be assumed that you are firing blind, in the general direction of the advancing Infantry. And all the while there are additional elements of the assault force working around on the flanks, and at the rear, completely un-engaged by the tiger.

Now, if you were to attach even a single squad of defending Infantry, the situation would change completely, but that would not be supporting your original argument, which was that unsupported tanks can defeat Infantry that does not have armoured support, and /or concentrated and heavy AT Support


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2008)

From the Tiger Kompanie report:

_The Tiger Kompanie was ordered to throw out the enemy who penetrated into a wood, and then continue to advance. About 12:15 hours, together with an Infanterie-Batallion the Tiger Kompanie started to attack. The thick forest caused extremely poor visibility (50 meters), and a narrow trail forced the Tiger-Kompanie to advance in a single row. *The Russian infantry fled their positions as soon as the Tigers appeared. *The anti-tank guns, which were pulled forward into position by the enemy within three-quarters of an hour after entering the woods, were quickly destroyed in spite of the difficulty of seeing the targets. Some of the anti-tank guns were destroyed by hits and some were rolled over. Numerous undamaged anti-tank guns fell into our hands.

After the lead Zug of the Tiger Kompanie advanced 2 kilometers through the forest, the Zug leader suddenly noticed knocked-down trees and saw a large muzzle-break (Josef Stalin) directly in front of him. He immediately gave the fire command: " Panzergranate! Cupola sight! Fire!" At the same time he was hit twice by 4.5 cm anti-tank gun shells that robbed him of his sight. In the interim, a second Tiger of the Zug driving through the woods pulled up on line with the Zug leader's Tiger. In spite of poor visibility, the Zug leader started the firefight at a range of 35 meters. In response, the Josef Stalin tank pulled back behind a small hill. In the meantime, the second Tiger had taken the lead and fired three shot at the enemy tank. When the round was fired, the Tiger itself was hit by a 12.2 cm shell on the front below the radio operator's section. Apparently this armor-piercing shell didn't penetrate through because the Tiger was standing at an angle from the target. The enemy tank was knocked out of action by a shot which penetrated the gun. A second Josef Stalin tank attempted to cover the first as it pulled back. During a short firefight, one of these two Tigers hit the second tank under the gun. This round penetrated, immediately setting the enemy tank on fire. The rate of fire of the Josef Stalin tanks was comparatively slow._


----------



## Glider (Apr 28, 2008)

Parsifal
I don't disagree with you but the compliment for a British Armoured unit at D Day was 36 per Brigade 12 per Regiment. Which equals one per platoon so the point was clear. As the war progressed the proportion increased until in some units it was almost one for one.

What Soren has also forgotten were the TD units armed with 76mm or 17pd guns depending on the type in question. Specifically trained for this kind of work and available to support the infantry being in the British army anyway, attached to infantry divisions, let alone any AT guns that might be around.


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2008)

In Normandy there were very few Firefly's, around 200, while there were more Tigers and Panthers, who in contrast weren't even close to as vulnerable, heck a regular StuG or Pz.IV was as lethal to the Firefly as the firefly was to it. 

And regarding the 76mm American guns, well what can I say, one BIG dissappointment, they couldn't even penetrate the Tiger's frontal armor at point blank range, the projectile just shattered.


----------



## Glider (Apr 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> He charged straight at a British tank collumn and blew it to pieces, he later charged straight at what he thought was M4 Shermans, but were infact 7 Fireflies.
> 
> Also I don't think you quite understand the regular role of the Tiger tank on the battlefield. The Tiger tank was a breakthrough tank, thus it was mostly used to punching straight through enemy lines, often not knowng what it was up against and what was waiting on the other side.
> 
> ...



Soren
You are falling into the trap of believing what you have been told and not checking your details

He certainly did attack the British armoured unit head on, but and this is the difference he knew what was there and took action accordingly. He did not charge out blindly.
Also the end result of the battle wasn't as one sided as most people believe. They hear about the attack but not the rest of the action.

_In all some thirty British tanks were destroyed in and around Villers-Bocage on the morning of 13 June, as well as an unspecified number of other vehicles. On the German side eleven tanks were knocked out or disabled, among them six Tigers including Wittmann's Nr. 222. Three of these six vehicles were later salvaged and repaired. While Michael Wittmann may not have won the battle single-handedly as the German propaganda bulletins at the time suggested, his bold and instinctive action was without doubt the catalyst for an action that had driven the enemy out of Villers-Bocage and left them reeling and on the defensive; it was one of the very few occasions on which the Germans would have any sort of ascendancy during these last two years of the war_
His suprise attack was devistating but once the suprise had been lost it was business as usual.

panzerace.net | introduction


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2008)

No Glider, it is you who should check the details.

The British tank collumn (Containing a Firefly btw) was destroyed singlehandedly by Wittmann's Tiger, after this massacre he then continued into a nearby town and this is where he got into trouble - Urban areas isn't tank country.

From the site you linked:

_Had it been any other man than Wittmann, and had he been commanding any other vehicle that the powerful Tiger I, the attack would have been seen as bordering on the suicidal. But Wittmann was both faster and more wily than the enemy; the Tiger rolled on relentlessly while enemy shells simply bounced off its thick armour plate. The first enemy vehicles Wittmann encountered were the two at the rear of the column, a Cromwell and a Sherman Firefly; by disabling these two tanks Wittmann had blocked off the exit for the remaining vehicles, which in turn allowed him to make it next move which was to head back up the column towards Villers Bocage. Meanwhile, two further Tigers from Wittmann's company made their way up to Hill 213.

As Wittmann's Tiger charged relentlessly towards them, the 'A' Sqn. crews - who had at the time been quietly enjoying a cup of tea and a cigarette at the side of the road - found themselves caught completely by surprise. They had little or no time to return to their vehicles, let alone manoeuvre them into any sort of position where they could have taken on the fearsome Tiger. Scattering and running for the nearest protection, the British crewmen abandoned their stricken vehicles, some of which still had their engines running. The Tiger's loader, SS-Sturmmann Günther Boldt, had to work like a man possessed to keep with this tremendous rate. Woll then grabbed his MG34, peppering the scout car which had been standing next to the head half-track with a hail of bullets.

While the bow machine gunner's relentless MG34 fire prevented any of the British crewmen from emerging from their hiding places, Wittmann turned his attention to the array of vehicles conveniently lined up along the side of the road. Two Cromwells and a Firefly were knocked out, before the fearsome 88mm KwK was turned on the first of the lighter tracked vehicles belonging to the 1st Rifle Brigade. On noting the ease by which these vehicles were destroyed, the remaining number were taken out with heavy fire from the pair of MG34s operated by Woll and bow gunner SS-Sturmmann Jonas. In all, by now a staggering fifteen vehicles and two 6-pounder anti tank guns were reduced to burning wrecks. Wittmann's Tiger now headed down Rue Georges Clémenceau towards the town of Villers Bocage itself, destroying three M3 Stuart 'Honey' light tanks belonging to the reconnaisance troop along thw way._


*Enters the city*

_On entering the Villers Bocage, Wittmann encountered the four vehicles belonging to Regimental HQ. Three of these tanks were quickly taken out, including the two decoy command vehicles - Wittmann of course was not to know that these vehicles were not armed. Woll then slammed another 88mm shell into the scout car belonging to the RHQ Intelligence Officer, with the panicking infantry being showered by deadly shrapnel. Wittmann himself then grabbed the MG34 mounted on his cupola, and joined his gunner in razing the remaining half-track, that belonging to the medical officer. The disabled vehicle was blown into the middle of the road, preventing any throughway.

Not content with this, Wittmann relentlessly continued his advance, rolling westwards on the gently sloping road towards the centre of Villers-Bocage. Only a small number of enemy vehicles had managed to escape the initial barrage, among them the remaining Cromwell of the Regimental HQ of the 4th CLY commanded by Captain Patrick Dyas - who had intelligently backed his vehicle into a secluded side street. By this time 'B' Sqn., located west of Villers, had been alerted to the Tiger's presence._

_As Wittmann's Tiger now moved cautiously towards the centre of town, it passed the side street where the Cromwell of Captain Dyas had been lurking; shortly after seeing the German vehicle rumble past up Rue Georges Clémenceau (today Rue Pasteur), Dyas rolled out after it, a scene witnessed by Lieutenant John L. Cloudsley-Thompson, whose own command vehicle had been one of the the three Cromwells 'brewed up' by Wittmann's Tiger. As Cloudsley-Thompson nervously watched Dyas slowly follow Wittmann up the road, Wittmann's next encounter was with a Sherman Firefly belonging to 'B' Sqn., commanded by Sergeant Stan Lockwood which had turned into Rue Georges Clémenceau from the Place Jeanne d'Arc. Having sustained a light hit from the 17-pdr cannon of Lockwood's Firefly, Wittmann half-turned into a section of wall, causing the rubble to fall down upon the British vehicle.

Amid this confusion Captain Dyas, who had up to this point kept his Cromwell at a safe distance in following Wittmann's Tiger, seized the opportunity to have a crack at his much larger adversary. The brave Dyas did manage to get two 75mm shots off against the massive German vehicle, but instead of claiming his prize he saw both shells bounce harmlessly off the Tiger's thick armour. Dyas was not to get a second chance; with Wittmann now aware of the danger the Tiger's massive gun quickly turned itself on the now helpless and exposed British vehicle, and an accurate shot from Woll succeeded in blowing Dyas clean out of his cupola, leaving him dazed but unhurt. His gunner and driver were not so fortunate, however._

_Having turned away from the threat posed by the advancing Cromwells of 'B' Sqn. to the west, Wittmann passed Dyas's burning vehicle and headed back down Rue Georges Clémenceau, whereupon his Tiger was struck on the tracks - its weakest point - by a shell from a British 6-pdr anti-tank gun located in a small side alleyway. Given the earlier exchanges with far heavier Allied weaponry, that the mighty Tiger was disabled by the comparatively lightweight 6-pdr was more than ironic. With one of the drive sprockets damaged by the shell, Wittmann's vehicle ground to a halt in front of the Huet-Godefroy clothes store. Knowing that further resistance was impossible, Wittmann and his crew exited their vehicle in the hope that it might be later retrieved, and succeeded in making their way some fifteen kilometers on foot back to the HQ of the Panzer Lehr Division at Chateau d'Orbois, where Wittmann provided a thorough briefing on the situation. Later that day, tanks belonging to the Panzer Lehr initiated their own counter-attack, accompanied by the 1st Company of the 101st LSSAH led by SS-Hauptsturmführer Rolf Möbius. By this time the element of surprise had been lost, however; there was to be no repeat of that morning's rout.

In all, Wittmann's own calculations amounted to a roll call of some twenty-one enemy tanks and an unspecified number of half-tracks, troop carriers and Bren gun carriers; in what what one of the most astonishing feats of arms during the war, he had more or less single-handedly prevented the British advance. Naturally, the German propaganda agencies had a field day, and bloated kill figures were naturally thrown about: Wittman was initially credited with the single-handed destruction of 27 of the 30 British tanks that had been destroyed. *Ever after a more sober analysis however, Michael Wittmann's achievement at Villers-Bocage still stands out as highly significant in the annals of armoured warfare; in one short sortie his Tiger had destroyed a staggering twenty-seven enemy vehicles, including a dozen tanks - five Cromwells, two Sherman Fireflies, three Stuarts, and two commands vehicles, one a Cromwell and the other an M4A4 Sherman.*

In all some thirty British tanks were destroyed in and around Villers-Bocage on the morning of 13 June, as well as an unspecified number of other vehicles. On the German side eleven tanks were knocked out or disabled, among them six Tigers including Wittmann's Nr. 222. Three of these six vehicles were later salvaged and repaired. While Michael Wittmann may not have won the battle single-handedly as the German propaganda bulletins at the time suggested, his bold and instinctive action was without doubt the catalyst for an action that had driven the enemy out of Villers-Bocage and left them reeling and on the defensive; it was one of the very few occasions on which the Germans would have any sort of ascendancy during these last two years of the war._


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2008)

Six Tigers for thirty British tanks and an equal number of halftrack, trucks etc etc is a pretty staggering feat, and this was done in Villers Bocage which mind you means very close range engagements and then proceeded into a town which is anything but tank country.


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2008)

This is for all to watch, its an excellent documentary with many Tiger veterans and aces interviewed, amongst them Otto Carius, one the greatest.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i1tFkez5Ig_

Note that Otto Carious says he always kept his head outside of the turret, this was favored by most tank commanders to gain better vision.

Also amazing is his near death experience while in a trench assaulted by the Soviets, note how many times he was shot.

The rest of the series in proper order:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-VmNadjSo4_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZvRQpHf2S0_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i1tFkez5Ig_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2XZCJUfeb0_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSxwfBtygNE_


----------



## Freebird (Apr 28, 2008)

MacArther said:


> I'm looking for notable actions where infantry (from any side) were able to combat enemy armor enough to force a withdrawal, or reassessment of the situation. If possible, the actions *without* AT guns (i.e. 57mm M1, and other towed things) would be very interesting. I've found very few documentations of infantry against tanks at all, so it would be interesting to see how well some infantry did.



The US Abrams tank is so heavily armoured that it was very tough for the Iraqi's to destroy one.

One notable action was supposedly on Mar 27 {2003 presumably} when an Iraqi sniper shot the driver of the tank, which then drove off the bridge into a river, killing 3 other crew. 


Abrams heavy tank proves its mettle in Iraq campaign


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2008)

Heck
too many messages to read through, must get to work soon.
Soren
You give me 2 Shermans, and I took one Sherman Mk V (because good HE round)and one Sherman Mk VC for good A/T capability), so its you problem if it is diifficult to understand that in the combat unexpected might happened.
Fireflys: IIRC in June Allied troops under 21st AG had 316 Sherman Mk VCs and 2 Sherman Mk ICs, not so uncommon, Dear Soren.
And sorry for you #crack" W-SS crew, lesson 2, overconfidence is a great killer in wartime.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Apr 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> Six Tigers for thirty British tanks and an equal number of halftrack, trucks etc etc is a pretty staggering feat, and this was done in Villers Bocage which mind you means very close range engagements and then proceeded into a town which is anything but tank country.



14 tanks were destroyed by the solo attack which was by any measure an exceptional feat, for the loss of one Tiger.
When I say business as usual once surprise had been lost the facts are as follows.

Total losses were 6 Tigers and 5 other German Tanks (why do you always forget those?) and 30 British Tanks.
Which means that when surpise was lost in the rest of the fighting, 16 Britsh Tanks were lost for 5 Tigers and 5 other German tanks. As a loss ratio for France this was pretty good for the allies.

However we digress, the point was that he knew what he was getting into and didn't charge out blind into the attack.


----------



## Glider (Apr 29, 2008)

freebird said:


> The US Abrams tank is so heavily armoured that it was very tough for the Iraqi's to destroy one.
> 
> One notable action was supposedly on Mar 27 {2003 presumably} when an Iraqi sniper shot the driver of the tank, which then drove off the bridge into a river, killing 3 other crew.
> 
> ...



Other Articles
Abrams tank showed 'vulnerability' in Iraq - Jane's Land Forces News

This relates to the first Gulf War
_During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks_
M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank

What I find interesting is that I understand that only now are these tanks being equipped with a telephone that will enable infantry to talk directly to the crew. This I think has been standard in the UK since the Churchill.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 29, 2008)

well I produced a map based on the phot provided by Soren, and then fed in various force structures to try and test this theory. I was using a simulation called "west front" by Talonsoft, which allows editable scenarios to be fed into the computer. 

I started with the single tank versus the 100 men scenario that we have been talking about, and it was a whitewash for the allies. I tried all manner of permutations. I gave the germans unlimited morale, and then ace shots, and then unlimted ammo. I tried German AI, I tried Allied AI, I even tried both AI. The result each time was that the tiger was destroyed.

So then I decided to modify the scenario a little to see at what point the scenario would reach a point of balance. If I reduce the amount of allied Infantry to 80 men, reduce the numbers of tanks on the allied side to just two, and increase the Germans to three Tigers, with ace crews and an armoured car (to act as an observer, plus I give them a high rating leader), I can, as a german commander and sometimes as the AI German manage to hold the town, but allied losses never exceed 15 Infantrymen. Both Allied tanks get brewed however.

Even when i set the AI to its dumbest level, the german tanks dont leave the cover of the village. However, whilst as a human player i can get into the village, and get into the buildings, I just cannot move the tanks out of the village. The Tigers just sit there taking potshots at the buildings. Generally, once i enter the structures, I suffer only single digit casualties for the remainder of the day


If my simulation is anywhere near accurate (and generally it is) I can draw a couple of conclusions. Firstly, the tanks most certainly do not cause heavy losses to the Infantry. Max losses, as i said, were 15 Infantrymen, and two tanks. With the three tank Tiger model the most losses I could inflict on the germans was one tank. 

However, and conversely, the infantry have a great deal of trouble dislodging the tanks from their position. The tanks are very effective at pinning the Infantry down, and the Infantry has a great deal of trouble in closing with the tanks. Even when they do, they still have difficulty in doing anything to the tanks that cause them to move out of the village. 

As expected, the smoke from the two batteries of 25 pdrs that i allocated to the allies were very effective at providing smoke cover for the Infantry.

I dont know if this test helps at all, but it is the nearest thing I could think of to actually t4esting the theories that we have been discussing. My conclusion is that the tanks are much more effective at delay than I had thought, but in no way were they able to inflict serious losses on the attacking infantry.


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2008)

Hello
even if IMHO blind charge through smokescreen of unknown depth is mistake IMHO Soren’s decision to move out of village was right. IMHO worst scenario to the crew of the Tiger is sitting in cover and suddenly find out that that there is enemy infantry swarming around their hiding place. 
But I agree with Parsifal, that for a tank it’s better to keep distance of at least 150m to nearest infantryman in open, especially in flanks and rear, at least unrtil the crew has figured out possible PIATs or Bazookas. IIRC both had max effective range against tanks appr. 100m but were not effective against frontal armour of Tiger. IIRC shell of PIAT penetrated appr 100m steel in tests but on battlefield it’s ability to piece Tigers 82mm side and rear armour was unpredictable. So infantry couldn’t be sure that they got an effective penetration with a single hit and crew of Tiger couldn’t count on that their armour would held the blast.
IMHO even two PzIVs would have been better option than one Tiger because IMHO two tanks are at least trice as dangerous enemy than lonely tank, especially for infantry. Also PzIV with schürzen would look like Tiger, so have same moral effect and I guess would have better protected sides than Tiger against HEAT shells. I mean that I guess that the schürzen would effective protect the original armour against first generation HEAT shells and only holed if hit not blown away. Have anyone info on what effects PIAT or Bazooka shell had on German schürzen, would the schürzen stay in its place? Of course PzIV’s turret front and driver’s plate would be vulnerable to PIAT/Bazooka hits but if the infantry in the heat of battle thought that they were facing Tiger IMHO they would be inclined not to try head on shots.
Have anyone info on British A/T mines, were they powerful enough to break the track of a Tiger with some certainty?

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Apr 29, 2008)

Soren, this is the map that I have redesigned, following yoou message to me, and a detailed look at the photo. I have removed the vegetation in front of the village, to give the Tigers a clearer view of the field.

If the field is 1000 metres across, then the village is about 6-800 metres, wide as well, and about 400 metres deep. These are estimates only but are the best I could do with the information yoou provided. Its not quite the same parameters as the diagram that yoou sent me, but photo analysis i did at work showed that youor estimate of distance on the photo was not correct either. 

I have not worried about putting in special terrain beyond the 1250 metre mark from the village, because it is not all that relevant. The terrain that approaches the village is completely open, but it does have some low hills and trees on top of them (in places) on top of those low hills

Anyway, let me know if you are happy with the result, and I will sart the testing of this map as well.


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2008)

Ok now I know what this game is (West front East front), it's like some sort of chess game, however it isn't realistic enough for this scenario Parsifal as it doesn't take into account many very important factors.

I tried the scenario in Combat Mission 3, the map being almost identical to the one I sent you, here are the details (Pictures are soon to follow)

Allied force:
British rifle company comprising of 4 x PIAT's teams, 2 x Mortars and ca. 120 men with various smallarms, plus I added 2 x US M4A3 Shermans and 2 x 25 pdr Howitzers as support.

German Force:
1 x Tiger Ausf.E with Elite crew and 50% fanatacism (Waffen SS afterall).

End result:

After about 15min of fighting in which both Shermans and both 25 pdr guns were destroyed, (despite smoke being used) the Allies starting routing. The Tiger was the whole time gradually moving forwards engaging both the infantry support. In the end the Tiger ran out of HE shells and only had very little ammunition for its MG's left, but at that point the allies were already routing.

Allied losses:
98 Casualties
2 x M4A3 Shermans destroyed
2 x Motars destroyed
2 x 25 pdr Howitzers destroyed

German losses:
None.


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2008)

Juha said:


> Heck
> too many messages to read through, must get to work soon.
> Soren
> You give me 2 Shermans, and I took one Sherman Mk V (because good HE round)and one Sherman Mk VC for good A/T capability), so its you problem if it is diifficult to understand that in the combat unexpected might happened.
> ...



Poor Juha, if we were to follow the rules here you'd have NO AT or Artillery support what'so'ever! So I consider myself generous to let you have two Shermans and light artillery support as this wasn't part of what we were discussing in the first place! So now ofcourse you'd like to have a Firefly all of a sudden, clearly realizing your infantry will be cut to pieces without one, well sorry but you don't have one, so what do you do ?? 

As I said from the beginning the Allies were absolutely dependant on AT or artillery support when faced with German armour, otherwise it was a very onesided affair!

Now quit the patronising tone and stick to the original debate!

And about the availability of Firefly's in Normandy well according to my sources there were a mere 200 present.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 29, 2008)

well, we have two different game systems, and two different results. I just cannot see how a single tank can cover such a long frontage, cant even see even a third of the forces ranged against it, and yet can still kill nearly all of them. Does not sound particualry realistic to me. As I said, reagarding WFII, it has won multiple awards, including realism awards, and to the extent that it is turn based, is vaguely like chess. however, there are abilities that allow an opponent to "save" Action Points" (APs), that enable them to react to moves made when they are not the phasing player. This is far more realistic than a real time game, where the ability to react immediately to a developing situation would be quite unrealistic.

How, all of a sudden, are you now familiar with WF, when just the other day you had never heard of it. 

Just to give some idea of the detail contained in WF, the basic rules section for the game is 237 pages long. The scenario editor alone occupies over 80 pages. Trust me, its detailed, and its accurate


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2008)

Parsifal,

Combat Mission 3 is turn based as-well, it isn't a real time strategy game.

Furthermore the game features moral, climate, fanatacism, wind, blast effects, advanced penetration calculator etc etc etc... And like West East front it has won multiple awards as-well:

_"Turn-based Strategy Game of the Year (2002). Awesomely realistic graphics, sound and detail; a feeling of real command… feels like war - sometimes almost frighteningly so… a personal war movie with scenarios that draw you right into battle... 90%"
- PC Gamer

"Whether it's the tide-turning ambush, the seemingly invulnerable lone tank, or the Sqaud That Wouldn't Quit, CMBB makes the game come alive in a way possible only on the computer. That's quite an achievement, and well worth the award of Wargame of the Year."
- Computer Gaming World

"Barbarossa to Berlin raises the wargaming bar even higher with its pitch-perfect, ultra-polished improvements to an already great game... Now that World War II is such a popular setting in first-person shooters, Combat Mission is a perfect venue for action-oriented gamers to have a more in-depth but no less exciting look at the subject matter.... 9.1 out of 10."
- Gamespot

"Great graphics; easy and exciting enough to appeal to average gamers, but enough fidelity and complexity to please the most hardcore wargamers... It's truly great stuff, whether you're a hardcore grognard or simply a gamer looking for excitement that doesn't involve orcs or elves or zombies... Don't let the fact that this is a wargame fool you, this is one of the best games available on a PC (or Mac).... 94%"
- Gamespy

"Not only is it one of the greatest wargames we've ever played, it also takes everything that normally makes wargames so inaccessible and throws it right out the window. A slick interface keeps you focused on tactics while the level of detail and modeling forces you to adopt realistic strategies. Add to that the comprehensive range of units and scenarios and you have a game that you won't put down for years to come. 9.0 out of 10."
- IGN

"Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin is easy to play, has attractive 3D graphics, the underlying calculations are immensely intricate, the AI is competent, and the parameters are highly adjustable. It is very nice that the program exhibits stability and runs acceptably on less than the most powerful computers. "

- The Wargamer

Awards

Best Turn-Based Strategy Game, 2002, PC Gamer
Wargame of the Year, Computer Gaming World
Editor's Choice Award, Gamespot
Editor's Choice Award, IGN
Best Game of the Year and Reader's Choice Award, The Wargamer_


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2008)

Parsifal,

The real killer for the infantry is the Tiger's hull mounted MG-34, this is prefectly stabilized, equipped with a 1.5x wide view scope and fires at 900 rpm, it just cuts any infantry down. The 88mm gun is ofcourse also highly effective vs infantry but in this scenario the infantry quickly scatters minimizing the lethal effect of a HE shell.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 29, 2008)

What I will do is to contact the tactical specialists in the design group and get them to playtest this scenario out using other systems, to see what the most likley results are from a range of game titles. Because it involves a number of individuals from accross the country, it may take a few days to complete. However, i am sure we can get a reasonable consesnsus from people more qualified than either of us, as to what might reasonably be expected in this sort of scenario.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 29, 2008)

I have just sent the following request to the more tactically minded members of our group

"I was wondering if you could do me a favour and test out a hypothetical scenario that has become the subject of a hot debate on an internet forum I am involved with. The forum is called "WWII Warbirds", and the thread is "Infantry vs armour in WWII"


The debate has devolved to whether Infantry that does not have dedicated AT support is going to be cut to pieces in an assault against a position held by enemy tank(s). A particular tank advocate has stated that a single Tiger, with no real support, will be able to virtually annhilate the entire Infantry force.

I was wondering if you could test out the following scenarios, and get back to me with your results please. I have attached the map, and a photo of the terrain that map that you need to simulate. You can use any game system that you think appropriate, but it should be something you consider to be accurate. I think I know which system you will choose, but since I am going to post this request up on the forum (without your contact details), I do not want to be seen as influencing your choices. 

The map image I have attached is at a scale of 1 hex = 250 yards. The lighter shades are elevated terrain, and the village is about 700 metres long, and 400 metres wide. There are two town squares within the village. There are open areas around the village for between 1200 metres, to the south, and about 800 metres to the east, west and north. There are no other German forces in the area, You know there are germans in the town, but dont know strength, or disposition. You must take the town in twelve hours (before nightfall). Finally there is a sealed road running up the western side of the village, which I have assumed also passes through the village itself

If possible, I would like you to test two possible scenarios

Scn 1
Allied Forces

Allies must start south of the town...

100 Infantry armed with Piats and small arms only, ie no dedicated AT guns
20-30 combat engineers, unlimited supply of stores (eg mines) 
24x 25 pdrs (have unlimited supplies of smoke
3-4 75mm armed tanks (ie no fireflies or 76 mm armed tanks)
1-2 scout cars
All forces are fully motorised or mechanized, your choioce of transport, but trry to be mainstream please, would suggest halftracks/Bren Carriers and quads perhaps, 
The allied forces must start a minimum of 200 yards from the town


Axis
1 x Tiger VI, with elite crew and ace commander, plus one OP with radio. There is no other German Infantry support
The situation is this. Germans are in control of a small village, allies must capture the village to win the battle 

Scn 2
Alied Forces
Allies must start south of the town...
80 Infantry armed with Piats and small arms only, ie no dedicated AT guns
15-20 combat engineers, unlimited supply of stores (eg mines) 
24x 25 pdrs (have unlimited supplies of smoke
3-4 75mm armed tanks (ie no fireflies)
1-2 scout cars
All forces are fully motorised or mechanized, your choioce of transport, but trry to be mainstream pleaseCN
The allied forces must start a minimum of 200 yards from the town

Axis
3 x Tiger VI, with elite crews and ace commander, plus one AC (suggest PSW 234) with radio. There is no other German Infantry support
The situation is this. Germans are in control of a small village, allies must capture the village to win the battle 


You can use any game system that you want to playtest this scenario out. Would appreciate your result as soon as you are able. I am not going to tell you my opinions and my own test results, so that i do not influence your results in any way. 

The map and photo is attached

Let me know if you have any questions 

Regards

Michael"

We will have to wait a few days perhaps for the results


----------



## Juha (Apr 30, 2008)

Soren
what is your source that there were 200 Fireflys in Normandy? All sources I have seen stated that British got ready just before D-Day their planned quota of Fireflys, ie one per troop. And after all in June there was only 45 Tigers in Normandy, two more sPzAbtn arrived in July. So even with your numbers there were over 4 times more Fireflyes than Tigers in June in Normandy.

On realism on your game, how the Tiger got the 2 25pdrs? Because in real world they would have been at least a couple km further back giving indirect fire support. In a game you can create a world that perfectly suited for you but the sorry fact is that world isn't perfect place, especially during wartime, too much uncertainties and unexpexted things.

And what went wrong in real world, why for example paratroopers were so difficult opponents to unsupported panzers? Or for ex the case of "A" Coy/5th DCLI, which after all happened in Holland, not most famous for its forests?

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2008)

Parsifal,

Wait a minute, in your scenario the Allies start out waaay too close to the town. The original scenario was that they had to cross a field ca.1,300m in lenght and width to get to the town, and the terrain is flat with no cover other than a few spots out in the field with four trees and some bushes or less.

There is an entry road on the west side, with trees running along the west side of that road, with about 10m in between. Otherwise its three big and wide open plowed fields which need be crossed. Now in my simulation that ended in 98 Allied casualties and 2 Shermans knocked out, plus two 25 pdrs destroyed.

The reason for this result was that the smoke screens weren't anywhere close to covering the entire field, and as such much of the infatry was in times exposed which the Tiger took full advantage of and litterally mowed them down. The Shermans tried to take full advantage of the smoke screen to get on the Tiger's flanks, but one got bogged and the other got knocked out 15 secs after it got through the smoke screen with a single hit.

_________________________

Juha,

The number of Tigers you claim to have been in Normandy just barely accounts for sSSPz.Abt. 102 alone! 

And as for my source on the number of Firefly's present, read John Buckley's _"British Armour in the Normandy Campaign"_. There were only a mere 200 present.

Now also if you would've actually read what I said you'd have know I was talking about Tigers AND Panthers.

And as to the real world, well if a single Tiger can charge at an entire British tank collumn with plenty of trucks, halftracks and gun carriers and succeed in knocking all of them out by itself (Including a Firefly), and at close range, I'd say Combat Mission did a pretty good job of simulating the suggested scenario.

You're more and more beginning to sound like someone who serves with the national guard as they have a habbit of believing infantry are supermen. 
__________________________


Here's an interesting account for all to read on the Firefly in action: 
South Alberta Regiment


----------



## Glider (Apr 30, 2008)

Re SSPz abt102
They had 
45 tanks on 29th May 1944
14th June ordered to Normandy Front
Last tanks arrived at Versailles 2nd July
10th-26th July lost 7 tanks

SSPz abt101 were in Normandy but lost all their tanks in June so are of limited help. The maximum they had was 37 operational tanks on 1st June making a maximum of 80 Tigers in the whole of France.

Smokescreen from 2 x 25pds would not be sufficient but 25pds were in units of 8 which would be enough and had on almost instant call 24 guns and the ability to get 72 very quickly, so where on earth did you get 2 from?

Where did you say Panther?

How are the 25pds knocked out when they will be thousands of yards away?

Why have you taken away the 17pd Firefly, when they were standard 1 per platoon?

Why have you ignored the AT guns and SP AT guns that were integral to the Infantry Division?

Why have you got Tigers when they were so few in number?


----------



## ScOoTeR1992 (Apr 30, 2008)

sorry but this is probably brought up but i cant be bothered reading all the post isnt it possible for infantry to climb up onto a tank and get it from there cause i was just wondering


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2008)

Glider,

Like I said, if we were to go by the rules there'd be NO support for the Infantry at all! So why the heck do you keep blabbering about why there's no firefly or 24x 25 pdr's ??? Are we going to stick to the topic or shall we wonder away from it ?

And as for the number of Firefly's in Normandy, like I said 200 where there, so unless there were no more than 200 platoons then viola. But again, the Firefly isn't part of the debate, but ofcourse you'd like it to be there, it's afterall great to have some AT support - problem is that this is about wether infantry could do without it.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 30, 2008)

"They had 
45 tanks on 29th May 1944
14th June ordered to Normandy Front
Last tanks arrived at Versailles 2nd July
10th-26th July lost 7 tanks

SSPz abt101 were in Normandy but lost all their tanks in June so are of limited help. The maximum they had was 37 operational tanks on 1st June making a maximum of 80 Tigers in the whole of France.

Smokescreen from 2 x 25pds would not be sufficient but 25pds were in units of 8 which would be enough and had on almost instant call 24 guns and the ability to get 72 very quickly, so where on earth did you get 2 from?

Where did you say Panther?

How are the 25pds knocked out when they will be thousands of yards away?

Why have you taken away the 17pd Firefly, when they were standard 1 per platoon?

Why have you ignored the AT guns and SP AT guns that were integral to the Infantry Division?

Why have you got Tigers when they were so few in number?"[/QUOTE]

Hi glider

I will try to explain the background that has led to this rather bizarre situation.

A disagreement has developed about the ability of Infantry without Heavy and dedicated AT support to withstand the impact of pure unsupported armour. Essentially the starting point in the debate was that the Infantry would scatter in sheer terror at the mere sight of the armour. It was pointed out that for trained Infantry this was rarely the case. The argument was then slightly modified by saying that Infantry could not withstand armour in open country. two parrallel and supporting counter arguments were developed to that position. the first was that Infantry was seldom without its supporting elements, and secondly there were all manner of substitutes to dedicated AT that the Infantry could use, including artillery over open sights (and indirect fire), all manner of passive defences such as AT Ditches mines and the like. Juha pointed out that the Finnish infantry, with virtually no dedicated AT support was quite capable of withstanding an unsupported armoured attack. I pointed out that similar things happened in places like Tobruk. We have tried to point out to Soren that the really effective way for good armour to dominate a battle was in fact for it to be used as part of an all-arms team, but Soren has rejected that, continuing his argument that heavy armour does not need any support. 

All of a sudden, for no apparent reason, the thrust of the argument changed. We were confronted with this "what if scenario, in which the Infantry force was not allowed its heavy AT support, but more importantly, the Infantry was now being asked to attack, under the most unfavourable conditions. Both Juha and myself pointed out that this was not the original argument, which has not registered with Soren, but we still continued, acknowledging that as an assault it would be difficult for the infantry to be effective in a daytime assault. However, at no time have either myself or Juha accepted that casulaties would be intolerably heavy, even under these quite obviously unfavourable conditions. Soren has rejected that. Because we cannot agree, nor have we any real way of testing, I suggested that we use military simulations to test the theory. There are any number of commercial simulations, either as boardgames, or as computer simulations. But forst we needed a map, to develop the scenario. Soren had provided a photo, on which the map was to be bbased, but then prodeuced a new map, with even harder terrain paramet6ers before, and introduced an infantry support component (in the form of an OP attachment). to be fair we were given 4 75mm tanks of our own plus 4 bazookas, and "Light Artillery support" which evidently in Sorens eyes is equal to just two 25pdrs. I has been ppointed out that for an assault of this nature a more realistic number would be 24 guns in support, but Soren has not acknowledged that. It is getting sillier by the minute, as you can see. 

I went away, and prepred a scenario using a computer simulation called "westfront" to test the theory. The results of that simulation conclusively showed the single tank defence model to be hopelessly outclassed and Infantry casulaties seldom getting past single digit figures. To achieve some balance, I had to increse the number of defending tanks to no less than three, with armoured car support as well. Even then the tanks generally were unable stop the Infantry from getting into this village.

Soren has rejected that, saying the simulation is unrealistic, although he has previously admitted that he does not know and is not familiar with the the game i was using. He has now presented his own simulation results, suggesting that the Infantry force will be almost completely wiped out by his single tank.

At this point i have referred the whole question to the wargame design group that I contribute to, which includes the Australian wargaming champion, a playtester who has competed several times in the International wargaming championships held every four years in the US 9Origins), and a whole playtest team for some of the premier wargaming titles on the market atr the moment. I have no doubt what the reaction will be, if the results that come back from those tests arent what he insists is the truth. he will deny the validity of those tests as well. Sometimes i wonder why i bother


----------



## Glider (Apr 30, 2008)

War isn't a game played by rules. Its undertaken with the forces in place and the structures with each army.

The original scenario was Infantry attacking your village which had a Tiger in it. 

The list I gave you are valid, real questions, based on real forces in place. A small obvious item is that 25pds were not depoyed in this manner in Normandy, simply never. 

Just don't compare the real world with the limitations in a game.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> Glider,
> 
> *Like I said, if we were to go by the rules there'd be NO support for the Infantry at all! So why the heck do you keep blabbering about why there's no firefly or 24x 25 pdr's ??? Are we going to stick to the topic or shall we wonder away from it ?
> 
> And as for the number of Firefly's in Normandy, like I said 200 where there, so unless there were no more than 200 platoons then viola. But again, the Firefly isn't part of the debate, but ofcourse you'd like it to be there, it's afterall great to have some AT support - problem is that this is about wether infantry could do without it.*



Soren, you raised no objection previously to the Infantry having "normal" support", except for AT defence. You have never previously raised objection to the artillery support. is this yet another change to the scenario parameter???

I have no objection to there being no heavy tanks, or for ther being no AT support, that was the starting position of this argument. But now you are also taking away the artillery support. "Light Artillery" in the British army would at minimum mean 24 guns in support


----------



## parsifal (Apr 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> Parsifal,
> 
> *Wait a minute, in your scenario the Allies start out waaay too close to the town. The original scenario was that they had to cross a field ca.1,300m in lenght and width to get to the town, and the terrain is flat with no cover other than a few spots out in the field with four trees and some bushes or less.*
> 
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Apr 30, 2008)

Glider

I generally agree with you that no simulation is as good as the "real thing", but games are as close as we are going to get to testing this theory. i would also point out that the germans used Kriegspiel, literally wargaming (of the sand table type) to train their officers, and test many of their more important offensives during the war. the sorts of games I play are based on those Krigspel thories, rigid, historical, and quite accurate to be honest. What is getting a bit farcical is the ever decreasing and quite unrealistic restrictions that are being impoised at every juncture. For one thing, the germans would never leave their tanks unsupported, but for another, the allies never deployed their 25 pdrs in groups of two. it was not uncommon for a single divisional sized assault in the british army to be supported by no less than 700 or 800 guns. i have already pointed this out to Soren, but he is not listening.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 30, 2008)

.
*Have anyone info on British A/T mines, were they powerful enough to break the track of a Tiger with some certainty?

Juha[/QUOTE]*


Juha

The most common form of british AT mine was the hawkins Mine (sometimes referred to as the Hawkins grenade) it wa fully man portable. It was not heavy enough to penetrate the armoured hull of a tiger, but more than enough to make likley that the tank, whether it was a tiger or not, losing a track

It would take 90 sappers 150 minutes to lay a 1,000 yard mine field consisting of 1,250 Mk 7 British anti-tank mines, weighing a total 17 tonnes. In comparison it would take on 30 sappers 60 minutes to lay a 1,000 yard minefield consisting of 655 barmines weighing a total of 7.2 tonnes. [1]

Mines are some of the most underrated weaponsystems available to the lowly infantryman. Against unspported armour they are usually deadly. Yet another hole in the Soren defence plan, but nobody is listening


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2008)

> Soren, you raised no objection previously to the Infantry having "normal" support", except for AT defence. You have never previously raised objection to the artillery support. is this yet another change to the scenario parameter???



Come on, the only one who has been changing the parameters is you guys. I mean seriously, suddenly there's supposed to be Firefly's and lots of 25 pdrs plus unlimited explosives and what not.. Heck the whole argument started when I said that the Allies were absolutely dependant on either AT or Artillery support when faced with German armour, you disagreed upon that for some reason. 



> I have no objection to there being no heavy tanks, or for ther being no AT support, that was the starting position of this argument. But now you are also taking away the artillery support. "Light Artillery" in the British army would at minimum mean 24 guns in support



Hey I said that the Allies were absolutely dependant on either AT or Artillery support when up against German armour, with none of these they would be cut to shreds in most cases. 



> Essentially the starting point in the debate was that the Infantry would scatter in sheer terror at the mere sight of the armour



That's untrue Parsifal. 

But like I said the mere sight of a Tiger was enough for some to panic, and then try to imagine what it would be like after seeing your armoured support being blown to pieces by one while all you've got just bounces off of its armour. 

What some of you (Not saying you Parsifal) seem unable to understand is that soldiers aren't supermen, they get scared and some are inclined to panic, everybody has a threshold which can be crossed, and if you feel that you know that you're going to die if you don't get the heck outta there, then there's isn't much which is going to stop anybody. Now experienced soldiers can keep their cool to an amazing degree but if they're head to head with a tank that they know they can't possibly hope to knock out and its just tearing your fellow soldiers apart you're gonna want to get out of there, heck you'd do your outmost never to get in that situation in the first place. A sane soldier won't mess with a tank out in the open if he's got no way of hurting it.


----------



## Glider (Apr 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> Hey I said that the Allies were absolutely dependant on either AT or Artillery support when up against German armour, with none of these they would be cut to shreds in most cases.



And the Germans in the open wouldn't be?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 30, 2008)

Hi soren



Soren said:


> *Come on, the only one who has been changing the parameters is you guys. I mean seriously, suddenly there's supposed to be Firefly's and lots of 25 pdrs plus unlimited explosives and what not.. Heck the whole argument started when I said that the Allies were absolutely dependant on either AT or Artillery support when faced with German armour, you disagreed upon that for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2008)

Glider said:


> And the Germans in the open wouldn't be?



Not if they had a Panzerschrek for example, otherwise yeah it would be the same deal, lots of dead or routing infantry. Panzerfausts would do little good out in the open in most cases as you'd have to get as close as 100 - 150m, and chances are mostly that you get mowed down before you get that close.


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2008)

> Why you are wrong, is because you are trying to argue that just one arm, the armour, can defeat all the reamining arms of an army.



Why is it necessary to put words into my mouth Parsifal ? I never claimed any of that or ever tried to prove it.

What I said, and I still stand by it, is that Allied infantry was absolutely dependant on AT or Artillery support when faced with German armor. The Germans were any many cases as-well.

Ofcourse, and as I've said, in Urban or densly vegetated areas tanks are highly vulnerable to infantry, and there's no way around that other than having infantry support yourself. 

And as for Juha's explanation that tanks can be tackled very effectively in woods, hey no protests from here! I know how easy it is if you know what you're doing and you're properly prepared, but try putting your men on farmland like often occuring in Western Europe and you're in it to your neck without AT or Artillery support. Luckily the Allies had plenty of both plus the added benefit of great air support, keeping the Germans on their toes each time they travelled by day.

And now finally regarding the moral and coolness under fire of regular troops, well I tell you Parsifal it varies A LOT, and you can't in any way compare aerial combat with ground combat, it's totally different. 

As a WW2 infantrymen seeing a Tiger was a bloody scary thing, but esp. after it let loose on your tanks, blowing them to pieces infront of your eyes, it could only have been a very sobering sight. And there are plenty of interviews with British tank crews and infantrymen who basically admit to nearly pissing their pants everytime the saw a Tiger, such was the reputation of this tank.

Moving on..

I know the brotherhood which is established within the army very well Parsifal, and leaving your buds behind is out of the question, but that's neither what I was ever implying they would do. For the experienced soldier a Tiger won't make him freeze of sheer terror, but it'll scare the **** out of him for sure and unless he's got some reasonably sane way of hurting it he will try his best to make sure that everybody gets outta there.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 30, 2008)

Check back on your earlier posts soren, in the very beginning you did not mention artillery in those posts, just anti tank units. And I am not putting words in your mouth, you did that, Your claim is that a small force of pure armour can beat an Infantry force without AT support. i have said repeatedly that an Infantry force is an all arms formation, and have written several extensive posts in reply to you, poionting out the effectiveness of artillery in the AT role, to which you rasised not a single corrrection to, or objection, until now, as you find the case supporting your position collapsing around your ears. You were very specific about what you were arguing. Do we have to go back and check your early posts. Most of my posts in reply were centred about the fact that artillery was used as a substitute on many occasions. We can all see your previous posts, and your salient argument, that led to all of this was that Allied Infantry was dependant on hefty AT defence (with no mention by you about taking away the other supporting element....you just referred to AT defences). That was the start of the disagreement, with me at any rate, but you have moved the goal posts several times. Ask the others that have been regular contributors to this thread, and you will see they have all noted the moving feast.

Your original argument, which got me going in the first place was that unsupported tanks could cut through Infantry in any terrain. Then it narrowed down to just open terrain. I pointed out to you in great detail that German armour in the most open terrain of all (ie the desert) was cut down with relative ease on a number of occasions, in fact it was the CW and Allied (eg the Poles and the Free French) who were usually responsible for stopping Rommel, and at the time they were equipped with a nearly useless AT weapon. You have never responded to that, because you cant.

As for formations falling apart because they see some element of their force fallingapart, well, that doesnt happen in the Australian Army, then or now. how many times were the British armoured formations decimated in the desert. It was a more or less weekly event. It had not the slightest effect on the Infantry formations, who just got angry, more than scared. Sure they had their fears, but the usual run of events is that they would stand their ground, hedgehog, and fight it out with the tanks. Sometimes the tanks would win, sometimes not, but the tanks never operated alone, and were not the all ppowerful weapon that yoou think. in order for them to be effective they needed to be part of an all arms team. For example, the majority of Allied tank losses in the desert were due to 88s, not german tanks. What the tanks did was to exploit, isolate, and disrupt rear area communications more than anything. 

In Normandy the terrain was bocage, so the type of open terrain did not exist there, did it. behind that was relatively mountainous terrain, which even today is forested hilly, and limited visibility. There was , of course some open terrain, but it was often hedge lined lanes, villages, cornfields, and any amount of cover that Infantry could utilize. Its not true for me to say that it was all like that, but there was enough to ensure that Infantry could find protectiion if it needed it. 

But anyway. lets deal with one problem at a time. The most repetitious decimation of allied armour in my opinion occurred in the Desert, can you point out the general trend of allied collapse in the Infantry as a result of that failure please, because it will be news to me if you can


----------



## Juha (Apr 30, 2008)

MacArther
if you are still with as and not bored to death with all these game scenarios, as an answer to your question.
In principle war was team work, the better the co-operation between different arms the better. IMHO the main functions of infantry was to force enemy mass its assets so that they gave profitable targets to artillery and occupy terrain. But also in war sh*t happens and sometimes infantry found itself confronted by enemy tanks without proper A/T support.

There are some examples from all front infantry stopping tanks, you should only dig them up from nearly countless action stories. But always be careful if you have to rely only a story from one side. It’s always better to try to find how the combat was seen by the other side. 

IMHO easiest way to find them is read on Winter War between Finland and Soviet Union between 30.11.39-13.3.40 because the other side had only very limited A/T resources and the other had committed thousands tanks into the battle. Scenes varied from trench dig across fields to narrow meandering roads through thick forests.

Para operations should also be productive research subject, paras being light infantry with very meagre heavier arms support.

Examples given, Parsifal gave info on Aussies successful fight against Afrika Korps’ powerful panzer attack at defence perimeter of Tobruk.

I gave the ambush made by “A” Coy/5thDCLI/214th Inf. Brig/43 Div W of Elst in Holland on 22 Sept 44, opponent was sPzKomp Hummel/KG Knaust.

One I just remembered, sometimes in June 44, probably sometimes between 16th-19th June, a small group of Finnish light T-26 tanks attacked Soviet infantry but were stopped and forced to retreat by Soviet A/T rifle fire, Finns lost at least some tankers but I cannot remember if tanks were lost.

There were also fight between Japanese infantry, IIRC from 7th Div, and Soviet BT cavalry tanks at Khalkin-Gol, in Matsurian and Mongolian border area in August 39. Japanese relying primitive Molotov Cocktails used by “human bullets” attacking across plain, very costly way to attack tanks.

OK, other duties wait
Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2008)

Parsifal,

I ask again why is it necessary to put words into my mouth ??

Here's what I said EXACTLY!:

_However out on the *countryside* and *without AT support *I'm afraid you will find very few examples of infantry pushing back or even halting an armored advance. 

The Allied infantry was absolutely dependant on AT support *in any way or form *when faced with German armor, otherwise it was a one way trip outta this world. The German infantry were fortunate enough to have a wide array of powerful handheld AT weapons such as the Panzerfaust Panzerschrek, both capable of piercing the armor of any Allied tank.

That having been said the Soviets had a somewhat effective infantry AT weapon in the very beginning of the war, the 14.5mm AT rifles. Being powerful enough to punch through the side armor of the Pzkpfw. I II, and whilst not devastating such a thing was always a nasty surprise for any German tanker._

So where exactly was it that I moved the goal posts plz ??? If anything I only improved the Infantry's chances by allowing them to have som support at all!!

So all I see is other members (such as you) realizing they're horridly wrong and desperately trying every trick in the book to turn the course of the argument, suddenly wanting Firefly's, 24x 25 pdrs, unlimited explosives and what not..

So I'll repeat: Stick to the topic!


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2008)

> In Normandy the terrain was bocage, so the type of open terrain did not exist there, did it.



Really ? Can I ask have you ever been in Normandy ?? No you haven't cause then you'd know what you just wrote is very far from the truth. Do you even know how big Normandy is ??

Note that the picture I supplied was taken i Normandy.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 30, 2008)

So, you are telling me that we have been arguing for all this time for you to "prove" that one of the heaviest and effeective tanks in the worldat that time was able to flatten a force with little better than its rifles to defend itself. Which allied army are we excatly talking about??? The Royal Somalian constabulary perhaps???

You have got to be kidding me. From the end of the French campaign on, I can think of no instances of allied Infantry being left that exposed. 
Inevery major engagement that i am aware of, there was always supporting artillery (which most rational people do not describe as Anti-tank weaponary) as well as sappers and all manner of other support. The Infantry, i would suggest was never left that exposed, and neither was the armour (weel at least it wasnt after the hard lessons of combined arms combat had been learnt)


----------



## parsifal (Apr 30, 2008)

so, is the predominant terrain of Normandy open or closed?....this is going to be funny, i just know it


----------



## Juha (May 1, 2008)

Soren
thanks to the source on Firefly, RAC reports show that 21th AG units had more or less minimium TOE 12 per regiment (to others than British, battalion) by went they were deployed and by 31.5.44 some 342 Fireflies were made + some 550 more by the end of August. 11th Arm.Div had a couple over that minimium quota already near the end of June. So the number of Fireflies depends on the rate British armoured units were disembarking to Normandy.

Tigers, only SSsPzAbt 101 participiated fighting in June , 102 and 503 arrived in July as I wrote, 101 had 37 combat ready Tigers on 1.Jun.44 so max 45 Tigers in June in Normandy.

"So all I see is other members (such as you) realizing they're horridly wrong and desperately trying every trick in the book to turn the course of the argument, suddenly wanting Firefly's, 24x 25 pdrs, unlimited explosives and what not.."

In your dreams only. When I noticed that relevant counter arguments didn't sink into you and because I quessed that you would, whoever you are, react as "keen teen" up to the "cocky crack eastern front waffen-SS veterans" I put a Firefly in ambush position and as I guessed that really sunk in. BTW I have always wondered what was wrong with Heer's panzer units, why you "keen teen" types always choose WW-S?

Now artillery is integral part of infantry divs and it isn't anti-tank unit, A/T battalion is the A/T unit of infantry div. I would have been satisfied with a battery of 8 25pdrs.

On terrain in Normandy, mostly close country but also in some areas big open fields.

Parsifal
Thanks on the mine info, but I'm looking for more technical info and I'm not sure if Mk 7 was already in use during WWII.
From old British army handbook, which gave info on early 43 situation I found info on A/T mines Mark II and IV, Mk II already labelled as obsolent and the info that a new Mk V was in test stage. By Googling I only got a picture on Mk V but no specs (looking especially the weight and the weight of explosive charge). As often you can find easier info on German than British weapons. And I already know the relevant info on Tellermines. Probably A/T Mine Mk V was and improved version of Mk IV.
Juha


----------



## Juha (May 1, 2008)

Scooter1992
Yes, but first you must stop the tank, good for that is A/T mine. After that, if tank was alone, climb on it, blind the commander with for ex. a coat over cupola and then try to figure out how to ignite the beast. If there is other enemies (tanks or infantry) around, standing on tank isn't a good idea, too exposed position.

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 1, 2008)

The only one who is acting like a keen teen here is you Juha, atleast Parsifal knows how to act as an adult. 

And the Reason I picked a crack Waffen SS Tiger crew is because Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung. 101 102 is part of the Waffen SS you nimwit! Geez, go get a clue! Your arguments just get sillier more childish by the post...

Oh and for the record there's nothing wrong with the Heer or Wehrmacht, they were just as experienced as the Waffen SS, infact lots more in the beginning of the war.


----------



## Juha (May 1, 2008)

Soren
503 was a Heer unit

Juha


----------



## MacArther (May 1, 2008)

Thanks for all the help guys! Please continue (if you want), because this is a very interesting scenario and whatnot developing.


----------



## DBII (May 1, 2008)

Interesting thread

DBII


----------



## parsifal (May 1, 2008)

Juha

Regarding you Post about mines, I will have a look around for more information. i know the Mk7 was a post war mine, but it was included to simply give an idea of how quickly the mines can be laid

My interst in this topic is waning after Soren advised that he was envisaging Infantry with little more than rifles and no other supporting arms against the heaviest tank of the time. In other words, he is envisaging policemen versus the tank. He considers artillery to be the same as anti-tank, incidentally. IMO it has to be a joke. I am sure that is not what he meant at the be3ginning of the thread. He meant that Infantry without proper AT support (eg 17 pdrs and the like), but he has wriggled away from the position now, and is arguing that Infantry without AT support of any kind, that now includes any artillery support, and soon it is going to include anti-tabk mines I am sure as well, I am wondering how long it will be before this mythical "Infantry" (if you could call it that now, force, will even be allowed to carry rifles.

IMO opinion the debate is now ridiculous


----------



## Soren (May 1, 2008)

I see I need to remind you of my VERY first post in this thread again:

_*However out on the countryside and without AT support* I'm afraid you will find very few examples of infantry pushing back or even halting an armored advance. 

*The Allied infantry was absolutely dependant on AT support in any way or form when faced with German armor*, otherwise it was a one way trip outta this world. The German infantry were fortunate enough to have a wide array of powerful handheld AT weapons such as the Panzerfaust Panzerschrek, both capable of piercing the armor of any Allied tank._

Also funny is that you're making up BS about me soon ripping the infantry of its smallarms in this scenario when infact I've only gradually increased their chances by giving them both armoured support, arty support Bazookas!

I do agree about one thing though, this HAS become ridiculous!


----------



## parsifal (May 1, 2008)

Yes

and the definition of AT gun/support,,, does not include all artillery soren. 

does it


It is obvious that you have realized you have backed yourself into a corner and are now attempting to weedle your way out by trying to redifine the scenario parameters. if you are not doing this, you would have raised issue to all the posts that assumed (rightly, because your first post allowed artillery, I repeat, artillery is not classified as AT) artillery support as part of the Infantry force opposing them.

I will repeat the challenge, what allied Infantry force are you proposing that separates its Infantry support fromits Infantry. About the only types I can think of are partisans and police.

I will put it to you straight. In your initial posts you never intended to include artillery as part of the AT park. You know that is utter BS. Now, unless you are going to own up to that I see no point in continuing in this discussion. 

I will ask you again, which allied army are you referring to that assaults enemy positions without artillery support, and which classifies artillery as AT?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2008)

Juha, Soren...

Both of you need to grow up!

Do I have to come in here and clean this up? Soren, you know what that means? Juha?


----------



## Juha (May 2, 2008)

Adler
I'll comply

MacArther
Maybe it is easier to find examples in NW Europe than i thought. This is not a clear case and the opponent is unknown and only thing I can say for sure is that AFVs were NOT Ferdinands. What they were? One possibility is Jagdpanthers from sPzJgAbt 654, that suits to refenrence then as SP monsters, also JgPanther had a hull mg which made it more suitable to attack infantry, but it didn't bogged down easily. There is a unit history of 654, so it should be possible to check that possibility but I don't have a copy of it.
On the other end of scale is Marder I, which had somewhat overloaded chasis and rather narrow tracks, so it would bog down much easier. But I doubt that anyone would call it monster and being opentopped and without hull mg not a first choice to attack infantry. If the story had happened on Eastern Front they would probably have been StuGs because Soviet many times identified StuGs as Elefants/Ferdinands but British usually correctly identified them as AGs (assault guns). One other possibility is JgPz IV.

But late in 1.8.44 Bois du Homme and Hill 361 was taken by 5 Wiltshires/129 Inf.Brig/43 Div. First one Ferdinand attacked but was stopped by a PIAT, but the FOO was badly wounded. After a while an armoured car and 3 Ferdinands attacked swinging right across the open ground in front of "D" Coy. One was soon bogged down and immediately destroyed. The remaining 2 smashed they way through "C" Coy causing casualties to the men in slit trenches. A second Ferdinand was bogged and destroyed. The remaining SP swung back back, after running over some of "A" Coy men, was knocked out by a direct hit from 235 A/T battery M 10 emerging into the clearing below the escarpment. All was over in a few minutes. 

I would say that that was fairly typical, PIAT worked sometimes, immobilized AFV near enemy infantry without good support was dead meat, moving AFV, especially heavy AFV, was a difficult nut for infantry. IIRC the M 10s of 43 Div were M 10Cs, ie had 17pdrs cannons in place of 3".

Parsifal
thanks. I remember how the manual minelaying was made, have done it many time in exercises, basic load per man, 4*10kg A/T mines, 12-16 anti-personnel mines, fuses, assault rifle + magazine. We joked that at least we will get long arms. If safe, all 8 men did minelaying, otherwise 2 men with the RPG secured the laying.

Juha


----------



## Juha (May 8, 2008)

Hello
43 Div (Wessex) seemed to have numerous infantry vs panzers combats.
On the morning of June 26 six Panthers made sudden surprise attack on 5 DCLI, which was digging in Cheux. One of them first knocked out a whole troop of 17-pounders from 333 A/T Bty just coming up. Then tanks knocked out 2 6-pdrs in “D” Coy area and began firefight with 6-pdrs in the area of Battalion HQ. The CO of 5 DCLI was KIA while acting as a loader to one of 6-pdrs. One pz withdrew after being hit 3 times by a PIAT, two others were destroyed by PIAT teams and one turned over while trying to escape. And one was brewed up by a 6 pdr. So German lost 5 out of 6 tanks. Of the bale-out tankers 4 became POWs and 9 were killed. British lost 20 KIA or WIA. IMO Panthers must have been from SS-PzR 12.

On 29 June two coys from 1 Worcestershire made a dawn attack across open cornfields and took Mouen, which was defended by a German coy plus dug-in tanks. Worcesters attacked without tank support but were backed by 2 medium regiments, 3 field artillery regiments and 4.2 in mortars firing smoke and HE. The mediums destroyed several dug-in tanks and rest were knocked out by PIAT teams.
Most probably Germans were from LAH, but the other 3 SSPzDivs or 21 PzD are also possible.

Juha


----------



## cougar32d (May 8, 2008)

i've been trying to read all this all the way through and i have a few thoughts: #1. most of the text is either straight textbook or out of someone else's book, how about fighting armor in you own thoughts and ideas? and #2. is anyone here truly an expert? it's nothing to get all heated up about.


----------



## Juha (May 8, 2008)

Hello Cougar
most of my descriptions of combats are from Delaforce's The Fighting Wessex Wyverns. He usually has not identified the panzer units, I have tried identify them from other secondary sources. 

I'm more interested in what has happened in real world than what someone things might have been happened. And besides in the first post it was asked for real world stories.

Probably not many of us has be trained or made deep study on WWII tank or A/T tactics. But at least I had training with rather similar equipment and had been under attack of WWII era tanks, albeit with turrets from early 50s, and only in military exercises. I also have had rides on those tanks in cross-country, more or less in full speed and have been inside them but as said their optics were from early 50s. But our tactical training mostly trained us to fight against tanks of 60s. And I was a lowly conscript NCO, so I'd not call myself an expert, even if Finnish combat engineers were trained more in line of German pioneers, we were pioneerejä, so more combat and less engineering than in Anglo-American armies.

My own thinking is, blind them, immobilize them and then destroy them. But that would not be easy and would cost blood, maybe much blood.

Stealth, surprise, deceiv are keys.

Juha


----------



## cougar32d (May 8, 2008)

i like you style Juha, you bring a wealth of real world experience. however my real world experience is only in modern armored warfare.


----------



## parsifal (May 8, 2008)

Ive had training in infantry tactics as well. However, Ive also been to officer staff college as well, where a routine method to test theories is to "wargame" the concept out, This is what I was attempting to simulate, so that all the footstamping and carry on could be removed from the debate. There are seven simulations of this "scenarios" being tested at the momemt with reasonably accurate simulations as we speak. Will hopefully have some results of those tests quite soon.

Trouble is, the parameters of what we are testing keep changing, so it is difficult to know what the problem is.

People, including myself, tend to get very animated in these discussions. Dont see anything wrong with that, but there are some unwritten rules that sometimes are broken. Like, not attacking the man, attack the iisue. Still, this is the wild west of the 21st century, so you have to take that sort of rough housing.


----------



## DBII (May 8, 2008)

Parsfal, what software are you using? I did simulations for the US Army for 9 years. Of course that was many years ago. Started out using dice and radom number charts and ended up with computer networks in different parts of the world. Great work while it lasted. 

DBII


----------



## MacArther (May 8, 2008)

Thanks to Juha and Soren and everyone else that has been contributing their wealth of knowlede to this thread!


----------



## parsifal (May 9, 2008)

Hi DB

we are using a variety of commercial games, including ASL, Panzerleader, and panzer. These are dice based boardgames. I am also using a computer game called "westfront" by Talonsoft.

I was a trainee PWO in the RAN and got to play around quite a bit at the Tactical warfare school in Sydney. I like to think of it as a $500 million playstation really. I have great confidence that military simulations can deliver very accurate result for "scenarios like this. The German general staff did as well, for that matter

For the record, my contention is this. Unsupported armour cannot defeat an Infantry Force that is supported less dedicated AT support. The remaining supporting arms (eg the artillery and the combat engineers ) will make a meal out of any unsupported armour, regardless of the power of that armour. This is particualrly true if the Infantry is defending, less so if attacking. Trouble is, in the current discussion, the goal posts keep moving, which to me means that we cannot discuss anything with any objectivity


----------



## Glider (May 9, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello
> 
> On 29 June two coys from 1 Worcestershire made a dawn attack across open cornfields and took Mouen, which was defended by a German coy plus dug-in tanks. Worcesters attacked without tank support but were backed by 2 medium regiments, 3 field artillery regiments and 4.2 in mortars firing smoke and HE. The mediums destroyed several dug-in tanks and rest were knocked out by PIAT teams.
> Most probably Germans were from LAH, but the other 3 SSPzDivs or 21 PzD are also possible.
> ...



This example supports your position and for what its worth its one I support.

Thanks for the examples they were very informative.


----------



## Juha (May 9, 2008)

Hello
Parsifal, my comment wasn’t directed towards you. But I think that most of us hadn’t any staff training and so we are at least a bit out of our depth if we try to figure realistically different scenarios of WWII combats. Also as a historian by training my interest is focused on what and why something has happened.

I agree with you on armour. Effective combat needs good coordination and good co-operation between different arms. Of course it's also a question of forces used. 6 Panthers against a battalion was too few but against a coy, especially against one which was still digging in, might well worked out. Of course there are always many variables, quality of troops, terrain, visibility etc.

Glider
when I read on the attack, I thought that the genius of the plan was it’s unorthodoxy. We were trained to use imagination and being flexible, trying to outsmart the enemy. But as underdogs that and guts were our best hopes.
On that attack, the CG of the div had ordered a dusk attack through previously attacked unit but the brigadier (Essame) disobeyed and ordered a dawn attack from different direction. Germans probably didn’t think that attack from that direction was very probable. Surprise, good artillery support, a lot of smoke, very open attack formation, men well briefed and deceptive heavy MMG fire to the left seemed to have been the keys to success. The main problem in Delaforce’s book is paucity of maps and the maps that were in the book are not too good. I have to rely on maps in other books when trying to figure out the tactics etc. A good sketch on this attack would help much to understand it.

Juha


----------



## Kruska (May 10, 2008)

Hello there Soren,

My “idol” Guderian would probably hang himself after reading the last posts regarding armor assault on infantry. 
Firstly tank units under no circumstances operate on their own “because of good reasons”, unless the situation ultimately forces them to do so, that is why the Panzergrenadier concept was developed. Infantry in its embedment of joint weapons in conventional warfare is still the ultimate weapon until today. 

Therefore Soren, your statement is totally hypothetic from military point of view and proves nothing.
When my friends and I were 16 years old we already learned during war gaming / microarmour sessions that a single on tanks relying operation was doomed. 

The W-SS was very famous for their ruthless approach, mostly due to the fact lacking tactically experienced military leaders, Sepp and Dirlewanger – just to name a few – and because of their indestructible believe in racial superiority. Not many SS Commanders had a Reichswehr/Wehrmacht background such as Hausser. 

The extreme high losses in regards to Normandy and the SS-HJ document this. Admittedly the Wehrmacht pushed the W-SS formations in less “desirable” attacking or defensive tasks knowing about their recklessness in regards to carry on missions which would have been abandoned by Wehrmacht units in face of heavy losses. Sometimes you need these kinds of suicidal fanatics to gain an advantage for the whole concept of a battle.

Wittman got himself and his crew killed at the end due to this recklessness. Much of the “Mythos” SS is based on the experience of the allies who “acknowledged” the SS attacking anywhere even in face of total annihilation and as such took them as a serious threat in regards to causing losses to them, because some of them were indeed fanatic/blind enough to attack infantry positions solely with tanks. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (May 11, 2008)

Kruska

Agree completely. If the "scenario was modified even a little to include supporting Infantry with the Tiger tank, the allies would be in trouble. Soren assumed I think that we were attacking German military prowess by saying the tiger is doomed in this situation of being unsupported. The fact is that the germans almost never sent thir tanks out unsupported. The great strengtyh of the tiger, was that with just a little (but not none) all arms support, it became a very formidable opponent


----------



## Kruska (May 11, 2008)

Hello parsifal,

Sorry I can’t remember the title, but it is a fantastic book that accounts for all Tiger operations during WW2.
The final chapters in regards to the eastern front show very clearly that due to missing infantry support that all Tiger attacks were eventually turned down, due to heavy AT, artillery fire and last not least Russian infantry.
The book however indicates also very clearly that it was almost impossible for the Tiger commanders to get infantry to follow up with them, since the German infantry guys also were aware that a single Tiger in their vicinity would automatically bring entire Russian battalions and even brigades on to them.
So they loved the Tiger as a defensive support and feared it in the offensive task as much as the enemy. 

Sounds kind of weird, but makes sense to me.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Juha (Jul 11, 2008)

Hello
I found some new info on the June 26 1944 Panther attack against 5 DCLI. The Panthers were from I./PzR 3, ie from 2nd PzD. I./PzR 3 was sent, without any panzergrenadiers from 2nd PzD, to help 12. SSPzD.

And the 29 June 1 Worcestershire attack on Mouen, defenders, both grenadiers and tanks were from LAH plus at least one Tiger from SS sPz Abt 101.

Juha


----------

