Well, an '88' Flak sneaked up on him, but he'd bought a one-way ticket.
I believe this is proof of my point. Aside from there being no source of evidence that you have provided to state this actually happened. You have collapsed your own argument. This T-34 had managed to find itself nine miles from it's own army and it's own supply. It was cut off and destroyed, this happens to all those that put themselves into that position. As I said, they can advance but the line will just close behind them and they're trapped.
Loose cannons can be very, very effective.
No they cannot. A "loose cannon" cannot achieve operational success. The tank is an assault weapon, it's capability to hold ground is practically nil without the aid of supporting infantry and artillery.
Also with the Germans having radio, news of the Matilda2 ("hundreds of tanks!") and T34 spread fast.
Good you'd think? wrong, the Germans were scared and lost morale.
You will find that you are wrong in that statement. Knowing about the enemy action, or reaction, defeats surprise. Surprise is the greatest weapon of war, with fast communication the surprise is lost and a quick reaction to the enemy is possible.
The German soldiers may have been scared but the Divisional, Corps or Army HQ would have the information to provide counter-measures. It is better to know about your enemy and be scared than not know at all until their advance has reached your HQ.
One of the main troubles with the French defence in 1940 was slow communication. The German forces would be advancing at break-neck speed and the French could not react. There are many stories of French Commanders ordering counter-attacks on an area only to find the German forces had advanced through that area and in fact were miles behind the Commanders HQ. The French needed a faster system of communication to allow for reaction.
Communication is also vital to allow, if the enemy is over-whelming, a hasty retreat of all equipment. Fixed artillery positions would soon be overrun if the front line troops did not communicate the information back through the lines.
Even more so, the tanks on the front line could react to the advancing troops with communication. Radio communication between platoons of tanks could allow them to change position and move around in any kind of attack or counter-attack with lightning speed.
Yes, radios are good, but not vital, not in WW2.
What if it's knocked out? What then?
Radios are vital for operational success and tactical flexability. Tactical, local, success can be achieved with little communication but to enable a breakthrough, leading to operational success, good communication must reign throughout the tanks. This cannot be achieved with flag signals. The fog of war and heat of battle will cloud and distort communication with flags.
The odds are if the radio is knocked out on that tank, then the tank is knocked out. The only possible destruction of the radio is in the Command Tank which was also bristling with radio equipment. These would not normally tank an advance role but would be with the leading troops to react to any situation. The enemy did aim for the Command Tank when it was spotted, just like they would aim for the officer in the field. However, what happens when the Command Tank is knocked out? What happens when the lead plane is knocked out? What happens when the CO is knocked out? It's a silly question.
In the worst case the attack must be halted for the tanks retain any kind of unit cohesion. As that is most important in tank assaults on an operational scale. The Allies learnt so in the Great War in Cambrai.
I'm interested in what you consider so different from World War 2 and now. Sure, the technical ability of machines today are much more advanced but the tactics are exactly the same. World War 2 was a modern way and it has laid the structure for combat today.
Panzer Battles was read by the majority of U.S Armour Commanders in the Gulf War.
Kinda like indicators on a car etc.
Indicators on a car are vital for safe driving on the roads. Sure, the car can drive without them but it cannot act safely and successfully on the roads without them. That is why it's illegal not to use them on the roads. They're a vital safety aspect to inform everyone else what you're doing, a lot like a radio in a tank.
"Communication between the members of a tank crew is effected by lights, speaking tubes, internal telephones and other devices. For external communication nearly all command tanks have radio transmitters and receivers, while all other modern tanks have radio receivers; the company commanders of the World War, hastening ahead of their tanks on foot or horseback, are figures of the past. The continuing development of radio apparatus is of great relevance to the direction of larger tank formations and their deployment for tasks in depth."
From
Achtung! Panzer! by Heinz Guderian (1937). Note: Bold is my own.
Guderian realises, in 1937, that the deployment of large tank forces for operational success relies solely on the radio.
Again, from the same book:
"Tank forces are directed by radio, and the smaller units from company downwards also by visual signals. As long as radio silence has to be observed, orders and reports can be transmitted by means of aircraft, vehicles or telephone. Commanders ride in the command tanks, which are followed by the necessary radio tanks for secure communication with superiors and subordinates."
The tactics of tank forces clearly include the use of radio for tactical flexibility. From company level downwards, they did use visual signals as you can see. But company down is platoon strength, little more than four tanks most of the time.
Again from the some book:
"In the World War the shortcomings of the signals and communications systems greatly impeded the command of tank forces, and their co-operation with the other arms. Tank company commanders were sometimes reduced to accompanying their forces on horseback, to exercise a modicum of control, and they had to make considerable use of runners. Here is the origin of the accusation that tanks are 'deaf'. This shortcoming has now been overcome by that magnificent invention, the wireless telegraph and its relation, the voice radio. Every modern tank has a radio receiver, and every command tank is equipped with both the receiver and transmitter. Tank units are now under guaranteed command and control. Inside larger tanks are various devices to enable the crew members to communicate with one another."
As is quite clearly stated by Guderian, the lack of communication in World War I impeded the progress of armoured forces. He, as many others, found it of vital importance that tank forces could communicate in efficient and clear manners. Command and control is vital in any operation, from infantry to aircraft with artillery and tank inbetween.
Not only that, the mention of control between the different arms. The tank needs to be in contact with it's supporting arms. It cannot act on it's own. It needs the support of engineers, aircraft, infantry and artillery to be of any success.
If you believe the tank can act on it's own, you're wrong. If you believe the tank does not need good communication for a success on an operational basis, you're wrong.
I carry on with various quotes;
"Radio is likewise the principal medium of control between tank units and the other forces, and radios are the main equipment of the signals elements which provide the communications for the tank units and their supporting arms."
As said before, the communication between the tank and it's supporting arms is vital.
"However visual signals are used up to company level as a replacement for radios in case of breakdowns."
It explains itself.
"In combat these commanders will be right up front with their tanks, which means that armoured radio vehicles with full cross-country capability are essential for the panzer signals elements."
It's said, time and time again, the tank forces need to be in communication with one another as well as with other arms for any kind of operational success.
"In combat the transmission of orders are conveyed to the rapidly moving armoured forces in different and much shorter forms than with infantry divisions."
Most powerful aspect of a tank force? It's mobilty and quick reaction, which requires fast, powerful and clear communication.