Armour and it's conflict.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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

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

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

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

there's explotation.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

Early in the war the Soviet Union lacked any kind of tactical thought.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at the Gulf War and the War in Iraq in 2003 as an example.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

Nor were the Iraqi crews any good whatsoever.

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

Also German crews in Leopards etc, etc.

Am I making sense?

Sorry if I'm not.


I didn't mention a flanking attack!
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Also Rorkes Drift, you must understand?

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

Did I argue that?

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

Chris Foss said something like:

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


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

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

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

you don't have a single clue about operational use, do you?
Click to expand...

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

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

The same goes for the TigerI Panther.


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

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

How do they achieve the element of surprise?

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

- Though I suppose if you're too busy with the choppers??
 
I don't get it, sorry!

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

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

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

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

DerAlder. Feel free to correct me, as I could be way off beam on the above statement. Just trying to think it through.
 
No you are exactly right Glider. The lighter units go in and hit you hard and fast. Shock you before you know what hit you. Then the Main Divisions come through the hole that you just punched through and wipe everything out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

WWII remnants in Tunisia and Algeria
Replies
0
Views
608
Ghosts of War
M
US AA defense in WWII ETO and pacific
Replies
4
Views
812
Frog
F
Aviation Concepts: Pterodactyl And The Origins Of The Tailless And Flying Wing
Replies
1
Views
503
Gnomey
The Rise and Fall of the Nazi War Machine
Replies
5
Views
1K
pbehn
P
Nazi Germany, logistics, Allies advance (and the lack of it) etc
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register