Infantry VS Armor

[Soren]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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. What Juha is describing is classic Infantry defences against armour. Its just that the Finns were masters at it

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! :shock:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

If you have no AT capability, this means you are completely unarmed. you have no artillery, no bullets, no molotovs, no air support. under those conditions, are the people opposing you even soldiers????? The point is this, if you set up conditions where the Infantry has no defences of any kind, then of course there is no defence. but then the reverse is just as true. if you remove the tanks armament, how can it defend itself? You whole argument is nonsensical, and stupid, but then, why am i not surprised


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

Go away, and do some real reaearch. i suggest you look at the way the Australians defeated Rommel at Tobruk in 1941. They had AT support, but it was held back for the most part. Most of the damage was done with 25pdrs over open sights. Later, in the darkness, and also under the cover of a heavy dust storm, (once the enemy Infantry had been forced back), the Tanks (who by then were trying to fight unsupported) were taken out by Infantry assault teams armed mostly with petrol, grenades and small arms. The Germans lost something like 40 tanks that day

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

You really are a goose arent you!! This battle I am referring to was undertaken from Dug in Positions, but the terain was an open treeless desert. And it happened often

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.