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