Infantry VS Armor

[Soren]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Juha]

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]

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]

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]

Soren
503 was a Heer unit

Juha

 

[MacArther]

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

 

[DBII]

Interesting thread

DBII

 

[parsifal]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.