Infantry VS Armor (1 Viewer)

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

Hello Cougar
most of my descriptions of combats are from Delaforce's The Fighting Wessex Wyverns. He usually has not identified the panzer units, I have tried identify them from other secondary sources.

I'm more interested in what has happened in real world than what someone things might have been happened. And besides in the first post it was asked for real world stories.

Probably not many of us has be trained or made deep study on WWII tank or A/T tactics. But at least I had training with rather similar equipment and had been under attack of WWII era tanks, albeit with turrets from early 50s, and only in military exercises. I also have had rides on those tanks in cross-country, more or less in full speed and have been inside them but as said their optics were from early 50s. But our tactical training mostly trained us to fight against tanks of 60s. And I was a lowly conscript NCO, so I'd not call myself an expert, even if Finnish combat engineers were trained more in line of German pioneers, we were pioneerejä, so more combat and less engineering than in Anglo-American armies.

My own thinking is, blind them, immobilize them and then destroy them. But that would not be easy and would cost blood, maybe much blood.

Stealth, surprise, deceiv are keys.

Juha
 
Ive had training in infantry tactics as well. However, Ive also been to officer staff college as well, where a routine method to test theories is to "wargame" the concept out, This is what I was attempting to simulate, so that all the footstamping and carry on could be removed from the debate. There are seven simulations of this "scenarios" being tested at the momemt with reasonably accurate simulations as we speak. Will hopefully have some results of those tests quite soon.

Trouble is, the parameters of what we are testing keep changing, so it is difficult to know what the problem is.

People, including myself, tend to get very animated in these discussions. Dont see anything wrong with that, but there are some unwritten rules that sometimes are broken. Like, not attacking the man, attack the iisue. Still, this is the wild west of the 21st century, so you have to take that sort of rough housing.
 
Parsfal, what software are you using? I did simulations for the US Army for 9 years. Of course that was many years ago. Started out using dice and radom number charts and ended up with computer networks in different parts of the world. Great work while it lasted.

DBII
 
Hi DB

we are using a variety of commercial games, including ASL, Panzerleader, and panzer. These are dice based boardgames. I am also using a computer game called "westfront" by Talonsoft.

I was a trainee PWO in the RAN and got to play around quite a bit at the Tactical warfare school in Sydney. I like to think of it as a $500 million playstation really. I have great confidence that military simulations can deliver very accurate result for "scenarios like this. The German general staff did as well, for that matter

For the record, my contention is this. Unsupported armour cannot defeat an Infantry Force that is supported less dedicated AT support. The remaining supporting arms (eg the artillery and the combat engineers ) will make a meal out of any unsupported armour, regardless of the power of that armour. This is particualrly true if the Infantry is defending, less so if attacking. Trouble is, in the current discussion, the goal posts keep moving, which to me means that we cannot discuss anything with any objectivity
 
Hello

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

This example supports your position and for what its worth its one I support.

Thanks for the examples they were very informative.
 
Hello
Parsifal, my comment wasn't directed towards you. But I think that most of us hadn't any staff training and so we are at least a bit out of our depth if we try to figure realistically different scenarios of WWII combats. Also as a historian by training my interest is focused on what and why something has happened.

I agree with you on armour. Effective combat needs good coordination and good co-operation between different arms. Of course it's also a question of forces used. 6 Panthers against a battalion was too few but against a coy, especially against one which was still digging in, might well worked out. Of course there are always many variables, quality of troops, terrain, visibility etc.

Glider
when I read on the attack, I thought that the genius of the plan was it's unorthodoxy. We were trained to use imagination and being flexible, trying to outsmart the enemy. But as underdogs that and guts were our best hopes.
On that attack, the CG of the div had ordered a dusk attack through previously attacked unit but the brigadier (Essame) disobeyed and ordered a dawn attack from different direction. Germans probably didn't think that attack from that direction was very probable. Surprise, good artillery support, a lot of smoke, very open attack formation, men well briefed and deceptive heavy MMG fire to the left seemed to have been the keys to success. The main problem in Delaforce's book is paucity of maps and the maps that were in the book are not too good. I have to rely on maps in other books when trying to figure out the tactics etc. A good sketch on this attack would help much to understand it.

Juha
 
Hello there Soren,

My "idol" Guderian would probably hang himself after reading the last posts regarding armor assault on infantry.
Firstly tank units under no circumstances operate on their own "because of good reasons", unless the situation ultimately forces them to do so, that is why the Panzergrenadier concept was developed. Infantry in its embedment of joint weapons in conventional warfare is still the ultimate weapon until today.

Therefore Soren, your statement is totally hypothetic from military point of view and proves nothing.
When my friends and I were 16 years old we already learned during war gaming / microarmour sessions that a single on tanks relying operation was doomed.

The W-SS was very famous for their ruthless approach, mostly due to the fact lacking tactically experienced military leaders, Sepp and Dirlewanger – just to name a few – and because of their indestructible believe in racial superiority. Not many SS Commanders had a Reichswehr/Wehrmacht background such as Hausser.

The extreme high losses in regards to Normandy and the SS-HJ document this. Admittedly the Wehrmacht pushed the W-SS formations in less "desirable" attacking or defensive tasks knowing about their recklessness in regards to carry on missions which would have been abandoned by Wehrmacht units in face of heavy losses. Sometimes you need these kinds of suicidal fanatics to gain an advantage for the whole concept of a battle.

Wittman got himself and his crew killed at the end due to this recklessness. Much of the "Mythos" SS is based on the experience of the allies who "acknowledged" the SS attacking anywhere even in face of total annihilation and as such took them as a serious threat in regards to causing losses to them, because some of them were indeed fanatic/blind enough to attack infantry positions solely with tanks.

Regards
Kruska
 
Kruska

Agree completely. If the "scenario was modified even a little to include supporting Infantry with the Tiger tank, the allies would be in trouble. Soren assumed I think that we were attacking German military prowess by saying the tiger is doomed in this situation of being unsupported. The fact is that the germans almost never sent thir tanks out unsupported. The great strengtyh of the tiger, was that with just a little (but not none) all arms support, it became a very formidable opponent
 
Hello parsifal,

Sorry I can't remember the title, but it is a fantastic book that accounts for all Tiger operations during WW2.
The final chapters in regards to the eastern front show very clearly that due to missing infantry support that all Tiger attacks were eventually turned down, due to heavy AT, artillery fire and last not least Russian infantry.
The book however indicates also very clearly that it was almost impossible for the Tiger commanders to get infantry to follow up with them, since the German infantry guys also were aware that a single Tiger in their vicinity would automatically bring entire Russian battalions and even brigades on to them.
So they loved the Tiger as a defensive support and feared it in the offensive task as much as the enemy.

Sounds kind of weird, but makes sense to me.

Regards
Kruska
 
Hello
I found some new info on the June 26 1944 Panther attack against 5 DCLI. The Panthers were from I./PzR 3, ie from 2nd PzD. I./PzR 3 was sent, without any panzergrenadiers from 2nd PzD, to help 12. SSPzD.

And the 29 June 1 Worcestershire attack on Mouen, defenders, both grenadiers and tanks were from LAH plus at least one Tiger from SS sPz Abt 101.

Juha
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back