Infantry VS Armor

[parsifal]

Now, there will be more than a few of you saying to yourselves something like" well, if tanks are not able to easily beat Infantry how come the germans (and others) used them to spearhead all their offensives?" The answer is quite simple. its not just tanks that did it. nor was it just Infantry, or just artillery. it wsa the successful combination of all arms, in just the right blend, and using just the right technique to break the defending Infantry, or force. I am not saying tanks are not immensely powerful. What i am saying is thay cant do the job on their own. i am also adamantly saying that AT defence does not end with the AT Battalian in a division. I am even saying that the dedicated AT force is not even the mainstay of the AT defence

 

[Juha]

Hello Parsifal

"Did you know that the germans actually used the French 75 as a significant AT Gun during the war."

Yes, that was 7,5cm Pak 97/38, also Finns had them during later part of Continuation War (1941-44).
We did not use artillery pieces as A/T weapons during Winter War because we had so few of them, only 420 pieces at the start of the Winter War, 306 of them old Russian 76,2mm Model 02 field cannon. 02 means that the gun began to serve in the Imperial Russian Army in 1902. All or almost all other guns were also models designed before WWI. One arty battalion had 150mm Japanese howitzer which were originally Russin war booty from Russian-Japanese War of 1904-05. Of the 10 division we had at the beginning of the war, only 9 had a weak arty rgt each, the 10th did not have any arty. But no problem the one without arty got soon better field guns than the others had, namely good new war-booty Soviet 76,2mm fieldcannon model 36s.

Yes, S55 was similar to early Carl Gustav but it was smooth bore firing fin stabilated rockets usually HEAT but we also had HE warhead, which was useful up to 300m against soft targets, of course at that range target must be stationary or slow moving if we hope to hit it.

Juha

 

[pbfoot]

Juha,

Sheer terror mate! Sheer terror! If Allied tankers suffered from Tigerphobia think about the poor infantry who bumped into one without any AT support!

Yep they all scurried away because the German supermen with all there fabulous untouchable weapons were coming even as the approached they Reichstag

 

[Juha]

Hello
did some checking
"We did not use artillery pieces as A/T weapons during Winter War because we had so few of them"
That isn't entirely correct, some field cannons were used in A/T role during the Winter War.

"One arty battalion had 150mm Japanese howitzer which were originally Russin war booty from Russian-Japanese War of 1904-05. "

Now, in this my memory made a trick, the howitzers were in fact ex-Russian which had been participated in Russo-Japanese War.

Juha

 

[parsifal]

Hi Juha

Thanks for the correction.

Are you basing your statement about Finn artillery not being used in an AT role on the fact that there was no dedicated AT rounds for them. It does not necessarily follow that just because you have only HE that you cant be used for direct fire, or even indirect fire. Heck even howitzers and mortars have some use against tanks in a sense.... Russians would not hesitate to use these weapons...at least it gives any accompanying Infantry some discomfort, and you might throw a track or bog a tank, who knows?

 

[Juha]

Hello Parsifal
"Are you basing your statement about Finn artillery not being used in an AT role on the fact that there was no dedicated AT rounds for them."

No, on the fact that our artillery was so weak, division had only 36 pieces, 24 light field cannons (75 or 76,2mm) and 12 field howitzers (105-152mm). Every cannon moved to direct fire job was away from indirect fire job, which after all was the main function of artillery and very important to hinder enemy infantry which greatly outnumbered ours. Even more so because 75-76,2mm shells were rather ineffective during the winter because of heavy snow. As comprasion Soviet 1939 infantry div had 78 pieces of arty (38 light field cannon and 40 howitzers) and the pieces were more modern. Plus lot of Corps and Army artillery. Most of our artillery was organic to divisions, with 420 pieces not much was left to higher level arty units.

But as I wrote I was not complety right in my claim, some fieldguns were used in A/T role, with HE shells. I only had completely forgot that.

Soviet had plenty of artillery and their 76,2mm light field cannon had high muzzle velocity, so they suited well to A/T work, Germans used their war booty 76,2mm often as A/T guns and rebored many of them to 75mm to ensure ammo supply in long run.

Juha

 

[parsifal]

Well all I can say is hats off to the Finn Infantry. They must have had nerves of steel. i am truly impressed

 

[parsifal]

I thought these extracts from the 1937 Infantry Training Manual might be of some use. They are a near perfect reflection of how the defence of tobruk was undertaken some 4 years later.

I t reinforces the argument that AT defence was not just a question of AT guns, at least not in the first half of the war. There were modifications of course to this theory, as the war progressed, but that certainly was not that if you are confronted by enemy tanks that you should run and flee

Not all Allied training was a wate of time. they pretty much had the infantry stuff under control, but Tank formations are another story

 

[Juha]

Parsifal
thanks for posting those pages, they are very interesting.
Principles are same than those in 70s. The effects of small arms fire on the slits might be a bit overstated but shooting back always gives some "feel good" effect to shooter and the manual doesn't give too much hope for spectacular effects, which is good. Disappointments being bad to morale. On A/T rifles, oh, British Boys was a poor weapon, not much penetration power. Finns did not have A/T rifles at the beginning of the Winter War, which was a very bad shortcoming. Got some before the end from abroad, some Boys, I cannot recall if we bothered to distribute them to troops and some ex-polish from Hungary, arrived near the end of Winter War, which were a bit better. Finn could have a reasonable 20mm A/T rifle in some numbers but for slow decision making of some high ranking officers. There was much argument on the calibre of the rifle and the general who had the last word preferred 13mm. Even after many tests which all showed that 20mm A/T rifle was clearly better, he delayed his acceptance whole summer of 39 and so only 2 or 6 protos arrived in time to take part of the fighting, production weapons began arrive some months after the end of Winter War.

Thanks again
Juha

 

[parsifal]

Sorry about the very poor scaling. Dont know what i am doing, and how to control. Might try to adjust image size before posting on thread next time

 

[Juha]

One more correction, I wrote earlier that Charioteer was based on Comet, that's not so. Charioteer was Cromwell VII with a bigger turret with a 20pdr gun. So even more clearly mostly WWII era vehicle. Finns bought some Comets same time as they bought the Charioteers, maybe that was the reason why I wrongly remembered that Charioteer was returretted Comet. Also at first British had thought to use Comets for the conversation but they were needed as gun tanks so they turned the second best option, Cromwell VII..

 

[Soren]

Juha, I don't need any additional AT training.

I guess we all have a different understanding of what "out in the open" means..

Out in the open, as in with no trenches to hide in but only perhaps some bushes, trees, a ditch or crater, and with ONE RPG, against three well manned tanks complimenting each other not even 100 men will stand a chance, it will be a turkey shoot. So what to do in that situation?? Scoot! But not by running blindly into fire ofcourse (Are we stupid ??), but by crawling away in cover, or dashing between cover in both direction in order to divert fire as much as possible. But all in all it's a disasterous situation to be in as casualties is assured.

Also don't confuse German tankcrews AND tanks with Soviet ones! Totally different opposition to be up against. The German tankers were expertly trained and manned superior tanks, the Soviet tankers were not very well trained and they were manning what many would call death traps (Atleast that's what Tom Clancy describes them as, and I'd agree for the most part).

Furthermore the Finns were often defending from trenches built specifically to combat armour, and in wooden and snowfilled areas. And again the Soviet infantry was poorly trained led, assaulting as if they were immune to smallarms fire. PLUS, soviet infantry armour were very poorly coordinated, esp. at that point in time.

PS: Smart tank commanders don't allow formations to bunch up, but makes sure each tank can effectively cover the other. And if infantry is assisting he will allow them to seek cover behind the tanks as they advance.

 

[Juha]

"I don't need any additional AT training"
So You had got some AT training, where and when, if i may ask?

We seemed to have uderstood open similarly.

Its rather difficult to see a soldier lurking among bushes, I mean in 70s, especially because he could use his hearing to follow the movement of the tanks

"Also don't confuse German tankcrews AND tanks with Soviet ones!"

How the "A" Coy/5 DCLI made the trick, I don't recall any Soviet tankcrews fighting in Tigers in Holland. Do You? And the men of "A" Coy just had some bushes and ditches from which to fight the Tigers.

"Furthermore the Finns were often defending from trenches built specifically to combat armour"

Really, during the Winter War? I recall only some short slits trenches and foxholes at ambush sites but the MLR trenches were really not built for combat armour.

Now in summer 44 that might be true but then Soviet combined arms attacks went through Finnish prepared lines rather easily and were stopped only in hastily prepared foxhole-lines further back.

And as I wrote earlier most of heavy fighting in Karelian Isthmus at the Finnish main defence line was fought in rather open area, in open fields or sparcely wooden area. Soviet of course put their main effort alongside and nearby the main road to Viipuri/Vyborg. And same time the best tank country in the area.

"Smart tank commanders don't allow formations to bunch up"

There are many stories of German armour bunching up, just because of stupid German commanders or what are you driving at?

Juha

 

[parsifal]

Soren

Is the sort of terrain you are envisaging that which you might find in the desert????

 

[parsifal]

Juha, I don't need any additional AT training.

Please, we would all like you to elaborate a little on your AT training, what equipment, when, which army. We need to know your practical experience, so we can guage the veracity of your claims soren

I guess we all have a different understanding of what "out in the open" means..

So, please define, with examples, what you consider to open terrain. at what point would you consider the terrain to be not clear....just so we know what is in your mind on this issue

Out in the open, as in with no trenches to hide in but only perhaps some bushes, trees, a ditch or crater, and with ONE RPG, against three well manned tanks complimenting each other not even 100 men will stand a chance, it will be a turkey shoot. So what to do in that situation?? Scoot! But not by running blindly into fire ofcourse (Are we stupid ??), but by crawling away in cover, or dashing between cover in both direction in order to divert fire as much as possible. But all in all it's a disasterous situation to be in as casualties is assured.

Do the tanks in this ideallic scenario of yours have any infantry supprt of their own" And what time of the day are they attacking. These 100 men, do they even have rifles. what army is equipped with just one RPG for AT Defence.

If the land is clear, which I will assume for the time being is desert country, wouldnt these 100 men have some time to prepare, or move to a better location.

In the desert, where there is little or no vegetation, there are things called wadis, which act as natural tank traps, and provide good cover for Infantry. I have attached an example of that terrain in the Tobruk area, for you to consider. And whilst Juha has explained to us that Artillery was not used much over open sights in the close forest terrain of Finalnd they were used all the time like that in the desert, with often devastating result. On average, in the desert, 100 men would have 2 or three 25 pdrs supporting them, based on the amount of divisional artillery pieces there were for each div

I will say it again, soren, unsupprted armour is vulnerable, and at risk if confronted by trained Infantry. The clear terrain model you are referring to did occur, in the desert mostly, but with this advantage comes the problem that the advancing tanks are visible for miles. This means that nobody was ever caught so unprepred as you are describing. I can think of only very few instances in the desert where this happened. What you are describing is such a rare event that it is not even worth discussing in my opinion


Also don't confuse German tankcrews AND tanks with Soviet ones! Totally different opposition to be up against. The German tankers were expertly trained and manned superior tanks, the Soviet tankers were not very well trained and they were manning what many would call death traps (Atleast that's what Tom Clancy describes them as, and I'd agree for the most part).

Well yes, but this is not the main difference with German Panzers and the Russians of 1939. I would say the main difference is that the germans knew not to leave their tanks unsupported, whereas the russians (and you, apparently) took some time to integrate their forces. I would further say that where the germans were so silly as to commit their tanks unsupported they were cut to pices in the same way as the russians in Karelia in 1939. There is abundant evidence of that happening, moreover it happened to all nationalities, not just the Russians. The lesson is...dont leave you tanks unsupported....

The first shot i have attached, is the HQ of 2-23 Bn, located about 14 km south west of the harbour, about 2500 metres from the "red line. It does not have any "bush artillery (as the Guns directly attached to the frontline Infantry was called. But it should be pretty clear what the defensive benefits of this kind of natural geographical feature 9common in the desert) would be. Despite the absence of vegetation , cover is nevertheless abundant in this terrain

The is an example of a frontline gunpit. It happens to be a gun attached to the 2/13 Bn. This particular shot shows the gun engaging in indirect fire against the 15th Pz Div, circa June 1941. It is obvious, however, that the gun has been laid for a dual purpose, It is unlimbered in "Hull Down" position, to enable it to engage tanks using direct fire. whilst retaining a maximum of protection for the gun. guns deployed in this way proved to be exceptionally hard targets for the germans. This is a captured Italian gun, so there are no dedicated AT rounds for this gun

 

[Soren]

Parsifal,

There are examples of one or two Panzers halting the advance of entire Allied battalions, and these Panzers were unsupported, and I'm sure you know some of these incidents.

I'll give you a smaller a typical scenario:

Place: Normandy
Surroundings: Farmland, large open field which has to be crossed to access and capture town. The town is surrounded by open fields except for a few vegetated spots in the fields with some trees and bushes and a road lined with trees on either side running into the town.

Your forces: 100 soldiers mainly equipped with rifles, a few MG's, handgrenades and a few Bazookas. And if an engineer is present some explosives. (Your choice) At your disposal is two M4 Shermans and light artillery support.

Your job is to cross the field and capture the small town on the other side within nightfall.

The field needed to be crossed would look somewhat like this:

And as for intelligence here's what you know:
1.) No activity around the town has been observed, however civilians have been spotted wlaking around inside the town.
2.) Aerial recon and your own scouts spotted no enemy armour or AT guns from afar, but you know they could easily be hidden away.
3.) A caught enemy radio message talks about getting fuel to the town.

But there's also something you don't know, which I'll you after you respond to the question below.

So what do you do ? How do you move forward and capture the town?

 

[Juha]

Soren
You think you are clever? When it got difficult to you, you changed the subject. We had been talking on the chances infantry in defence had against tank attack and when you have revealed your ignorance on that you chanced the subject to infantry attacking tanks in defence!

On your scenario a platoon with some mgs and an an artillery forward observer with some arty to call would have been enough and much better than a couple tanks after nightfall.

But solution, use your arty to create a couple smoke screens. If the village was hold only by a couple tanks, the idea that a bazooka team or two being infiltrating into village in the cover of the smokescreens would make them very uneasy. If they opened fire or began to move you could hear them and so pinpoint them.

Still curious where and when you got your A/T training?

Juha

 

[parsifal]

Id infiltrate the town at night, ie in small groups, silently, and with a minimum of visibility. the aim in the first place is to get a toehold in one of the buildings that can be observed.

Juha is absolutely correct, of course, all of a sudden the parameters have changed. The infantry was defending, now it is attacking. thats a completely different ballgame. I never claimed that attacks can be undertaken without tanks in support

Statistically, for every tank you call up in this scenario, we are going to have about twenty. For every division we deploy we are going to be supported by about 200 aircraft. For every Division committed, there are going to be approximately 140-200 Corps or army level guns in support, and of course the divisional artillery.

In addition to that i am going to have nearly 100 AT guns attached, by 1944 if i am a US formation, I am going to be supported by at least a battalion of fully tracked Tk destroers. My Infantry is fully motorized, by this time yours is generally not, and if it tries to move in Daylight the FB circling overhead are going to annhilate it anyway.

If i am a smart Alied commander, I am going to use my artillery to flatten the place, thereby removing the cover that your two or three tankss enjoy.

Of course, if we are going to remove some or all of the advatages that the allied forces enjoyed by that stage of the war, then it must follow that some or all of the advantages of the defending forces. like, the tanks are out of petrol, or have thrown a track, or are short on ammunition. If the inherent advantages of a late war allied force are to be knobbled in the way you have described there must be a quid pro quo to balance up your scenario.

 

[Soren]

Soren
You think you are clever?

What kind of question is that ? Do you think you're clever Juha ?

And no Juha I didn't change the subject as my original comment was that the Allies were aboslutely dependant on AT support when fighting the German panzers. Then we suddenly got dragged into the Finnish wars by you where they were defending against Soviet tanks from trenches, foxholes and what not.. Can't even be remotely compared to what was going on in Western Europe.

As for my AT training, well I served for over 20 years and got my fair share of training on how to combat tanks in various ways - it depends allot upon the situation at hand. Also we never lacked the equipment needed (don't know about you). With the right equipment and in the right terrain you can very effectively combat tanks, no doubt and I never disputed that. But lets also not forget that with the advent and large procurement of the RPG the tanks suddenly became allot more vulnerable than before.

Now back to the scenario, well if you don't like it then we can have the Germans attack FROM the town as they spot the Allies ? I only created this scenario as there are a good number of similar incidents which happened in Western Europe.

As for the scenario above, I'll first respond to Parsifal;

You can't wait till nightfall, I said that already. If you do you're risking that German reinforcements arrive and firmly entrenches themselves in the city.

As for the light artillery support you have and your use of it to level the town, well like I said it's LIGHT artillery support and lets not forget that there are plenty of civilians inside the town, your spotters observed that.

Now for Juha;

Laying out a Smoke screen first is a good idea, but with the fields being so large how are you going to lay down enough smoke, esp. only with light artillery support?

Also what if there are Germans nesting in the small vegetated spots out in the field ?? A single MG nest could cut down your small bazooka team in no time, and if you're really unlucky a Hetzer could be hiding in wait for anyone to cross the field. (Although I'll admit the Hetzer wasn't part of the original scenario, in the original scenario there is only ONE tank in the vicinity of the town) The point however is you don't know this.

Still I like your way forward so far, but I'll let you think for a little longer to perfect your advance.

Parsifal you also get another chance, this keeping in mind that the town must be taken within nightfall.

PS: I understand the mods have sharpened the rules on respect towards other members, so lets keep it friendly, despite previous arguments.

 

[Soren]

Man I hate it when the windows gets expanded out to the side like that, can't you upload the pictures at Imageshack and then place them beneath each other Parsifal?