Come on, the only one who has been changing the parameters is you guys. I mean seriously, suddenly there's supposed to be Firefly's and lots of 25 pdrs plus unlimited explosives and what not.. Heck the whole argument started when I said that the Allies were absolutely dependant on either AT or Artillery support when faced with German armour, you disagreed upon that for some reason.
Hey I said that the Allies were absolutely dependant on either AT or Artillery support when up against German armour, with none of these they would be cut to shreds in most cases.
Soren, this was the opening post (by yoou) that lit the fuse that led us to this point
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.
Not too far down the track, you repeated yourself. Also have a read of some of the posts I have made. they constantly refer to the use of artillery, and other weapon systems in the AT defence. My position, and that of Juha, has always been that the dedicated AT Units represent a relatively small part of the AT defence options open to the Infantry. Neither of us have ever said that infantry without support can tackle tanks very effectively. However, the parameters of this discussion are a moving feast as we firstly have to prove the effectiveness of Infantry without AT, then infantry without AT, in the open, then Infantry without AT, on the attack, and now finally, Infantry without AT, in the open, and without any other support as well. As I said in my last post, when are you going to remove the Infantry's side arms.
What the other people are starting to point out to you is that the parameters of your position are becoming so far divorced from reality as to be quite ridiculous. I am starting to agree.
That's untrue Parsifal.
But like I said the mere sight of a Tiger was enough for some to panic, and then try to imagine what it would be like after seeing your armoured support being blown to pieces by one while all you've got just bounces off of its armour.
What some of you (Not saying you Parsifal) seem unable to understand is that soldiers aren't supermen, they get scared and some are inclined to panic, everybody has a threshold which can be crossed, and if you feel that you know that you're going to die if you don't get the heck outta there, then there's isn't much which is going to stop anybody. Now experienced soldiers can keep their cool to an amazing degree but if they're head to head with a tank that they know they can't possibly hope to knock out and its just tearing your fellow soldiers apart you're gonna want to get out of there, heck you'd do your outmost never to get in that situation in the first place. A sane soldier won't mess with a tank out in the open if he's got no way of hurting it
Actually the fear factor is just as strong in a tank. When i was at staff college, one of my instructors was a tanker in the British 11 armoured Div (I think...its over 25 years now). i think he fought at Caen. He talked quite a bit about his personal experiences, and the sound of artillery exploding all around him, of bullets hitting the tank allover the place, the ever present fear of flame throwers, Panzerfausts, Tigers, 88s, and all manner of other nasties, was enough to test the nerve of anyone. If you think that is a peculiarly Allied or Soviet phenomenon, think again. my mother remarried when I was 14, to a German veteran of Stalingrad. he was a machine gunner, and extremely cool in any situation, as you would expect in any german MG (the core of any Infantry squad). He said he spent the entire campaign in the doomed city just about sh*tting himself, and says anyone who claims otherwise, doesnt know the true fear of war. Everybody feels it. I know I did, when i though we were going to have to repel 30 Tu-95 Bears, with a standing air patrol of just two A4s. But you are overplaying the human factor. Trained Infantry (or tankmen for that matter), almost never broke at the sight of an enemy. they were actually trained to deal with the threat by various means, and in a combat situation that training takes precedence over the fear....usually. An Infantry squad is a strange beast, almost tribal in concept, the bonds between the members of the squad are strong, and you dont let your mates down. there are any number of factors at work, that keep you at your post, but the one that works hardest is your wish to survive, and thats when all those drills, with the QMG yelling in your ear make their mark. Breathe, aim, fire, move, get your a*se into gear soldier before i kick the bl**dy thing into action, breathe fire , move, breathe fire move....then try being an officer where not only do you need to think about your own skin, but the welfare and survival of your men, as well as the objective of the task, and do it without showing fear. Trus me, thats hard, but it gets done in nearly every army. You should listen to Juha, however much it annoys you. he knows what he is talking about, insofar as how Infantry should, and usually does, react to an armoured threat.
I will repeat myself yet again, in the hope that finally you are listening, Good armour, used as part of an all arms team, whether that team is attacking or defending, is a formaidable weapon. If however, you isolate each part of the Infantry/armour/artillery combination, you have a less effective team. AT support is important, make no mistake, but it is not one of the main pillars of the team. It remains, even today, the Infantry, the armour, and the artillery that are the very core of the combined arms team.
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. This was proven to be wrong in WWI, and also by the allies at the beginning of WWII when their unsupported armour was cut to pieces. Same thing happened to the russians in 1941-42. Only when the allies and the Soviets put proper combined arms teams together, did they start to make an impression. As a proponent of german prowess, i am surpised that you would allow yourself to regress back to what history shows is a proven falure in the use of tanks, even if those tanks are the best available. And what i am saying is applicable in nearly every type of terrain , including the open stuff you are trying to concoct now. [/QUOTE
