Jump to content

For you Kursk grogs--a post Krivosheev Master's thesis


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And beyond verifying the fact that this was indeed a standard role and tactic, what do we learn about actual tactics and actions from all of those accounts together?

"We planted five or six people on the tank and forward ...

If starting strong resistance - dismount ...

If the tank is quickly coming - run for him" (meaning, get back aboard)

"Machine gun "Maxim" was placed on the stern of the tank and fastened with a special stopper. (guess it isn't transport class 3! lol) The crew knew that the armor gunners and combat made a brief stop to give us the opportunity to (get off) the tank and pull boxes with machine-gun belts. (they unloaded the maxim gun and ammo on brief halts)

Tank commander himself decided where we are "thrown". (read "dropped off")

Immediately engaged position and we began our fight. (read, firing position where dropped, gun not moved much on foot) On the way we have not jumped down from the tank. (read, don't dismount on the move, dangerous and unnecessary)

(five riders dismount to recon ahead into a village, slip through gardens to a house to observe etc)

"We then beat off the counterattack and had to move quickly with heavy machine guns (DPs actually) in the deep snow. We went after our tanks through the forest to support their fire and, if anything, to cover. (immediately wounded by German artillery fire)

Note, the last is Fed 1942, no mention of actually riding, just a DP LMG team attached to tanks advancing on foot behind them in forest terrain.

News? That Maxim teams were sometimes transported on the backs of the tanks. No other news really. Confirmation that (1) they dismount if any serious resistance is encountered (2) the tankers typically decide on drop off, if it is planned anyway (3) the riders have typical infantry-intense roles, like acting as dismount recon "eyes", as well as the usual combined arms especially in terrain (forest, villages, etc).

For skeptics who need an eyewitness to believe such things, no doubt such accounts are valuable. For the "flavor" imagination purposes jtcm wants, maybe it even helps to know yards and yards about the potatos and the candy bars and the babuskas who cooked for you and all the rest of it. But you won't learn the tactics from such accounts, and you will get 1 to 3 vague sentences per person on the subject, at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't read through the accounts, thanks for the extracts. The anecdotes about sausages, etc, might be of interest for a historian of logistics-- or other things, too.

The idea that it's the individual tank commander that orders the monkeys off his back, and decides on placement, is interesting. The way in which infy trails tanks also good.

Victory ? It went like this

1. Tigers take up positions in the back

2. PzIVs angle towards the right, under constant 45mm and 76mm fire, that takes out a surprising number of them (7-8 ?)

3. HTs also move offroad to the right, and take all kinds of fire

4. Finally, the ATGs are silenced

5. Remaining PzIVs dash cross country and exit

6. Tigers motor off

7. Remaining infy move towards spotted enemy infy in trenches. Remaining HT support, under fire from ATRs

8. I lose patience and send in remaining short 75mm HT and fire HT close. They score some hits, but both get taken out (one by ATR fire, the fire HT heroically close assaulted).

9. I'm surprised that the open belt to the right of the road and wooded clump / sump was not heavily mined. Just as well, my pioneers were fighting as infy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jtcm,

You're welcome! The real point of the combat ration stuff was that it showed the intimate connection between the tank crews and the tankodesantniki. Also, that was the excerpt as posted to Amazon! There's better stuff in HSU Loza's Fighting for the Soviet Motherland. In perusing the index just now, I found two other search terms: avtomatchiki and desantniki.

JasonC,

I think that you need to go chase down the Grechko work I previously cited and the 1942 Combat Regulations. They look to be about as definitive as it's going to get. I did a lot of digging on the subject, and you'd be amazed how many of the entries have to do with tankodesantniki in Flames of War and other games, as opposed to the actual topic. You seem to be rather petulant and dismissive because the accounts aren't giving you what you want and in the form and depth you want it. I can't pull data out of thin cyberspace!

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jtcm - the Russians want the Germans heading just right of that clump of trees along the road. Left of it is mined, right of it (where you are talking about) is where the Russian ATGs all "bear". Mines can't cover everything, and "dead ground" to the guns is where they are most wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jtcm,

May've solved the mystery of the tank paratroopers. Looks like trained paratroopers were reassigned to infantry formations (including mechanized) after a series of airborne failures. Further confusing matters is the definition of desantniki, "those who descend." Thus, the translation may either be right in the case of the tank paratrooper, OR the translation engine may be treating the desantniki part of tankodesantniki as paratrooper. The core word would also apply to glider landing, naval landing and other surprise appearances.

http://uncleted.jinak.cz/para_sov.htm

Russian military grog cum game designer Jack Radey's observations on how some of this expressed in the field make intriguing reading.

http://www.testofbattle.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=31540&sid=b418b5928a0d31dcf27e6ddbaaef3b74

I'm sure something could be dug up from this lengthy list, but I just don't have the energy. The one on tank breakthrough operations looked promising, but it failed to deliver when downloaded. Look for something under tank-infantry cooperation.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070607181914/www.redarmystudies.net/index_sort.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I forgot-- a HT got carried away, or lucky, moved alongside the tanks and nearly off the map. I realized that there was no need for it to exit, so I sent it to the back of the Russian held woods, to unload his squad. I thought maybe the squad could help silence the Russians from behind, and help the infy assault progress.

What happened ? It was like poking a hornet's nest with a stick-- the squad got shot up from three different directions, the HT got molotoved. Well, maybe it distracted the Guardsmen from shooting at the PzGrenadiers in their front for a minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if should have used smoke and masked the tactical move offroad and to the right ? I thought it better to keep LOS and plaster the ATGs with return fire-- but it took its toll.

I also was lucky in that the Russians did not shell my troops on their way in with 122 mm or whatever it is that rained down on my column the first three times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoke trying to avoid all fire is usually a waste for the attacker, because it isn't movement but the firefight that destroys the defense. Where it can be useful is when it is used to break up the defending shooters, to increase the odds on a few of the enemy guns at a time. Your tank horde stands a much better chance in 2 consecutive duels with half the enemy guns, than in one big duel with all of them.

Before you know where the enemy guns are, that can be hard to arrange, though good terrain analysis and guesswork can sometimes accomplish it. After they show themselves, it is usually easier to arrange, though it may not come fast enough. On map smoke delivery is faster at it than FOs, however.

Another use is to break contact in a firefight after enemy guns have been spotted, with the idea of eliminating some or all of those guns with indirect fire (mortar halftrack and spotter, or FOs), before starting the tank vs. gun engagement again.

Before there are any known enemy gun locations, however, there is little point in smoking to cover a movement alone. The movement won't decide anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John

You should look at:

Sharp - Soviet Armoured Tactics in WW2

Caza - Soviet Tactical Doctrine in WW2

as they both mention Tank riders around 1944.

Also Vizh has a few articles on infantry and tank support.

Tank Attack in Wooded Terrain”

Translated and digested by the MILITARY REVIEW “from a Russian, article by

Major General A. Belogorsky in “Krasnaia Zvezda” (~. S.S.R.) 27 December 1946.

It would, therefore, seem that it is better to use uhecheloned tank forma-ons, but experience shows that in break-hrough operations against enemy posi-ons located in wooded terrain it is isadvantageous for the attacking tanks employ a line formation. On encounter-ng powerful antitank blocks and ambushes, tanks in line cannot always over-ome “them, because there is no continuityeffort which can be obtained from armation in depth. If the tanks succeedn slipping through the position, the

nfantry advancing behind the tanks iseld back by hostile fire, while the tanks say find themselves in the forest without ny infantry support.

The mission of our tanks and infantry. was to clear the forest of the enemy,advancing in a northerly direction, parallel to the Passarge River. With the as-sistance of artillery, the enemy waspushed off the main line of resistance,and the tanks, advancing through thefores’t with the infantry, took possessionof the road intersection northeast of theswamp. The scouts ,found that the enemy wasdefending all forest roads with the mainbody of his troops. The commander thenmoved his tanks along narrow lanes andover the swamp. By doing so, the tanks,self-propelled guns, and artillery of the enemy were bypassed and left on the road ikl the rear of the attacker. Fearing en-circlement, the Germans withdrew their tanks, leaving on the road only machinegtlns ‘and men armed with sub-nlachine guns, Against them we used a part of our tanks and self-propelled guns, as well as 82-mm mortars.

The following battle formation was used: Tank companies were divided into platoons. Each platoon moved in its assigned direction along a path or a lane. Leading tanks fired forward, while. the rest fired to the flanks. Each tank platoon was supported by a platoon of infantry which moved 100 to 200 meters ahead of the tank. Inasmuch as there was danger of an attack by $ank ‘destroyers in the forest, each machine was protected by five to eight sub-machine gunners. The sappers, advancing before the tanks and the infantry, were in close contact ~th their machines and protected them. by ill possible means, At times, the tanks were within ,battle formations of the infantry. Whenever necessary, the infantry approached the tanks very closely and, personally or through the sub-ma-chine gunners, pointed out targets for the tanks. Self-propelled guns advanced, in the main, along roads, edges of the forest, and through its openings. The most stub-born resistance was encountered to the north of the swamp. The Germans coun-terattacked with tanks and assault guns They moved, however, only along main roads and in columns, while our tanks, ~ssisted by sappers, successfully advanced through” the lanes. Later,’ the scouts found a weak link in the defensive position’ of the enemy. The commander committed a group of tanks and his reserve. Concealing themselves behind trees, th:y made a wide envelop- ment and plugged all the exits from the forest which might be used by the hostile tanks.’ This maneuver decided the fate of the battle. Threatened by complete encircle- ment in the forest, the enemy began a hurried withdrawal to the eastern bank of the Passarge River. As a result, the Germans left their strong positions at the road intersections west of the river with- out offering resistance. They had not expected that our tanks would encircle their entire group (see sketch ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Der Alte Fritz,

Thanks! I looked in some detail through VIZH via the Internet Wayback Machine, but was disappointed by what I found. The 1942 Infantry Regulations may be summarized this way: Infantry protecting tanks is to be no farther away than 200-400 meters. I don't have the references you cite (online?), but it occurs to me I have a set of Russian Armor Regulations that I got from BFC, so will look into those.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone through the thread and have not seen this title mentioned, which I perused yesterday in Waterstones bookshop.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/T-34-Action-Stackpole-Military-History/dp/0811734838

Seems to have lots of maps about small scale actions, including use of supporting infantry. Anyone who has this, will it shed any further light about actual tactical use of 'tank riders'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Since Amazon likes to show things you might be interested in, I now know about this, which may well be the definitive study on the subject from the Russian side. Glantz seems to think so. From the reviews, this book appears to have everything from first person accounts to OOB, losees, plans, maps and much more. The author grew up in Prokhorovka, and he still conducts military archaeology for the museum there. Zamulin (Ph.D. author) and Britton (translator and editor).

DEMOLISHING THE MYTH: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk: An Operational Narrative

http://www.amazon.com/Demolishing-Myth-Prokhorovka-Operational-Narrative/dp/1906033897/ref=pd_rhf_dp_s_cp_4

Of course, if you read Russian and were paying attention, you learned all this in 2005. The above is for those of us who don't.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Technique of Transporting Infantry on Tanks Load Allocation

Says Lieutenant Colonel Kinne, 781st Tank Battalion, after working with six infantry divisions during European campaigns: "In an infantry mission, a maximum of 10 men may be carried.

"It is imperative that before mounting the infantry, thorough plans are made by the infantry commanders and tank commanders who are to ride together. It is the duty of the infantry commander to mount infantry personnel in such manner as to preserve unit tactical integrity. This insures that no time is lost in organizing for combat after dismounting.

"Heavy-weapons units as well as riflemen may be transported. A complete machine-gun or mortar crew with weapon can be carried on a tank.

http://www.efour4ever.com/infantry_tanks.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...