German Light tanks VS. Stuarts w/ dissapointing results...

[The Commissar]

Since I usually play around with mostlyu medium and heavy tanks, I tried designing a scenario using light tanks only, from both sides.

Well, for the Germans there are 2 models, the Hotchkiss and the Lynx.

For Americans, there only seem to be the Stuarts.

In my scenario, I set up 20 tanks on each side, with myself as the Germans.

First, I tried giving the Germans the Lynx tank to fight off the Stuart attackers. Despite all my attempts at flanks and to get in close to the little bastards, the Stuarts toasted me and lost some 3 AFV's despite having all the fighting taking place at no more then 60 metres.

Ok I figured, 20mm gun isn't very good against armor. So I tried the Hotchkiss, which at first appears to be in the same league as the Stuarts. Same basic results. Stuarts totally butchered my forces despite close range and flank shots.

So I am left thinking, if these are the tanks used in the early German Blitzkreg to such success, what the heck did the Allied forces have as an armored force? A bucket with a pop gun?

I am not very educated in the early war battles (it shows, I know), so I'd appreciate a bit of enlightment. I suppose the Allies had some tanks left over from the first WW and the 1930's, but which ones?

Thanks in advance,

Cheers!

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Lorak]

Actualy Commissar the allied tanks were every bit as good if not better than the german tanks during the blitz. The problem is they were still using WWI doctrine and were caught totally unawears by the way the Germans used their armor.

Lorak

------------------

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

Cesspool

[Guest Michael emrys]

The Hotchkiss was not a German tank during the Blitzkrieg, but French. The two main battle tanks for the Germans at that time were the Mk. III and the PKW 37t, a Czech built tank that the Germans took into their arsenal after they took over that country. Both tanks sported a 37mm gun. At the beginning of 1941, the Mk. III began getting a 50mm gun.

The 37mm gun on the Stuart is just slightly better in performance to the German gun, if memory serves. The Stuart would have been roughly comparable then to most of the MBTs used by the major combatants until the Soviets got into the act. In fact, the Stuart ("Honey") was used as an MBT by the British in Operation Crusader Nov.-Dec. 1941 in North Africa.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 12-28-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 12-28-2000).]

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

The 37mm gun on the Stuart is just slightly better in performance to the German gun, if memory serves. The Stuart would have been roughly comparable then to most of the MBTs used by the major combatants until the Soviets got into the act. In fact, the Stuart ("Honey") was used as an MBT by the British in Operation Crusader Nov.-Dec. 1941 in North Africa.

Michael

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right -- the 37mm gun was the standard anti-armor weapon through '41, although it was increasingly ineffective. IIRC, the early Stuarts used in '41 were M3 Stuarts; I think CM uses the M5 Stuarts that date from, I think, '43. I believe the gun is the same but there's more armor, and it's laid out better.

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

For Americans, there only seem to be the Stuarts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M24 is also considered a light tank. It was the replacement for the Stuart.

[StellarRat]

The Stuart is a great light tank. You won't find anything better in any armies light tank inventory (for the time period.) They have the speed and a big enough gun to take on even medium tanks if you're clever and the terrain isn't too open.

[tailz]

Also, the Lynx can only be considered a 'tank' by virtue of its turret and tracks... it was a recon vehicle. (having become obsolete about four years earlier... but the Germans were desperate for chassis') Might have better results matching up a Puma against a Stuart.

[Guest Germanboy]

Commissar, wrong match, I would think these results are expected:

1. The Lynx has next to no armour penetrating power. There is a reason they wanted to upgun it to a 50mm, and that the Puma sported one of these.

2. The Hotchkiss was not only a French contraption, it also sports a one-man turret, meaning you have one guy doing the loading, spotting, laying the turret shooting, commanding the tank, and singing the Marseillaise while doing it. Not a good idea. Have a look at the data, it says 'Very slow ROF' if I am not mistaken.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Jarmo]

I don't think a Puma would fare much better.

Stuart's 37mm has a better chance against Puma than Puma's 50mm against a Stuart.

And the Stuart has a fast turret.

With the Chaffee, things get just plain unfair. And I'm sure the sentiment was shared by the

germans in their Lynxes.

On the other hand, pin an average US recon vehicle (an AC with the .50) against an average

german recon vehicle with a 20mm, and the results will be quite different.

But then, the average german recon vehicle was probably a bicycle.

[Guest Pillar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorak:

Actualy Commissar the allied tanks were every bit as good if not better than the german tanks during the blitz. The problem is they were still using WWI doctrine and were caught totally unawears by the way the Germans used their armor.

Lorak

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, theres that magic word again... I love it.

[lassner.1]

In fact at the ranges suggested above (60m) I have had extraoridinary success with Pumas: its victims include knocking out Fireflies from the front at 80m and Churchills from the side. Stuarts are a piece of cake provided you can get the first shot. This is admittedly difficult with their turret speed but it can be done.

[Gen. Sosaboski]

This is why I love Stuarts. In fact, just for kicks I had three Stuarts defend against a Zulu charge style attack by 12 Lynxs. Result: 12 Lynxs dead, one Staurt with gun damaged.

Indeed, these little tanks have quite a punch, as do the M8 Greyhounds and Daimlers. Just had a Daimler take out a StuG III and two halftracks using hide and seek tactics behing buildings in a village.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorak:

Actualy Commissar the allied tanks were every bit as good if not better than the german tanks during the blitz.

Lorak

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not really true. Allied tanks (especially French) were considerably inferior to their German counterparts. While they had heavier armor, and decent guns, they did NOT have radios, and most had two-man turrets.

These two factors combine to make the tanks considerably less useful than their opponents. Throw in the afore-mentioned operational ineptness, and the result was a forgone conclusion.

It ain't all about armor and gun.

Jeff Heidman

[Doug Beman]

Jeff, the Soviets were in pretty much the same boat as the French during the early years of the Great Patriotic War (ie tanks with better armor and guns but much poorer command structure and tactics) and the Germans even had slightly better tanks than they did during the invasion of France.

Sometimes it is all about armor and gun.

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 12-29-2000).]

[Pvt.Tom]

At least the Allies have one area where their tanks are superior to the Axis. Long live the Allied Uber Light Tanks.

Pvt.Tom

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

This is not really true. Allied tanks (especially French) were considerably inferior to their German counterparts. While they had heavier armor, and decent guns, they did NOT have radios, and most had two-man turrets.

These two factors combine to make the tanks considerably less useful than their opponents.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Pzkw I had a one man turret and no radio. The Pzkw II, the most numerically important German tank in 39/40, had a two man turret, and no dedicated radio operator (the loader did double duty). A blanket statement that most German tanks were superior based upon Pzkw IIIs and IVs ignores the realities of the composition of German forces early in the war.

[Mark IV]

This is partly what makes the Early War so interesting. The French tanks were arguably better in many ways, though really they were just "different".

R-35 Light tank

Weight: 10 tons

Speed: 13 mph

Frontal armor: 45mm

Gun: 37mm

H-35 Light Tank

Weight: 11.5 tons

Speed: 17 mph

Frontal armor: 34mm

Gun: 37mm

Somua S-35

Weight: 20 tons

Speed: 25 mph

Frontal armor: 55mm

Gun: 47mm

Char B

Weight: 32 tons

Speed: 18 mph

Frontal armor: 60mm

Guns: 47mm (turret), short 75mm (hull)

All had one-man turrets and slow rates of fire. But they did have better frontal armor than their adversaries (most of the German tanks had 30mm frontal armor) and as good or significantly better guns. These were good machines for their day, despite many design weaknesses (thin side armor, weak spots at ventilation grills), and had good suspensions. Some did indeed have radios, though not very good ones and not very many.

Compare those specs to those of Pz II & III (of the period) and you could easily have bet that the Germans had no chance in a full-scale assault.

Most CMers have learned by now that different tank types need to be used in different ways. It will be fun to use the froggy tanks to the best of their abilities, i.e., en masse, standing off wherever possible, and maneuvering to the extent their generally low speeds permit to put the Germans at a disadvantage with long shots over open country. The best way to offset the slow ROF is to use them in groups with hull down.

Not only was the French doctrine of employment archaic, but the "invisible factor" in CM was another contributing factor to their defeat: logistics. They could not supply and refuel their armored forces anywhere near as well as the Germans, despite having shorter supply lines. They could not organize assaults quickly. They lacked the organizational mechanics to plan, equip, and launch a powerful armored counterstrike in haste.

At Arras, the British showed that decent tanks with determined leadership could stop and destroy the "invincible" panzers, but it was too late for the French to adopt any new tactics.

[Trooper]

I consider a Stuart to be well superior to the Puma. The faster turret and faster reload time both combine to make it the case that I like to engage any one stuart with two or three Pumas if I have them.

NTM

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow:

The Pzkw I had a one man turret and no radio. The Pzkw II, the most numerically important German tank in 39/40, had a two man turret, and no dedicated radio operator (the loader did double duty). A blanket statement that most German tanks were superior based upon Pzkw IIIs and IVs ignores the realities of the composition of German forces early in the war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The PzKpFw I was a training tank, as was the PzKpFw II. The II may have been numerically prevalent, but was not the primary weapon of the Panzer divisions. The III and IV were, but mostly the III for AT work.

I am not ignoring the numbers at all, I am just not giving them inordiante weight.

Further, I amde no blanket statement that most tank were superior, I stated that Allied tanks were inferior to their German counterparts.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Jeff, the Soviets were in pretty much the same boat as the French during the early years of the Great Patriotic War (ie tanks with better armor and guns but much poorer command structure and tactics) and the Germans even had slightly better tanks than they did during the invasion of France.

Sometimes it is all about armor and gun.

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 12-29-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am no sure I understand what you mean, Doug.

The Soviets were definitely in the same boat in the early parts of the war, and the Germans mopped them up.

The Soviets, however, were able to trade space for time and rectify many of the problems they had. One of the first things they did was upgrade their primary battle tank (the T-34) with a 3-man turret and radios.

Jeff Heidman

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The PzKpFw I was a training tank, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Training tank or not, it, as well as the II were pressed into service for which they were not well suited. The main advantage the Germans had was proper utilization of what they had (i.e. concentration of force at the decisive place and time, proper use of combined arms, etc...) and not superior equipment. However, you are entitled to your own (I believe wrong) opinion.

[This message has been edited by Marlow (edited 12-29-2000).]

[Marlow]

Leaving aside the question of whether the radios and three person turrets of the mark III and IV, even if deployed in sufficient numbers, made up for their deficiencies in armor and firepower compared to the French tanks, take a look at the British. The Matilda II outclassed any German tank of the period in ever category relevant to tank on tank fighting except mobility. This is clearly shown in that the Germans still had trouble with the "Queen of the Desert" in early 1942, long after the early war German tanks were obsolete.

As an interesting aside, it will be fun to see how many players who always play the Germans are going to stick with Jerry when its KV1 vs. mark III in CM2, or when the CharBs and Matildas show up in CM4.

[Jeff Heidman]

OK, you are right. If you compare the best of the Allied tanks (the Matilda) to the worst of the German tanks (the PzKpFw I) it is clear that the German tanks universally sucked, and that all Allied tanks were superior.

How about, instead, we compare the typical German tanks *used in panzer Divisions* to the typical opponents they saw?

It is quite simple. A good gun and good armor are not very useful if they cannot be used properly. The lack of a dedicated gunner means they cannot be used properly. The lack of radios means they cannot be managed properly.

While it is easy (and simplistic) to fixate on gun and armor as the only determinants of AFV quality, that is simply because everyone early on realized that radios and dedicated gunners were necessary conditions to an effective battle tank, and hence everyone had those for most of the war. Then you are left with the gun/armor/mobility issue.

I do not think you (and others) appreciate just how limiting no radio is, just how limiting no dedicated gunners is, and how limiting it becomes when you add the two together. No gunner means the commander has to button up to fire the gun. If the tank is buttoned, he cannot even *see* his platoon leader to get even visual orders. Since he has no radio, he is effectively out of communication as soon as he wants to shoot at something. This means, that on the tactical level, once the shooting starts the Allies are fighting as a bunch of individuals, and the Germans are fighting as a coordinated unit. This is (and was) devastating.

A good gun and decent armor is nice, but it is meaningless if the other guy can force you to fight as a mob, and not as a team.

The Germans did well early in large part to the superior design of their main battle tanks. They recognized that a tank is not just a transport mechanism for a big gun, but a integrated part of a package.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow:

As an interesting aside, it will be fun to see how many players who always play the Germans are going to stick with Jerry when its KV1 vs. mark III in CM2, or when the CharBs and Matildas show up in CM4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hard to say I suppose.

It will be interesting to see whether BTS manages to successfully portray the considerable weaknesses some of those vehicles were afflicted with. Given the lack of command and control modelling, it will be difficult to do I think.

it is easy to model a better gun or thicker armor. A lot harder to model things like lack of spotting ability, lack of ability to control a unit once the shooting starts, and such, since the player ends up taking over most of those roles in a wargame anyway.

ASL tried something like that with their Platoon movement rules, but they were a pain in the ass.

Jeff Heidman

[Mark IV]

Panzer inventory 1 May 40, according to Jentz:

1077 Pz I

1092 Pz II

143 Pz 35(t)

238 Pz 38(t)

381 Pz III

290 Pz IV

244 PzBefWg

The three most prominent players, the I, II, and III, were all anachronistic by 1940, at least in the spec department.

Radio articulation and superior spotting ability certainly helped to offset the thin German armor and dinky guns.

Even German commanders conceded that had Somuas been used aggressively and en masse, they would have been in serious trouble.