Tank Warfare

[Von Fauster]

Couple of things all sort of related (and I'll tie it into CM at the end).

I'm pretty familiar with WWII, but got to thinking about this and realized I maybe don't know as much as I thought: When one thinks of the Blitzkrieg of '39 and the fall of France, one usually thinks of quick armored thrusts and massed tanks (vs the French, for example, who spread their armor out piecemeal). Likewise, with Barbarossa, one naturally thinks of rolling hordes of T-34's and the massive battle at Kursk. Even in Africa, it was the armor at battles such as Tobruk, Kasserine, and El Alamein which one tends to remember.

Yet (and here's the question) when I think of the Allied breakout and push into Germany (that is to say, Beyond Overlord)I tend to think in terms of Infantry- not armor. Why is that? Did armor play a smaller role later in the war? Was it a function of Allied tactical doctrine or a consequence of the physical structure of the battlefield? Were there no great armored battles on the Western Front in 1944-45? Or am I, in a word, wrong?

The reason I ask is that even when doing a Quick Battle, I like to make the set-up at least reasonably accurate and find myself going with about 80% Infantry and approx 5% general support and 5% armor. Yet I've often heard that while the Germans had a measure of qualitative superiority, the Allies had a large quantitative advantage. When? Where? And how do you folks model that?

Your insights and opinions would be appreciated. Good Hunting!

[Teamski]

At least in the West, my feeling is that a lot of territory was not conductive to large tank battles. The terrain (Think Hurtgen forest and the Schee Eifel) was too forested. You figure the early blitzkriege out of Belgium had some pretty open areas which favored the tanks and the Stukas. Couple that with a retreating enemy relying on static defences and assault guns......

I might be off here, dunno

Most of the largest tank battles of the west were right after D-Day. There, the germans started to counterattack with their available tanks ( such as Villers-Bocage) But again, who will never forget the part that armored played in the relief of Bastogne...........

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

"The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........"

[Teamski]

I think an excellent scenaio with armor would be Noville (sp?). It was the town just northeast of Bastone where elements of the 506th AIR,502nd AIR and 10th armored division took the initial brunt of the German attack on the city. I read Donald Burgett's book "Seven Roads to Hell" where he fought there with the 101st. There was some pretty spetacular armor fighting between M-10s and the advancing armor. (I think there were like 3 or 4 tanks in the town of Noville) There are some great books out there just screaming to be re-created......

-Ski

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

"The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........"

[This message has been edited by Teamski (edited 08-31-2000).]

[Von Fauster]

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

But again, who will never forget the part that armored played in the relief of Bastogne...........

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a good example I'd forgotten to take into account- and also raises the issue of air superiority. It's possible to argue that the massed tank battles of the Eastern front simply could not be allowed to happen (by the Germans anyway) on the Western front because of the marked late-war air superiority of the Allies. That much armor, out in the open, in daylight, on a clear day would be inviting disaster.

[Jeff Heidman]

As someone pointed out, the terrain in Western Europe was not as conducive to armored warfare. This is the case not just in the obvious sense of bockage and such, but in the total length of the front lines.

While the Eastern Front had many more men and vehicles fighting, they were fighting over a HUGE front line, stretching several thousands of miles. What many do not realize is that most of that front line, on both sides, is held by relatively weak infantry divisions, with little or no armor or transport. There simply is not enough equipment to cover the length with even motorized, much less mechanized/armored units.

What this means is that it is much easier on the Eastern Front (for both sides) to mass your armor into a specific spot and try to smash an opening and poor through and around the less mobile foot units. Momentum and intitiative become everything on the strategic/operational level.

The Western Front, just in distance of front lines, was MUCH shorter. The density of equipment across the entire front was also much higher, making it harder (not imposible, just harder) for the Allies to amass a truly massive quantitative advantage at any given point.

That being said, there were many examples of Allied armored units breaking through and grabbing large amounts of territory in a short time when they could, situation and terrain permitting. Pattons race across France is a good example. However, that does not make for a very interesting CM scenario!

That brings me to my next point. A truly "historical" CM Western Front scenario, representative of probably 75% of all company.battalion level engagements in Western Europe circa 1944-45, would invlove a US/UK/Canadian Armored Infantry Battalion back up by a company or so of attached armor with attached Corps level artillery on call (in case there is significant resistance) attacking a single depleted German company of troops, mostly made up of non-infantrymen (supply, S&E, Luftwaffe, etc) defending a village. If they were lucky, they might have an AT gun or two, and maybe some 81mm mortar support, but probably not.

Again, does not make for a very interesting CM scenario, and the remaing 25% of engagements provides more than enough interesting situations anyway!

Jeff Heidman

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von Fauster:

Yet (and here's the question) when I think of the Allied breakout and push into Germany (that is to say, Beyond Overlord)I tend to think in terms of Infantry- not armor. Why is that? Did armor play a smaller role later in the war? Was it a function of Allied tactical doctrine or a consequence of the physical structure of the battlefield? Were there no great armored battles on the Western Front in 1944-45? Or am I, in a word, wrong?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMO, it has more to do with the history we are fed more than anything. We one talks about the German army in WWII, the fast moving tank formations pop into mind. That's what we read and that's what we see in film footage. Everyone, well not everyone , thinks of the German army as some huge mechanized beast when in reality it was a lumbering horse and foot soldier army. Heck it was the American army that was the most mechanized and motorized of them all.

Perception sometimes doesn't match with reality. Heck, in my opinion, the only true Blitzkrieg of war (by the Germans) was France. In Poland and Russia it was the encirclement battle. Surround and pound them.

Cav

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

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."

--Bertrand Russell

"God is always with the strongest battalions."

--Frederick the Great

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

--Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."

--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[Teamski]

Damn, where did I read it?.......I read somewhere that even at the end of the war that the Germans still used horses for 25% of it's transportation......

-Ski

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

"The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........"

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

.I read somewhere that even at the end of the war that the Germans

still used horses for 25% of it's transportation.....

It was more then that. A lot more. One thing you guys should remember is the Panzer Divisions at the start of the war with Poland were made up of a Panzer brigade: made up of 2 panzer regiments. each made up of 3 panzer kompanies. Plus supporting elements (command tanks). and only like 2 panzer regiments had a medium panzer platoon (panzer IV). The rest were PZ II's and III's. But the Panzer divisions underwent reorganization in 1940 decreasing the number of regiments in each division to only 1!! This doubled the number of divisions on paper but not increasing the firepower of them. Blame this smart move on Germany's greatest war leader of WW2, Hitler.

[Malmvig]

You got an interesting question here Von Fauster. Personally I think that it is because the Allies knew that the Germans didn't had much armor left after '44. Yes the Americans may had plenty but they still had to get it across the sea. This may be on the account of less infantery shipped. Who ever had the authority of selecting the equitment to ship may had basic knowledge of the strenght of the German armor present at time. Taken into the consideration, the type of forces the opponent got, the Allies may had focused on mechanized infantery supported with a limited armor support. I think that the end of WWII also ended that big clash between armor and envolved the use of combined forces like we know of to day. Maybe the Germans invented the use of combined forces early in their blitz' but that may had more to do with getting the ability of securing taken ground. Early in WWII - I do not think that the light antitank weapons was in common use and thereby the reason of using combined forces to the extend they where used in the late War was not that nessesary. The ground in northen europe is easy ground for armor vehicles, even taking the bocage into the consideration.

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

Malmvig

[windstarz]

I think it was a combination of the West having more rugged terrain, the Allies superior air and a shorter front than the East. Plus if the Germans massed tanks the Allied air could damage them heavily before they ever got in range. In the East air wasn't always available in much quantity.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von Fauster:

I'm pretty familiar with WWII, but got to thinking about this and realized I maybe don't know as much as I thought: When one thinks of the Blitzkrieg of '39 and the fall of France, one usually thinks of quick armored thrusts and massed tanks (vs the French, for example, who spread their armor out piecemeal). Likewise, with Barbarossa, one naturally thinks of rolling hordes of T-34's and the massive battle at Kursk. Even in Africa, it was the armor at battles such as Tobruk, Kasserine, and El Alamein which one tends to remember.

Yet (and here's the question) when I think of the Allied breakout and push into Germany (that is to say, Beyond Overlord)I tend to think in terms of Infantry- not armor. Why is that? Did armor play a smaller role later in the war? Was it a function of Allied tactical doctrine or a consequence of the physical structure of the battlefield?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were a number of things that contributed to a change of status for tanks as the war progressed, including the ones you mention. But I think the most decisive was the rise of ranged, man-portable, effective anti-tank weapons such as the Panzerfaust, etc. Before 1943 when these weapons became available in plentiful numbers, the infantry relied on either friendly tanks or anti-tank guns in the neighborhood to protect them from enemy armor. These were not always available. Often, the infantry was helpless against even thinly armored, MG-armed tankettes such as the Pz. I. Being helpless, they either broke and fled the scene or surrendered en masse. This, as much as anything, led to the dramatic victories of the Blitzkrieg era and the almost mythic invincibility of armor.

After the infantry began to receive useful anti-armor weapons, it was better able to hold its own. This, combined with better armor on the other side, the balance of air superiority swinging to the Allied side, a general improvement in equipment and doctrine on the Allied side, and many other factors, led to a reining in of the blitzkrieg style of warfare.

Michael

[Guest machineman]

There were a few big tank battles. Several of the Commonwealth breakout attempts at Normandy were huge in scale, somewhere I remember a claim that operation Goodwood, for example, surpassed even Kursk in it's intensity and tanks per sq km, if not in it's overall size.

From what I can make out the Germans did not have the tank strength, artillery strength, command of the air, or fuel to do any sort of the huge offensive operations they had done earlier in the war, while the allies were hampered by outclassed tanks, outclassed commanders, and a countryside that gave cover and favored a makeshift defense armed with stationary 88's, French agricultural tractors with 75's bolted on, and panzerfaust armed infantry. The most both sides could do was grind away at each other until one side was worn out and gave way.

[Teamski]

Malmvig brings up a good point. The US had quite a bit of it's armored strenth still in the states througout 1944 in training. A lot of the US Armored Divisions didn't show up until 1945, i.e., the 13th, 14th 16th, 20th, etc. By the time they showed up, the show was over. The Germans had all of their armor on the front by 1942 or 43.........

-Ski

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

"The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........"

[Guest grunto]

in the ballantine book, 'bagstone,' it says that the germans had 250,000 men and 1,000 tanks overall for the battle of the bulge. that was probably the biggest 'tank battle' in the west. it's probably an interesting thing to create a scenario around but the terrain isn't good tank terrain. it was mostly muddy roads twisting through pine forests with cliffs and dropoffs there and about, at least from what i've read.

but there was cloud cover much of the time so there were no allied aircraft on many days.

andy

[CavScout]

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

Damn, where did I read it?.......I read somewhere that even at the end of the war that the Germans still used horses for 25% of it's transportation......

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was much, MUCH more than that. One book says that of the 141 divisons taking part in Operation Barbarossa, 108 (76%) were NON-motorized infantry... marching men!

Cav

[CavScout]

Another reason for the lack of "big tank" battles was the different theories in the use of tanks. The Americans didn't build tanks to fight tanks, they built them to perform breakouts and rush behind enemy lines. For tank killing the built the tank destroyer.

Cav

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Another reason for the lack of "big tank" battles was the different theories in the use of tanks. The Americans didn't build tanks to fight tanks, they built them to perform breakouts and rush behind enemy lines. For tank killing the built the tank destroyer.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what a great idea that turned out to be.

Not.

Jeff Heidman

[CavScout]

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

And what a great idea that turned out to be.

Not.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well.. it did win the war.

Cav

[Panzer Man]

What other country could have Won the War in Two Theaters of Operations? Zip... The US had the Best Tank killers - Artillery and Air Might.The Sherman was strictly for Infantry support.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Well.. it did win the war.

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhh yeah, that and the secret invisible elephant troops.

Production won the war. The abortion that was the US Armies concept of armored vehicle procurement just made it take longer.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Man:

What other country could have Won the War in Two Theaters of Operations? Zip... The US had the Best Tank killers - Artillery and Air Might.The Sherman was strictly for Infantry support. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, tell that to all the Sherman crewman who were killed in their "Infantry Support" vehicles that could not take a shot from a bloody 50mm AT gun, much less have a prayer when the Panthers decided to take a break from the East Front.

Jeff Heidman

[Panzer Man]

I agree with you.I think after the Mauling at Kasserine the U.S. changed its strategy on Armor usage.Unfortunately, they still confronted Axis Armored might.

[Von Brizee]

I love how lots of people take criticism of Allies (Well, they can't be wrong, they DID win the war!) or praise of the Germans (How can that be right, they LOST!)

Every side had it's good and bad tactics, men, and equipment....

[CavScout]

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

Uhh yeah, that and the secret invisible elephant troops.

Production won the war. The abortion that was the US Armies concept of armored vehicle procurement just made it take longer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US Army's armored vehicle had to be put on a boat and sailed across the Atlantic to get to the fight. A handicap neither the Soviets or Germans had to consider. The American tanks simply couldn't be the biggest on the battlefield.

The simple claim that 'production' won the war is misleading. In 1943, Germany's economy was much larger than both the British and Soviet economies yet they produced less.The Germans simply couldn't manage the production as well as the allies.

"But the pursuit of advanced weapons [by Germany] came at a price. Instead of a core of proven designs produced on standard lines, the Germans forces developed a bewildering array of projects."

This wide variety is very difficult to mass produce. "German weapons were very good, but very expenive - in skilled manpower, time and materials."

Yes the Sherman wasn't the most heavily armed or armored tanks in the West but what it was was reliable.

TANK PRODUCTION:

1940:

Germany: 2,200

USA: 400

1941:

Germany: 5,200

USA: 4,052

1942:

Germany: 9,200

USA: 24,997

1943:

Germnay: 17,300

USA: 29,497

1944:

Germnay: 22,100

USA: 17,565

1945:

Germnay: 4,400

USA: 11,968

What has always perplexed me is people are quick to critique the American choice of the Sherman but are so very slow to critique the German lack of strategic foresight in regards to prodiction. Haveing the 'best' means little if you don't have enough to go around.

Cav

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

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."

--Bertrand Russell

"God is always with the strongest battalions."

--Frederick the Great

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

--Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."

--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[CavScout]

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

Yeah, tell that to all the Sherman crewman who were killed in their "Infantry Support" vehicles that could not take a shot from a bloody 50mm AT gun, much less have a prayer when the Panthers decided to take a break from the East Front.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you provid any statistics for Allied [West] tank crew causulties versus the German [West] ones? I am willing to bet the Americans, espicially, had lower rates then the Germans. We lost far fewer than most in the war.

Cav