Gamey tactics, post the whys & therefores here

[Guest Big Time Software]

Terence wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Was it because infantry commanders had innacurate expectations of what the tanks could accomplish and the tankers saw the requests as suicide?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically, yes. There was a case (it might be the same as Germanboy's) where British infantry was supposed to have cleared some woods of a known AT position. It was a very cunning AT defense and the tanks had little hope of knocking it out without losing at least a couple of tanks. The infantry commander ordered the tanks to go over the rise and into the enemy's field of fire in order to support the infantry fighting in the woods. The tank commander refused stating that to do so would be suicide for at least a few of his crews. He therefore stated that he would not advance until the AT gun was taken care of. IIRC this dispute was brought to a superior officer, who agreed with the tanker and ordered the AT gun destroyed first. A few hours later the infantry commander said it was, the tanks therefore went over the rise, and promptly became flaming wrecks because the AT gun had NOT been taken out. Obviously the tank commander was not pleased and refused to do further support for the infantry. I am not sure how it was eventually resolved.

To be fair, tankers were sometimes known to not put themselves in harms way when on balance it could have seriously benefitted the infantry. I know of a few examples where the armor simply turned around and left, leaving the infantry to fend for themselves. But of course, these are extreme examples that were most likely not the norm. At least not by 1944.

Steve

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Terence wrote:

Basically, yes. There was a case (it might be the same as Germanboy's) where British infantry was supposed to have cleared some woods of a known AT position. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that is Hill 112 in Normandy. When Corps Command ordered the Brigadier and later Lord and CIGS Carver to advance over the crest he suggested that this was suicide (by this time, the 9th RTR had lost a squadron of Churchills to AT guns and German tanks on the rear slope). He was ordered to do it, and asked which regiment he wanted to use. When he said he intended to use the Royal Scots Greys (the only professional cavalry regiment in Scotland) his CO asked him if he could not use a less-well known regiment. The conversation that followed led to a nullification of the order . All off the top of my head, from Reynolds 'Steel Inferno', mefinks. The 5th DCLI was on the far side of the hill and had to retreat taking heavy casualties.

My example was from Ganter's 'Roll me over', and I have found another one in Toland 'Battle of the Bulge' (where the tankers disembarked at the mere thought to stand between the Germans and Bastogne and infantry took over the tanks).

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[DraGoon]

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

I believe that is Hill 112 in Normandy. When Corps Command ordered the Brigadier and later Lord and CIGS Carver to advance over the crest he suggested that this was suicide (by this time, the 9th RTR had lost a squadron of Churchills to AT guns and German tanks on the rear slope). He was ordered to do it, and asked which regiment he wanted to use. When he said he intended to use the Royal Scots Greys (the only professional cavalry regiment in Scotland) his CO asked him if he could not use a less-well known regiment. The conversation that followed led to a nullification of the order . All off the top of my head, from Reynolds 'Steel Inferno', mefinks. The 5th DCLI was on the far side of the hill and had to retreat taking heavy casualties.

My example was from Ganter's 'Roll me over', and I have found another one in Toland 'Battle of the Bulge' (where the tankers disembarked at the mere thought to stand between the Germans and Bastogne and infantry took over the tanks).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did someone call?

Ahhh... Royal Scots Greys, Luvvly Jubbly.

You are correct Germanboy, night of the 9/10 July 44 - Operation Jupiter, (coming soon from a depot near you). 43rd Wessex and 15th Scottish Infantry Divisions.

4th Armd Bde was supporting 214 Bde of 43rd (Wessex) Div to take the village of Maltot beyond hill 112.

Bgdr Carver INSISTED on ample artillery fire on a wood on the reverse of hill 112, over the ridge, which would be on the open flank and rear of the Greys (Shermans), before launching his assault. The attack went ahead anyway with the Churchills of 31st Army Tank Brigade (Inf Support) supporting 129 and 130 Bde,s of 43rd Wessex.

9RTRs Churchills were almost all knocked out by AT fire from the key wood on hill 112(which the Infantry had failed to clear).

Brigadier Carver, an experienced (and young, 29) Armoured commander (CO RTR western desert), was known for his ability to "disagree" with dated tactics suggested by senior Infantry Officers.

Sources:

History of 4Armd Bde: RMP Carver

Monty's Marauders: Patrick Delaforce

My own comments: UK Tank Brigades were formed, equipped and trained to provide support to the infantry. UK Armoured brigades were, in the main, like their Cavalry forebears, for the decisive shock action, meeting and defeating similar to themselves. ie: destroying tanks. With their own organic mechanised infantry supporting them. They still IMHO feel this way now.

On 'ahistorical tactics'. My comments on crews, in previous posts, stand, they should, depending on their condition and the circumstances forcing them to bail, be able to defend themselves and their vehicle (if necessary) adequately. They should not at all be regarded as substitute infantry in any form.

I wish I had never used the term 'gamey' as it seems to be taken as 'cheating' which I, and I am certain most others, never intended.

I fully understand the 'win at all costs' motivation and have nothing against it when declared. It would spoil my enjoyment of a 'historical action' to find ahistorical tactics or units being used against me. However if I know beforehand that this is the preferred method of an opponnent I will play the game against them to the best of my ability with the forces I have at my disposal using realistic, for the period, tactics. Hoping that sound tactical methods (and superior skill ) will prevail, in full knowledge of the conditions.

BTW Not a challenge, my dance card is full at the moment.

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

Remember:

Always end your lay in elevation.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Did someone call?

Ahhh... Royal Scots Greys, Luvvly Jubbly.

You are correct Germanboy, night of the 9/10 July 44 - Operation Jupiter, (coming soon from a depot near you). 43rd Wessex and 15th Scottish Infantry Divisions.

*snip*

BTW Not a challenge, my dance card is full at the moment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good to see the old memory is still working. Thanks for the corroboration. Carver was quite a character I believe, having stand-up rows with Horrocks, Hobart and what-not. I quite enjoy his book 'The British Army in the 20th Century'. BTW, could you suggest a single volume (other than this) covering the British military history?

And for the dance-card - here's a challenge to a game in early February. Contact me by email.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[DraGoon]

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

Good to see the old memory is still working. Thanks for the corroboration. Carver was quite a character I believe, having stand-up rows with Horrocks, Hobart and what-not. I quite enjoy his book 'The British Army in the 20th Century'. BTW, could you suggest a single volume (other than this) covering the British military history?

And for the dance-card - here's a challenge to a game in early February. Contact me by email.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi

Yep, a character he apparently was, you don't get to be CGS for nothing.

Regarding British Military History, which period would you like to cover, there are quite a number of good books available.

British Military History, at least that of many of the present Regiments and Battalions, dates back to the 17th Century.

(The Scots Greys originally date back to 1678 although the name "Royal Regiment of Scots Dragoons" was not official until 1681.)

So you have quite a good selection to choose from. Give me some dates and I will try to suggest a few good titles.

If you just want to cover the period of the ETO there are some good general reference works available, you may already have read these though.

One of my sources of out of print titles is down in London and online, can't remember the URL I'll post it tomorrow.

February! OK you're on.

DG

[tss]

Big Time Software wrote:

I know of a few examples where the armor simply turned around and left, leaving the infantry to fend for themselves.

And sometimes the armor had good reasons to leave, but the infantry didn't know about them and bitterly lamented the "cowardice" of the tankers.

For example, the German 303rd Assault Gun Brigade got an undeserved poor reputation among the infantry that they supported. The stugs were used as a fire brigade in counter attacks and their job was to return to the deployment area immediately after a Soviet break-in had been sealed. The infantrymen didn't know about this and were excepting that the guns would stay in the front for direct support. Also, they didn't know how much ammo a stug could have and thought that stugs returning for ammo replacement were running away from battle.

- Tommi