another allocation of armour question - plz help

[urefinger]

u must answer me thse questions three , but you must read carefully or else be accused of imperosity (i could make a mint at this - )

but seriously can you please read and answer to the best of your abilities these following questions. thnx in advance

1.would an INFANTRY division have only infantry and some artillery (+ ATG's?) i.e. the more common battlefield weapons. or would it also have maybe 1 tank battalion? I've often seen (in scenario briefings) things like "the 124th infantrie (german spelling) went into the attack with the 24th panzer division in support" does this mean that if an infantry attack alone failed to pierce the line (or simply met it and ecided it needed more support) call in help from another divison ( e.g. one infantrie div calling in help from a panzer div from the same army group? (who might well be in the same area. or even wait days for them to arrive)

2.were reconnasince battalions really for reconasince (because its hard to find your enemy's defensive line in 500 square miles of open russian countryside) or were they for (as someone stated on the other armour thread on this page) actually for brushing aside the light belts of resistence and finding the main defensive line and THEN calling the panzer div? the forst would require fuel efficient vehicls e.g. halftracks armoured cars which are suited to scouting anyway. the second would require heavier vehicles. is it one or the other? or is it both?

3. there is no three, but there probably will be (there i go again - (rotten tomato bounces of curtain)) because i feel sure someone will give a nice answer which i will want to peruse further.....

thnx again!

[JasonC]

Infantry divisions did not have 1 tank battalion in either the German or Russian armies. They often had one attached in the US army. (A few German Panzergrenadier divisions had one permanent, organic tank battalion - they were more like lighter Panzer divisions, though, not infantry - all motorized, similar division structure, considered "mobile" troops, etc).

The Germans did use StuG brigades to support infantry divisions. Those were the size of a small armor battalion - 31 AFVs at full strength. These were independent army level units, but worked with infantry divisions when those were assigned a leading attack role, or they led counterattacks, or tried to blunt an enemy armor drive on a given infantry division's frontage.

Most German infantry divisions had an organic anti-tank battalion. Late in the war, some but not all of these began to get StuGs or Marders instead of the usual towed ATGs. (Occasionally Hetzers). Earlier on, there weren't enough of those things, and they went mostly to panzer divisions or independent StuG units. But by 1944, Marders had been phased out in the better equipped Panzer divisions. The remainder went to the poor cousins, the Heer infantry.

The Russians had independent armor brigades and regiments, (60 and 30), and independent SU regiments (20), for the same sort of purpose. Neither side had nearly enough of these things to give one to every infantr division, though. Most of the time, infantry would fight without such attachments.

What does all of the above mean for CMBB forces? It means first of all that no, a full Panzer unit would not typically be found supporting an infantry one. You would not see a platoon of Panthers working with a Heer infantry battalion very often (only a tactical mess might give rise to it, occasionally).

Instead, most of the time an infantry division type would have an infantry force type as well. Sometimes it would have a combined arms force type - which gives a small armor budget, but not zero. That armor budget would appear as a few StuGs or Marders, not Tigers or Panthers.

On the Russian side, often an infantry division would mean an infantry force type, no armor. Sometimes a combined arms force type, when one of the independent regiments was attached. It could be SUs, especially SU-76s (the most common type working with infantry divisions). Or it could be tanks, T-34s or a mix of those and lights (depending mostly on the date).

That is the range that is realistic. Players probably see the pure infantry force type less often than the real participants did. But the combined arms type is not unrealistic and the point budgets for it are reasonable. You just should add a sort of voluntary realism restriction about the *type* of vehicles used.

With German infantry, StuGs and Marders, when they have any armor. With Russian infantry, T-34s, perhaps with T60s and 70s in 1942 and 1943 respectively, or SU-76s (mid 1943 on). (In the summer of 1941, a special case, Russian infantry would see T-26s, pretty much exclusively).

[ May 27, 2003, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Jason,

You are going to have to post a list of your library.

I'll take a shot at the second question.

The recon battalions were used in a variety of roles. They were used as traditional recon forces as well as flank guard for the main attack and as screening forces in the defense. They were also used as ready reserve or as an extra infantry battalion, especially later in the war.

This tendency to embroil the recon elements in the main battle was one weakness of the German tactical practices. The American's, for example, had dedicated recon troops in the form of cavalry groups, which were permanent organizations. Commiting recon forces to the main battle tends to rob the unit of its situational awareness. Of course many units had little choice.

Recon battalions were also used to take minor (and sometimes not so minor) objectives in conjunction with the main attack (small villiages or positions on the flank were normal objectives). They were often reinforced for these missions but not always. In most units the recon elements were in nearly constant action.

[JasonC]

My library - http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/

6.8 million volumes. Too many to list. lol.

[SgtMuhammed]

One reason I can't wait to get back to the States, being able to get books that don't take me a month to read (my German is less than stellar).

[urefinger]

to the first reply: mbluhhh? im sorry most of that went over my head. perhaps though i might simplify the question and possibly your answer?

did divs mix? (NOT on a full sacle bu would an armour div "give tanks" to and infantry battalion to support them OR - as i think you said" infantry divs would sometimes have a SMALL amount of armour with them for tricky situations

to the second post: thnx. one more thing - did these reconnasince battalions mainly comprise armoured cars for the purposes? sometimes supported by heaveier armour for e.g. taking a small village....?

thanx for the responses - its just kinda hard to get my head round the different situations and the difference between "tactical" engangements and the "strategic" organisation of troop movments

[demoss]

were reconnasince battalions really for reconasince (because its hard to find your enemy's defensive line in 500 square miles of open russian countryside) or were they for (as someone stated on the other armour thread on this page) actually for brushing aside the light belts of resistence and finding the main defensive line and THEN calling the panzer div?

That's called "reconnaisance in force."

[SgtMuhammed]

There is an acronym you here mentioned alot in the military (the U.S. at least) METT-T (pronounced met-tee). It stands for Mission, Enemy, Troops, Terrain, and Time. What it means is that everything is relative and flexable. Sometimes units will have a wealth of resources to accomplish a simple mission while others you will have nothing and be expected to hold back the enemy's main thrust. You just deal with what you have and adjust your actions accordingly.

Sometimes recon units were assigned missions with only their internal assets. These could be anything from their ACs and HTs to their recon infantry. If they were lucky, or if the objective were important enough, they might be reinforced by other division assets.

[MikeyD]

As to infantry getting tanks 'on loan', I've read many accounts of individual or pair of Tigers being sent hither and yon to plug holes in the front -- and 'the front' usually meant infantry in foxholes. As a matter of fact, Tigers often had trouble coordinating with the infantry. They'd often be forced to fight on the front line because if they tried to pull back to overwatch positions the frightened infantry would imagine that they were being abandoned and would pull back with them.

I don't know if this would be considered to be integration of forces at all, but there was some cooperation.

[JasonC]

That wouldn't be infantry MikeyD, in the sense of infantry divisions. It would be the infantry portion of panzer divisions or SS panzer divisions, almost always.

Tigers were higher echelon battalions, but assigned to Panzer corps. (early on, companies of them were assigned to individual Panzer or Panzergrenadier divisions). The units fighting in the same area were (multiple) panzer divisions.

Yes, panzer divisions have "infantry" in the sense of squads, but those are panzergrenadiers. In CM terms, a "panzer" (or mobile) parent division type, with "combined arms" or "armored" force type.

Occasionally when panzer divisions were attacking through a front line formation, or backing up disintegrating ones in a sector the Allies were attacking, you might briefly get a "sector overlap" with Heer infantry, VG, or FJ infantry in the same spot. That would be "unrestricted" force type, purposefully creating a mish-mash.

[JasonC]

As for recon units, the main thing to understand is the scale of their use isn't really the same as CM battlefields. What people do often in CM that isn't realistic is take a handful of recon vehicles and add them to a mostly armor or infantry force, and then use said recon ahead of the main body as sacrifice scouts.

This level of cross attachment - a platoon or less of recce with other forces - was rare, and recon units wouldn't have lasted a month used that way. At the CM scenario level, the force would be essentially all from the recon battalion, with limited help cross attached to them, rather than the other way around.

To simulate a real recon unit, on its own, the proper method in CM is to pick a mechanized parent division type and then a "mechanized" force type. You get no heavy AFVs, plenty of vehicle screen points, modest artillery support as usual, infantry and support.

E.g. 1500 points using 251/1s and heavy weapons, an Auklarung company (the type with 4 HMG and 2 81mm mortars), plus an armored Panzergrenadier platoon, a Stummel 75mm halftrack platoon, an 8-rad 20mm armored car platoon, a radio 105mm FO, and one 50mm towed PAK (or 2 shrecks, depending the date).

You get 12 squads, 12 light armor vehicles. The 251/1s get the mortars and PAK. Tons of MGs and light gun firepower, limited armor and limited squad infantry ammo. 600 vehicle MG ammo, over 300 each of foot MG and squad ammo, 60x105, 100x75, 50x81 HE ammo, plus hundreds of 37mm and 20mm pop gun ammo.

The anti tank ability is limited. Some 75mm HEAT for the Stummels, the one towed PAK, little else that can hurt a T-34. But gobs of stuff effective against light armor. The armor is thin - even ATRs will penetrate (though it takes those a while to kill, even when they do).

If you want to simulate a recon in force against stronger opposition, with the recon guys acting as part of a Panzer division KG, one realistic way would be working with Panzerjaegers. Pz Jgrs and Recce were both "division level extras" and often wound up working together because of it. You'd use a combined arms force type for this, then use the Auklarung type infantry and max out the vehicle point category.

E.g. 1 StuG platoon, 1 armored Auklarung platoon (comes with 7 small MG halftracks), 1 Auklarung company (as before, the one with heavy weapons), 2 8-rad 20mm armored cars, 1 105mm radio FO. 12 AFVs again, this time 3 of them full AFVs, the rest mostly MG armed. A variant would be to use Marders instead of StuGs - gives a little more room for other things (a Grille, 75mm HTs instead of 20mm ACs, etc).

Obviously these forces will work best against an enemy with limited AT assets. Even a few ATRs can be annoying with so much light armor, but it is hard for them to accumulate actual killing damage on so many targets. 45mm ATGs are more dangerous, but also easier to spot once they fire. The mortars and FO have to help deal with those (StuGs are great at it too, of course).

If you want to see why such forces were useful, make the map size large and the terrain relatively open, but not completely without cover. E.g. light forest, small hills. A meeting engagement, or a probe against an infantry force type, will work best.

They easily concentrate against portions of the enemy, and outshoot local groups of infantry. The infantry has high FP but limited "wind". It is best at mopping up the covered areas, against enemies pinned by vehicle MGs and broken by HE. The vehicle MGs (in pairs typically) cut off those areas from each other, so you only have to take out as many blocks of cover as you can "chew".

Don't charge enemy held areas with light armor leading. You can move rapidly with vehicles forward to areas you think the enemy won't be able to see from his set up area (dead ground behind a hill e.g., and farther in a meeting engagement of course). Then position the light armor to "keyhole" at gaps between cover areas on the enemy side of the map, and wait for the infantry. Some infantry scouts ahead, with the rest along with the mortars and FOs overwatching. Add Stummel or StuG, keyholed, when you have a definite point target (gun or MG).

When you find a major enemy position, use the ACs or MG halftracks to isolate it from escape or reinforcement on two sides with MG fire lanes through open ground. Save your squad infantry ammo by using shortened covered arcs; the foot HMGs have enough ammo to fire at will. Call for 105s on the covered area, and/or bring the StuGs or Stummels up, just far enough to get LOS to that area, to toss in HE in quantity.

When they look broken, pull closer with vehicle MGs to keep them pinned, and send in your infantry main body. The ACs and MG halftracks will cut apart anyone trying to run. Your ammo may let you repeat this exercise once, at most, if the first time goes smoothly.

I hope this helps with the recce guys.

[ May 29, 2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Nippy]

The anti tank ability is limited. Some 75mm HEAT for the Stummels, the one towed PAK, little else that can hurt a T-34. But gobs of stuff effective against light armor. The armor is thin - even ATRs will penetrate (though it takes those a while to kill, even when they do).

You do have to watch out for the ATR's. With 1500 points the Soviet side could by a Reg Infantry Battalion (43') and that gives them 2 45mm AT guns and 9 ATRs along with a Section Leader.

The danger from Soviet ATR's isn't so much the killing power, but the ability to send even the most die hard unit into Panic or Broken status and to damage things like the tracks or main gun in weaker HT and AC units.

[urefinger]

ive read all your replies (and thank you for the detail) but i STILL dont think anyones actually answred my original question. i will clarify it with an example.

army group centre are advancing on kiev (this is hypthetical) the recon battalions form various div's do their work and locate the main defensive belts and probe the enemy lines and maybe even take samll towns. then, the battle for the city proper begins starting with taking out the outer lines of defense. assuming 4 infantrie div's are assighned to the task.....now what? surely its almost impossible to break a in depth defensive line with only infantrie and a puny amount of attached armour support? (not counting atgs and other artilery (be they guns OR howitzers or even gun-howitzers) yeah ok, in SOME regions its only the infantrie that CAN fight (forests - i mean MASSIVE ones or mountains) and i suppose you COULD hold a line with only an infantrie div' (given the attached atg's and the small amount of armour for plugging gaps in the line) but for major operations you'd have to attack the enemy with a panzer division (and its attached panzergrenadiers moving with the tanks) OR - seeing as the majority of div's were infantrie. you'd provide the infantrie for the attack (perhaps with the panzergrenadiers) and mix in tanks from other nearby panzer divisions. i just DONT see any other way infantrie could take a part in major operations.

i ws lead to the idea from numerous scenario briefings that went something like "and on the 23rd the 145th infatrie div supported by the 82 panzer div attacked a small village at down" leading me to belive that to div's might mix at a battalion level for a small time....

[JasonC]

Now I think I see what you are saying. Or asking. The answer is no, they did not remotely have that much armor support and no, that is not how armor helped an operational scale offensive and yes, plain infantry division forces were routinely expected to defend (as a matter of course) and to attack, on their own.

The way panzer divisions helped take Kiev is *not* leading four infantry divisions through the streets by going first. Instead, multiple panzer divisions broke through defense lines hundreds of miles away from the city. Then drove across open countryside in wide arcs, meeting up with each other behind said city. Trailing behind them their attached motorized infantry, light armor, recon units, and motorized artillery. Which held the routes the panzer divisions advanced along - initially, narrow corridors down a handful of roads.

That could make a pocket around the city, or force the enemy to pull out of it entirely to avoid being cut off - *if* the panzer divisions could cut clean through defenders (not in the city, elsewhere) and keep driving deep enough. If they were stopped somewhere, or in the meantime, or after a pocket was successfully formed - somebody still had to deal with the defenders in the city proper, if those decided to stick around and fight.

And that usually meant ordinary infantry divisions. Which does not mean just men in shirtsleeves with rifles, but certainly does not mean "with attached panzer divisions". They did not have attached panzer divisions. Instead they have divisional artillery, which was expected to blast defenders out of their way. And lots of infantry, which was expected to probe into the defenses over and over again, in the wake of the artillery's shelling, grabbing whatever little scrap of ground they could each time and holding onto it like pitbulls.

Understand, infantry should not be thought of as "un-armored". The "armor" of the infantry is whatever terrain they can wriggle into - buildings, rubble, woods, a hilltop with slit trenches dug into the slopes, whatever they can grab. And for attackers no less than defenders, the idea is to grab some terrain and hold it against all comers.

Maybe you grab it because the enemy is weak in that sector to begin with. Or because the route seemed impassible, until somebody made it. Or you snuck a company in during a night infiltration, perhaps after little night patrols found gaps over several nights. Or you blasted the defending company to atoms with 100 heavy guns firing for an hour. Or you snuck close before dawn, persuaded the defenders to duck into their holes with a barrage, and rushed.

Or you just "overwatch" your way in, particularly if the defense isn't very strong. That means a few leading men are exposed to enemy fire, but if the enemy shoots at them a much larger unit will fire back, from decent cover themselves, and outshoot them. The guys first shot at with hit the deck and wait it out, until their friends "shoot them free" again.

If one attack is a fiasco and a whole battalion gets cut in half, then there are 2 more in the regiment, a replacement battalion sends up fresh men, artillery support is rejiggered or the approach route is changed, and somebody tries again. This happened plenty of times. WW II was not a garden tea party. More men were shot or shelled during it than in WW I, mostly from the "bloody infantry".

If an infantry formation had a small number of SP guns attached (SU-76s, StuGs, etc), it would count itself lucky. And those were usually far too valuable to send first. Instead, they formed part of the "overwatch" as described above, with the idea of blasting out of action each machine gun that opened up on the leading infantry e.g. But from 400 yards behind the infantry, to make full use of the superior range of cannons compared to small arms.

Often the infantry just had on call artillery for this, or a small number of direct fire towed guns manhandled into position to see the objectives the infantry was about to advance towards. Infantry guns, PAK, occasionally light FLAK did the job. Plus the infantry's own mortars and MGs.

The basic thing to understand is that the primary protection for an attacker is not armor plate, but the threat that attacker firepower will kill all the defenders who try to stand and fight. You don't drive your way into defenses or walk over them, so much as shoot them to pieces first, then meander through the resulting rubble mopping up.

[urefinger]

OK i still feel my question is un-answerd and the example of the city was a bad one (because cities are easily surrounded and tanks are of little use

*rubs eyes* - right then. ASSUMING there is an enemy defnsive line several belts thick in typical countryside. it is attacked with an infantry div or two. apart from the treches guns atg's and howitzers the enemy are defending themselves with. they also have tanks. they use these in both defence and counter attack. surely an infantry div would not be expected to fight off armoured counter attacks with their puny man handled atg's? you would HAVE to allocate tank support - if not an ENTIRE panzer div then at least a battalion of tanks from a nearby one - am i right?

[JasonC]

For the Nth time, no, you aren't right.

Infantry divisions were routinely expected to attack prepared enemy defenses without tank support. If enemy tanks were encountered, an infantry division was expected to handle them on its own if their numbers were small, using their organic PAK-ATGs. Fighting off local counterattacks was a standard job for those.

If the enemy sent lots of armor (full battalion and upward) the attacker would go over to defense, locally and temporarily, trying to hold what they already had. No defender had enough armor to appear in full battalion strength or higher everywhere along the line.

When added armor were needed by infantry, attacking or defending, it still was not provided by Panzer divisions (or for the Russians, tanks or mechanized corps). Not a whole panzer division, not half a panzer division, nothing remotely like it. It was provided, when it was, by independent battalion sized units controlled by higher echelons - typically armies - and farmed out to the division that needed the help.

These were StuG brigades (31 AFVs) for the Germans. For the Russians a wider range of sizes and types, SU regiments (20 AFVs), independent Russian tank brigades (60) and regiments (30). Those figures are for full strength units, too. Units in the line typically ranged from 80% down to 25% of those numbers.

Neither side had enough of these small armor "extras" for all infantry divisions to have one attached. The average infantry division had no armor helping it. (Heck, the average infantry division had precious few *trucks*). In CMBB terms, it is the "infantry" force type.

A panzer division only has 2 battalions of tanks. It needs them for its own portion of the front, supporting its own organic infantry (it has 4 to 6 battalions of those). It does not send a tank battalion off to support an infantry corps attack in another sector. That would completely waste the hitting power of the tanks.

The panzer division is designed to give the tanks all the types of support they need. The part of the front where full tank battalions are being used is the part where the panzer divisions are - which is a small minority of the overall front, not the part where the infantry divisions are - which is the bulk of its length.

[ June 03, 2003, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[urefinger]

ahhhhhhh thank u i see now

many thanks

but is it just me or do we only tend to see armour scenarios in cmbb. i mean ive played a few with infantry and support alone but if these type of forces made up the bulk of the line and - indeed - quite often bent the line with their attacks i think we need to see a LOT more of infantry and artillery scenarios

but say a infantry div was beimg routed by a mechanized russian div would a armoured corps be sent to help - or would they let them break through and run out of steam? also,these tank formations that occasionally backed up the infantry dis (attached armour) would these be stripped from other units or purpose created?

[GreenAsJade]

This has been an intersting thread, and in the end I find myself sharing ure's question: if infantry was expected to attack infantry regularly, then why do we rarely (ever?) see scenarios like that?

I know nothing about WWII, except what I learn from CMBO/B. What I'd gathered so far was like what ure said: combined arms was everything.

(The other thing I learned was never join the army, but that's a different story!)

[urefinger]

mayeb we could find a modder and request a few infantry, guns, fo's and support weapon scenarios (i think infantry div moved some of their at guns forward to the battle insted of just being a holding point in the rear in order to beat off ( no laughing ) any possible armour counterattack. furthermore i believe larwe quantities of ap ammo were assigned to fo's for that specific reason.

[JasonC]

Designers put in lots of tanks because they think players like lots of tanks, and because they like tanks themselves. Realism has nothing to do with it. FOs don't have AP shells. Whatever are you talking about? ATGs perhaps?

StuG brigades and independent Russian tank and SU regiments were not stripped out of other units, they were purpose built to support whatever unit a higher HQ decided needed their help. I don't know how many times it has to be repeated; I'll try "n+1".

When armor broke through the infantry lines, either there were strong reserves waiting to stop them (rare), weak reserves (most often), or nothing (more common than you'd think).

In the first case you got a big hasty attack style clash at the 2nd or 3rd line and typically the attackers ran out of oomph and the whole thing stalled.

In the second case you most often got an overrun odds meeting engagement with the attacker going over the weak reserve like a speed bump. Sometimes a snafu would let the weak reserve stall the attack until more help got there. Obviously in the third case the attacking armor kept going.

The front often moved 200 miles as a result. By then the attacking tanks ran out of gas, spread over wide areas trying to raid everything or contain fleeing everybody's, while new defenders rushed in from flanks or up rail lines from the rear or both.

If you think all the front line infantry divisions had whole armor corps waiting around like linebackers specifically to help them out if penetrated, think again. About the only time that really happened was Kursk, for the Russians. They had enough to attack themselves but chose to defend first with deep reserves. They had an entire *army group* in second echelon. Nobody had ever seen the like before.

Normally the guy with that much armor to spare was attacking with it. The Germans had such an offense minded armor doctrine they did not really grok its potential as a "linebacker" up at the operational scale. (A few generals did, but didn't get their way). Smaller bits did such things tactically, but pretty much only in Panzer division zones. (A handful of StuGs could do the same for the luckier infantry divisions, when they were attached).

Whenever they got together a whole flock of armor, they launched a grand counteroffensive, which would sometimes work (e.g. when the Russians were overextended), usually smash a lot of stuff for a few weeks but then fail, and sometimes turn into a bloody fiasco and lose the tanks for little gain.

Should players explore infantry force type vs. infantry force type engagements more? Sure, if they are interested in the history. Or if they just want to learn tactics from the ground up first, and add armor later. In infantry force type engagements, heavy weapons groups or manhandled towed guns do some of the things tanks can do. Others they can't do, so the fighting styles are different.

[Steiner14]

Interesting thread.

Here's only one example of the

3. Infanteriedivision (supporting JasonC's explanations):

year 1939:

Infanterie-Regiment 1

Infanterie-Regiment 22

Infanterie-Regiment 43

Maschinengewehr-Bataillon 31

Artillerie-Regiment 1

I./Artillerie-Regiment 37

Panzer-Abwehr-Abteilung 1

Aufklarungs-Abteilung 1

Pionier-Bataillone 1

Nachrichten-Abteilung 1

Sanitäts-Abteilung 1

You see, no tanks.

year 1944:

Grenadier-Regiment 1

Füsilier-Regiment 22

Grenadier-Regiment 43

Artillerie-Regiment 1

I./Artillerie-Regiment 37

Panzerjäger-Abteilung 1

Division-Füsilier-Bataillon 1

Pionier-Bataillon 1

Nachrichten-Abteilung 1

Sanitäts-Abteilung 1

-> Panzer.

During the war, it was a target, that ID were more able to handle tank-breakthroughs on their own.

Some ID, had already tanks (Panzerjäger-Abt.) in 1939.

Another point regarding your recon-question:

maybe it is of interest for you, that only the Germans used strong combined recon forces (mech. Inf. & tanks) on a regular basis.

The usual tactical procedere of small recon forces getting in touch with enemy lines and waiting for support while the enemy has time to react, too, was avoided:

immediate attack & breakthrough with strong, fully mechanized and combined forces, cutting off and taking the positions before the enemy can react and bring in stronger forces.

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

....Panzerjäger-Abteilung 1.....

Some ID, had already tanks (Panzerjäger-Abt.) in 1939....

I am open to correction but I believe the Panzerjager ("Tank Hunter") battalions in infantry divisions were mostly Pak. Along with ith an SP company that was usually Marders, or Panzerjager Is early on. So still no "tanks."

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by SFJaykey:

I am open to correction but I believe the Panzerjager ("Tank Hunter") battalions in infantry divisions were mostly Pak. Along with ith an SP company that was usually Marders, or Panzerjager Is early on. So still no "tanks."

Dunno what you mean with SP company, but with 'tanks' i followed Combat Mission's convention, of counting Panzerjäger (tank-destroyer) as tanks.

The Panzer-Abwehr-Abteilungen had no tanks (but PAKs), while the Panzerjäger-Abteilungen consisted of tank-destroyers.

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

[/qb]

Dunno what you mean with SP company....[/QB]

[manchildstein (ii)]

--Panzerjäger-Abteilung 1--

i think that a lot of these in the infantry divisions were towed pak