How Common Was Armor?

[Wunsche]

Since there are many much brighter and better informed people than me on this forum, maybe you can answer a question I have.

Essentially, in every PBEM game that I have participated in EVERYONE has armor no matter the situation. I am as guilty of this as everyone else, but my question is how common was armor on the Eastern Front? It seems from my reading of history books, that clearly armor did exist in large numbers and was actively engaged along the main axes of attack. But what about all those infantry divisions fighting other infantry divisions elsewhere? Did MkIVs and T-34s show up there as well? Or was infantry versus infantry a much more common battle? And the same goes for ATGs. If the big ATGs were everywhere like they are in my games, etc., what good is the reconnaisance battalion armed only with light tanks and tin can armored cars?

In essence when the 126.Infanterie-Division fought let's say the 112th Rifle Division, wasn't essentially it MGs, rifles, grenades, and artillery that fought it out? No fancy Panthers or ISU-122s.

Some color would be appreciated to put my games in perspective. Is all that armor and ATGs as common as the game leads me to believe or are we all bringing the sexier, dangerous stuff to the battle to counter our opponent?

(Since I always pick Waffen SS troops, my games already represent such a small fraction of the overall front but armor should be more common since most of the Waffen SS units were Panzer or Panzergrenadier units.)

[JasonC]

You are just playing a narrow range of CMBB fights. The most common would be an infantry division type with combined arms level of armor support, attacking an infantry division type with the infantry force type. The guy with a little armor tended to have the initiative.

Infantry force type on both sides was certainly common all along the front, but those portions weren't as active as others. You'd see that in forest or mountain terrain, sometimes in urban. You'd see it in other forms of terrain less often, not because there wasn't infantry opposite infantry but because they weren't attacking each other. Very vigorously, that is. They still ran patrol scale actions and lobbed a drizzle of shells each other's way.

The short adage on the subject for WW II in general is that the artillery did the killing, the armor did the fighting, and the infantry did the dying.

Meaning, a lot of the losses were due to slow processes of attrition, from millions of shells being tossed in the general direction of the enemy, often without anything as dramatic as a CM scenario involved. A lot of infantry was lost in small scale actions, against each other and to artillery fire, in dribs and drabs rather than big showy, evenly matched firefights.

The armor, meanwhile, was concentrated in just those places where the dramatic tactical fighting was going on. But not always the amounts of it you see in CMBB QBs, and above all not so evenly matched on both sides. The attacker generally had an order of magnitude more armor available at the points he was attacking. The defenders would have a few AFVs at best, and often just towed guns.

Towed guns, on the other hand, were not scarce. They were spread all along the line. Typically they lived in strongpoints or strings of strongpoints of 4-12 guns, but they were set up to interlock their fire, to prevent anyone just waltzing through in a halftrack. There were enough guns running about that modest levels of armor support (the "combined arms" setting in CMBB terms) could be met by serious AT.

You might be seeing more evenly match numbers of defending guns to attacking AFVs than occurred in some important cases, though. In places of serious initial attacks by armor division forces, you'd see an armored force type attacker, with half to two thirds of his budget spent on AFVs, facing a defender with only a handful of guns.

Defenders adapted by shifting more reserve guns behind the points penetrated, and the defense schemes were deep, with multiple belts of overlapping guns within range. But at the point of initial penetration, it would be perfectly ordinary for full companies of tanks (10-30) to face only a single battery of ATGs (4).

The attackers would get through one of those (practically always), and then there would be three more to deal with - deeper, better, more numerous, etc. Within 48 hours there would be enemy armor reserves, too, if the attack didn't stall beforehand.

You should really experiment with the levels of armor support CMBB provides. It does a pretty good job of tracking the doctrinal and tactical variety. For instance, a German infantry division parent formation with combined arms gets a quite small armor budget. Enough for a few StuGs or Marders, but not enough for a flock of Panthers or Tigers.

If it is attacked by a Russian Mech parent formation with attacker odds, working with the higher armor point budget Mech Russians have, a handful of mobile AT platforms can face 5 to 1 vehicle odds.

E.g. at the 1000 point level, a typical German combined arms defense might have 1 StuG or 2 Marders, along with 1 75mm PAK and an infantry gun, a company of infantry, extra HMGs, trenches, mines, wire, 105 support with a TRP. The attacking Russians (Mech combined arms, 1500 points) might have 6 T-34s and 2 companies of infantry, a few FOs and support weapons. If the Russians have an armor force type, there will be more like 10 tanks, lighter arty or lower infantry odds.

The thing to avoid is just getting into a "mobile division type combined arms on both sides, always meeting engagement" war. That is not what the war in Russia was like, but CMBB can't show you that if you deliberately refuse to let it.

[aka_tom_w]

"Towed guns, on the other hand, were not scarce. They were spread all along the line. Typically they lived in strongpoints or strings of strongpoints of 4-12 guns, but they were set up to interlock their fire, to prevent anyone just waltzing through in a halftrack. There were enough guns running about that modest levels of armor support (the "combined arms" setting in CMBB terms) could be met by serious AT."

interesting post

that all sounds VERY realistic

are there any GOOD historical (or even fictional) attack/defend premade scenarios where you can see that kind of TO&E and distribution of forces for the attacker and defender?

what is missing in this game (or I have simply not looked hard enough for it) are the scenarios where the attacker is attacking because he has a local superiority of armour and the defender has plenty of AT guns and inf. dug in

I don't play any QB's but I admit MOST PBEM's I enjoy are pre made scenarios that are meeting engagements and usually both sides have plenty of armour.

I think I should try somthing different for a change like a scenario where the attacker has plenty of armour and the defender is dug in with AT guns

Any suggestions for scenarios?

the oringal post makes a good point

Thanks

-tom w

[demoss]

If the big ATGs were everywhere like they are in my games, etc., what good is the reconnaisance battalion armed only with light tanks and tin can armored cars?

If the big AT guns are everywhere, would you rather lose a Pz IV or a PSW 222 in order to find them? In a situation like you postulate, the recon battalion would presumably spot the heavy resistance and withdraw to report their findings, leaving the "fighting" troops fresh and ready for action - while the enemy doesn't really know what they're up against.

I like to have some recon-type assets on hand just about all the time. They're rarely a liability, even if they're wiped out.

[Shosties]

Originally posted by demoss:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If the big ATGs were everywhere like they are in my games, etc., what good is the reconnaisance battalion armed only with light tanks and tin can armored cars?

If the big AT guns are everywhere, would you rather lose a Pz IV or a PSW 222 in order to find them? In a situation like you postulate, the recon battalion would presumably spot the heavy resistance and withdraw to report their findings, leaving the "fighting" troops fresh and ready for action - while the enemy doesn't really know what they're up against.

I like to have some recon-type assets on hand just about all the time. They're rarely a liability, even if they're wiped out. </font>

[Shosties]

Originally posted by Shosties4th:

Moving towards the VLs better involves recon by force as it is guaranteed that heavy weapons that will eat a AC/HT will be sighted on these approaches.

(Shameless self-quote)

And here we find a good reason for the why the Russians kept ATR platoons around after they stood no chance at KO'ing tanks.

[Cpt. Cook]

frankly I find early war, light, crappy armor, small atgs and lots of infantry way more fun to play with than a bunch of big tanks and guns.

[Chad Harrison]

As Jason pointed out, remember that CMBB is focusing on a very narrow part of the war. Realism of OOB is out the window as soon as you select a QB. My favorite examples were from CMBO . . .

"Okay sir, the battle is about to start. Before you set up your troops I want to go over our forces. We have 2 companies of regular ami troops. Since we are in heavy woods, we also brought along a company of airborne troops. We only had a few points left for infantry, so we also have a platoon of british troops.

"Support weapons? Great news! We have 14 crack zooks ready to roll. Even though a German plane has never been seen over our troops, we have 6 40mm bofors, and 3 M16 halftracks. We spent a few more points on a couple flamethrowers to draw enemy fire.

"Tanks? Boy will you be excited! We have 6 greyhounds and 6 M8 HMC's. We are not a recon unit, but they are cheap and work really well. We have 2 Jumbo Sherman 76's, and 2 pershings!

"Artillery? We went straight to Corps for our artillery support. We have some great 155mm and 6in naval guns! But dont worry about where to land the shells. The two big flags of this map are right in those woods, we will just put our target reference points there!"

[PeterX]

LOL! You nailed the QB mentality, Chad. Except, you forgot to include the SMG squads, the superstars of PBEM in CM1.

Realism of OOB is out the window as soon as you select a QB.

You combine player selection of forces and a type of battle, the Meeting Engagement, not seen in nature, and a strange brew results. I'm waitng for the Autoselect Ladder.

[Nippy]

You combine player selection of forces and a type of battle, the Meeting Engagement, not seen in nature, and a strange brew results. I'm waitng for the Autoselect Ladder.

As opposed to AI selection of forces and battle type:

"Hmmm...A Soviet Assault against a German Mechinized force. Lets see, I got some PZIIs, a recon company with no heavy weapon support, and some 37mm armed half-tracks."

*Clank**Clank**Clank**Clank**Clank*

"Oh look, here comes a platoon of Vet KV-1s backed up by a SMG company and a few pioneer platoons."

[Wunsche]

Thanks again for the good responses. I guess I will have to ween myself off the concept of trying to recreate Waffen SS combat between 5/43 and 5/45 and be more open to experimenting with the Heer with my fun PBEM opponents.

Nonetheless, it is tough just letting the OOB be decided by CMBB though. If I want to do an assault simulating LSSAH or Wiking crashing forward, I get stuck with SS mechanized and depending on the point total, I can only scratch up a platoon of MkIVs and another of StuGs to support a reinforced infantry company. What insane point total do I need to set the battle up for to get a platoon of Panthers (which should represent approximately half of a Waffen SS Panzer division's tanks in the late war period) or a company of MkIVs without using "unrestricted"? I assume Spring Awakening and the relief battles around Budapest involved massed German armored assaults that I have a tough time recreating in QBs. I guess the response is to make my own scenarios.

Again thanks for all the great responses. I would argue that ME aren't unnatural when you consider all the times that breakthrough operations occurred on the East Front. When the lines became fluid with opposing forces rushing forces to take important ground that was in the defense's rear or when the defense was almost surrounded and trying to find a way out of the trap, a ME would occur in my mind. But I could be wrong.

[Esper]

Originally posted by Cpt. Cook:

frankly I find early war, light, crappy armor, small atgs and lots of infantry way more fun to play with than a bunch of big tanks and guns.

I think that is why i enjoy our games so much

[PeterX]

Wunsche posted:

I would argue that ME aren't unnatural when you consider all the times that breakthrough operations occurred on the East Front.

According to Steve, who posted on this very subject a couple of months ago, they were very rare. The few times equal forces collided one of the two tended to default to the defense.

The unnatural aspect of MEs in CM is that the opposing teams are exactly equal in points and the opponents know they're equal. MEs, as they play out, exhibit a curious ebb and flow which may be entertaining but seldom ressemble a WW2 battle, the majority of which would properly be described- in CM terms- as Assaults. OTOH, I've played some scenarios that convincingly depict an ME type battle, the Benicourt battle from CMBO for example.

[JasonC]

SS attacks should have the "armor" force type in addition to a panzer division parent unit type, not a "combined arms" force type. With the armor force type, you can spend your entire budget on tanks if you want. You decide how to balance the armor portion of the force with other arms.

The Germans typically attacked with armor heavy teams built tactically around a full company of armor, with as little as a single company of infantry. At the spearhead, the armor regiment was in the driver's seat and the armor to infantry ratio was often as low as 1-1.

The SS division as a whole had a 1-2 to 1-3 armor to infantry force mix. But infantry heavy KGs (formed around the Pz Gdr regiments) had the defensive, reserve, or secondary attack tactical roles. Those are what the "combined arms" level of armor support simulate.

You don't need a monster sized point total to see how they attacked. In the early war you might fit inside 1500-1750 points (1000 points of defenders and attack odds e.g.). Late, 2000 will be enough if you use Pz IVs, 3000 is enough with Panthers. With a Panther force, 2/3rds of the budget will be armor, while with Pz IVs or earlier tanks 1/2 will be armor.

E.g. 1944 Panther company base force - 2 platoons of Panthers, 1 motorized Pz Gdr company, 2 SPW-251/1s (help carry mortars), 105mm or 120mm radio FO, a sharpshooter. 3000 points, 2/3rds of them on just the Panthers. Or with Pz IVs, 2 platoons of those in place of the Panthers, skip the SPWs, and you fit in a 2000 point budget with a little more than half spent on armor.

Those are typical *armor* force type forces. They simulate a portion of a KG built around the Panzer regiment, with some Pz Gdrs assigned to work with them.

If you want the accompanying infantry to be armored (from the lone halftrack mounted Pz Gdr battalion, or the divisional armored Recce battalion, either perhaps with some armored pioneers too), you will need a budget 1000 points higher. Those points will show up as the "vehicle" category. Veterans or a mix of those rather than regulars you might need 500 points additional.

If instead you take the "combined arms" force type, you are simulating a force from one of the KGs based on the Pz Gdr regiments. It will be "stiffened" with StuGs or Jagds from a divisional battalion, or tanks from the Panzer regiment split to support a whole regiment of infantry with a single battalion of Panzers, sometimes less. But it is basically an infantry heavy force with some armor support, not a tank heavy force.

It all makes sense if you understand the typical divisional "tasking" the Germans engaged in. The panzer division was thought of as a 3 regiment organization, 1 panzer and 2 panzergrenadier, plus attached battalions of SP guns, recce, and pioneers, which together amounted to another regiment's worth.

These were "blended" by KG cross attachments to get the desired armor to infantry to speciality troop mix for the tactical mission assigned to that regimental KG. Within a regimental KG the same could go on with battalions and companies, but not below that - the company was the basic tactical "atom". But CM fights don't always represent the whole assigned group.

E.g. The Panther battalion is paired with the lone half tracked Pz Gdr battalion as a spearhead KG. The lone armored pioneer company is also assigned to this force. The SP arty battalion (12 wespe, 6 hummel) is assigned to support it. Then the Pz IV battalion assigns 2 companies to each of the Pz Gdr regiments. The pioneers are with the one that lost the armored Pz Gdr battalion. Each has a 105 battalion in dedicated support.

The divisional Pz Jgrs (or StuG) are with the armored Recce as a reserve and exploitation force. FLAK is with this reserve, or split among the 3 KGs. The divisional 150 battalion (and any rockets) shifts fires to support whoever.

These are "divisional" troops, left in the division commander's hands. The recce KG can be turned loose as a 4th "regiment", but until then remain in the divisional commander's hands as his way to influence the battle as it develops.

What results in the front line KG? The spearhead force gets a ratio of armor companies to infantry type companies of 1 to 1. All the tanks are Panthers, and all the infantry is halftracked. It is a very powerful attacking force.

The other regimental KGs each have 8-9 companies worth of infantry to 2 companies worth of Panzer IVs. Tactically, these will wind up with infantry companies supported by tank platoons. That is enough armor to reduce pockets of resistence left by the spearhead, to hold off small scale counterattacks, etc.

Within each regimental KG, defensive and reserve missions may be starved of armor, making do with regimental assault guns or towed PAK and FLAK. If so, that will allow other groups to attack with full Pz IV companies in support of single Pz Gdr battalions.

Those are the kind of force mixes "combined arms" with a SS mobile division parent unit type are meant to represent. Not the spearhead. The spearhead is "armor" force type.

A different mission might result in different tasking. Perhaps the recce and armored Pz Gdrs have long "patrol" frontages assigned to them in particularly open terrain (on the flanks, in the wake of the advance, etc). They might be supported by the Pz Jgrs again, or might not, resulting in a "combined arms" or a "mechanized" force type.

The Panthers might attack with a full 3 battalion motorized Pz Gdr regiment. The other Pz Gdr regiment might be "in column" behind the first one, with Pz IVs and 2 motorized Pz Gdr battalions. The bulk of the arty might support the spearhead, minus only a battalion for reserve fires. Or the Wespes might support the light armor guys as well.

In the spearhead of that force, you'd see a company of Panthers to 2 companies of motorized Pz Gdrs, with heavier, 150mm artillery support. If you want a whole armor company that would run around 5000 points, armor force type, with half spent on tanks. But you could cut it in half easily enough - e.g. 5 Panthers, 1 Pz Gdr company, 1 150mm radio FO, a few SPWs, a few 75mm HTs or Grille SP infantry guns.

I hope this explains what the force types and parent unit type categories are for, and how to use them. You just have to drop the notion that "combined arms" means "ordinary". It simply doesn't.

What is "ordinary" is for the armor to infantry ratio to vary, based on the tactical mission and the tasking the higher level parent formation used to make up the tactical force sent to a given CM scenario's part of the front. Sometimes you get armor, sometimes combined arms, sometimes mech, out of that - with the same parent division.

[Cpt. Cook]

Originally posted by Esper:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpt. Cook:

frankly I find early war, light, crappy armor, small atgs and lots of infantry way more fun to play with than a bunch of big tanks and guns.

I think that is why i enjoy our games so much </font>

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by PeterX:

LOL! You nailed the QB mentality, Chad. Except, you forgot to include the SMG squads, the superstars of PBEM in CM1.

Oh! How could I forget the SMG squads? But the Ami's version of that were the paratroopers. Now the russian SMG squads seem to be the ever reacurring favorite of late war CMBB

Originally posted by Nippy:

As opposed to AI selection of forces and battle type . . .

We never said the AI selection was any better for actual gameplay. For some reason it always gives me green units? AI selection is great for playing against the AI though, with ranodom everything {map, weather, ect}. Teaches you to play with what you have in where you are.

Chad

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

interesting post

that all sounds VERY realistic

are there any GOOD historical (or even fictional) attack/defend premade scenarios where you can see that kind of TO&E and distribution of forces for the attacker and defender?

I think I should try somthing different for a change like a scenario where the attacker has plenty of armour and the defender is dug in with AT guns

Any suggestions for scenarios?

-tom w

One of my GD scenarios has a strong Russian armoured force assaulting German defensive positions with anti-tank assets. I've striven with the other ones to concentrate on the infantry battle rather than armour, which I agree is pretty over-represented in CM.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Shosties4th:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by demoss:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If the big ATGs were everywhere like they are in my games, etc., what good is the reconnaisance battalion armed only with light tanks and tin can armored cars?

If the big AT guns are everywhere, would you rather lose a Pz IV or a PSW 222 in order to find them? </font>

[JasonC]

Light armor was not used tactically as a sacrifice gun and AT minefield discoverer ahead of battle AFVs, as CMBB encourages.

The following comments refer to the German armored recon in particular. About the same was true of the US cavalry; I know less about recon uses in the other armies.

It mostly had screening roles, ran patrols, or in battle followed the heavy armor. Recon battalions generally stayed together, or occasionally detached companies, rather than giving single vehicles or platoons to other battalions.

Where is light armor in its element? On the long flanks left by a rapid advance. On open steppe terrain, in little knots of vehicles every kilometer, scanning the horizon. Setting up small roadblocks in forest or urban terrain, with the rest of a company a radio call and 15 minutes away.

They have a lot of infantry heavy weapons type firepower (MGs, light direct fire guns) that outranges ordinary infantry, so even modest numbers can hold off infantry forces. Try hauling ATGs up to take pot shots at them with wagons, while they are moving around. Mobility gives the ability to deny battle.

They also advanced, sure, but especially into open space, against no opposition, or light scattered stuff (stragglers, small roadblocks, leg guys isolated out on wide open steppe). Go around, not through. In breakthrough situations, continuous fronts aren't available, vunerable enemy "soft" columns are running around what were recently rear areas, etc.

When they get within a kilometer of serious, in position enemies, they notice and report their positions and pull into cover, screening said enemies with the same ranged firepower, to defend the places they've already reached. They could do this even on motorcycles (or for the US, jeeps), and (in the first half of the war for the Germans) did so.

When advancing against opposition, they worked in combined teams in which they substituted for infantry not armor, with heavier AFVs attached. In that (later) role, they were like a second halftrack mounted battalion in each panzer division.

Their armored car (and armed halftrack) firepower made up for lower infantry numbers. The main role of their protection in that mission was rapidly getting them to the front unscathed, through enemy shellfire in particular.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Light armor was not used tactically as a sacrifice gun and AT minefield discoverer ahead of battle AFVs, as CMBB encourages.

Not with the prices for them

They also advanced, sure, but especially into open space, against no opposition, or light scattered stuff (stragglers, small roadblocks, leg guys isolated out on wide open steppe). Go around, not through. [...]

When they get within a kilometer of serious, in position enemies, they notice and report their positions and pull into cover

Well, how do you know an area is "open" (and here open means free of enemies)? Usually by going there. You know it ain't open if you see someone there, and this often means you get fired at.

In CMBB (or any squad-level wargame I know) you already know somebody is on the map, but you don't know where. So given the small timescale, you have to find it fast (or play longer battles) Hence you do the scouting that would have happened pre-game during the first turns - if you have the assets.

But lets face it - if I know there are 76mm guns around, a tiny 221 has better survival chances than a PzIIIg. It can get back out of trouble much faster. On the given "CM-situation", which may not be too representative of RL, it is often a good alternative. At least if somebody forgot to spend some points on some light ranged AT weapons .

Gruß

Joachim

[Wunsche]

JasonC,

I bow down to your unbelievable knowledge. Thanks for the great info, though now you have extended the life of my Waffen SS gaming at the expense of trying some of the more common Heer combat. I'll need to bookmark this so that I can go back and refer to the force picks and point totals. If you aren't already, you should clearly be teaching at college somewhere or writing books. Either that or cranking out scenario after scenario with Rune!

Yann

[ May 26, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Wunsche ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Scarhead:

In CMBB (or any squad-level wargame I know) you already know somebody is on the map, but you don't know where. So given the small timescale, you have to find it fast (or play longer battles) Hence you do the scouting that would have happened pre-game during the first turns - if you have the assets.

This is probably more a function of scenario design than misuse of in game assets. What CM needs is side-specific landmarks, so that prior recce can be simulated. This has been discussed previously and is an ongoing concern.

[manchildstein (ii)]

i would guess that - at least from early '43 onward - that the soviets would have had afvs in the majority of their battles.

overall they had very high production numbers, and on paper their infantry - at least at some level - had organic armor support, even if just t-60, t-70, or su-76...

now i'm not saying their were is-2 tanks or t-34/85s everywhere up and down the line, but that most formations - even the infantry - had some kind of afv support.

so if the 'correct' type of soviet afv is chosen, it is probably never really 'out of place' in a given battle...

as for lssah in spring awakening, i believe franko was developing a scenario based around simontoryna.

as for simontornya, there is also my own, 'ragnarok' to be played against the soviet ai

i have to agree with a couple of observations made here... that armored cars are probably overpriced for quick battles but that scenarios designed with them are highly interesting;

...and that, in general battles with the earlier-war afvs are more interesting as well...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by manchildstein II:

i would guess that - at least from early '43 onward - that the soviets would have had afvs in the majority of their battles.

overall they had very high production numbers, and on paper their infantry - at least at some level - had organic armor support, even if just t-60, t-70, or su-76...

Total AFV production according to one source was 102,000 vehicles (71,000 of which were T-34s, KVs or ISs).

I presume this includes the 24,000 on inventory at war's beginning, some 7,000 of which were battleworthy.

By the end of 1941, all but about 4500 tanks were lost, over 2000 of which were in the far east guarding against Japanese attack.

So presume 80,000 AFVs of all types in service between Dec 1941 and the end of the war. Not including Lend Lease, which accounted for 6300 US tanks (of 7200 dispatched through the North Atlantic), and 4600 British/Canadian tanks (of 5200 dispatched).

Figure 90,900 AFVs spread over four years, divided by - what - 300 divisions?

I should imagine the worth of Soviet tanks was measured not in their ability to be used all along the front, but in their ability to be concentrated at specific points - leaving those other parts of the line without them. Given a German opponent lacking in strategic initiative, that would not be such a bad thing. But it probably meant lots of battalions - on both sides - operated locally against each other, away from the large scale and famous offensives - without the benefit of armour support.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by manchildstein II:

overall they had very high production numbers, and on paper their infantry - at least at some level - had organic armor support, even if just t-60, t-70, or su-76...

I am not certain if Soviet infantry ever had organic AFV support. AFAIK attachments of armour were made on the basis of need, and were always temporary in principle, although they could be long-lasting in practice.

The high production numbers came along with very high losses, and AIUI in 1943 there was actually a net loss in available AFVs. At the same time, tank corps were extended to full-blown tank armies.

There are plenty of actions where neither side would have had AFVs, from 1941 to 1945. Most of these are eminently suitable for CM battles. They are just not written about very often I guess, because people get so infatuated with Panzers.