"Panzertaktik" - Wolfgang Schneider

[AOK. 11]

I just purchased "Panzertaktik" - by Wolfgang Schneider and I was wondering if anybody else out there had any experience with this book. For those of you that don't...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0921991525/qid=1089140510/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-4811710-6991241?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I will give you a brief description of the index...

Chapter I - Offensive Operations (Der Angriff)

Chapter II - Defensive Operations (Die Verteidigung)

Chapter III - Unit Movements (Der Marsch)

Chapter IV - Reconnaissance (Die Aufklaerung)

Chapter V - Command and Control (Die Fuhrung)

Chapter VI - Logistics and Maintenace (Die Logistik and Instandsetzung)

Chapter VII - Combined Arms Operations (Die Zusammenarbeit)

Chapter VIII - Life in a Panzer (Das Leben im Panzer)

Chapter - IX - Training and Panzer Gunnery (Die Ausbildung und das Panzerschieben)

Chapter X - Armor Tactics-Today and Tomorrow (Panzertaktik-heute and morgen)

The layout consists of the material that the chapter discusses laid out in text, maps, and graphs followed by a section of pictures of Panzers and support forces enguaged in that type of action. The text, maps, and graphs are presented well and very informative. They cover the chapters subject thoroughly. However, I would guess that about 50% of the book's 512 pages are dedicated to pictures. They are of very high quality, and most of these are from previously unpublished sources. Moreover, the pictures illustrate the subject of the chapter and help the reader get a visual idea of the tactical doctrine contained therein. The tactical doctrine discussed was obtained through a variety of sources: training manuals from the period, after-action reports, and countless interviews with Panzer veterans. In addition, the tactics contained in the book concentrate on action from battalion size down.

I just purchased the book so I have not had time to read it thoroughly. However, the material and pictures look superb. As I had mentioned earlier, I am wondering if anybody had previous experience with this work and if they had any thoughts as to its value.

[Sirocco]

I read it a while ago, and I felt that not only did it make for very interesting reading, it also helped with my application of tactics in CM. It's expensive, but I'd recommend it.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by XI_Legion_Nrth_Afr:

I just purchased "Panzertaktik" - by Wolfgang Schneider and I was wondering if anybody else out there had any experience with this book. [snips]

I think it's badly over-priced. It is not a bad book, but it seems to me that it contributes little new of interest, and is bulked up with photographs that are not particularly interesting in themselves and do nothing to illustrate the points made in the text.

Buying Jentz's "Panzer Truppen" is a much better way to use your German-tank-book-buying-money, in my opinion.

All the best,

John.

[K_Tiger]

(Die Ausbildung und das Panzerschieben)

You need a lot of men to "schieben" a Tank...

[George MC]

Originally posted by XI_Legion_Nrth_Afr:

I just purchased "Panzertaktik" - by Wolfgang Schneider and I was wondering if anybody else out there had any experience with this book. ....if anybody had previous experience with this work and if they had any thoughts as to its value.

I thought it was excellent. Very pricey, but I have found it a very useful reference book - even set up a scenario "Attack on village of Fedwar" based on one of the examples in the book.

I have also found Jentz's book 'Panzertruppen' equally as useful - loads of unit info and after action reports. In fact they both complement each other well I'd say.

i'd also recommend the Nafziger books 'German Panzer Tactics@ and 'The German Tank Platoon in WWII'. oooh ah like ma books!!

[George MC]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> (Die Ausbildung und das Panzerschieben)

You need a lot of men to "schieben" a Tank... </font>

[ParaBellum]

"to push"

[AOK. 11]

(Die Ausbildung und das Panzerschieben)

... I'm trying my best here...Ok, Fine! You found me out, I didn't take German in grade school..I took LATIN!

BEHOLD YOUR EMPEROR!

Imperator Caesar Augustus

(AHEM!)...I took Latin ...and I would encourage everyone to do the same..

[danielh]

A bit disapointed for the textual content, but the pictures are great.

Jentz's Panzer Truppen 1 & 2 are much more elightening, the same for the superb Wolfgang Schneider Tiger-series.

In general findings from real live expierences can only be translated into CM with a lot of caution. One has to exactly know the limitations of CM not to use otherwise correct tactics in real live which however would be wrong in CM.

Some of the important restrictions:

1. Almost every attacker tries to flank an enemy, something only possible under special conditions (fog, low light) in CM.

Tip: You can artificially "enlarge" battles where real manouvering can take place for bigger tank formations (meaning Platoon-Company) create scenarios with Fog on and otherwise very open terrain (denying Inf the small range bonuses), interesting tankbattles are guaranteed...

2. Defensive tactics however almost work as in real life: Always let the enemy move up to your position, and take him under fire from concealed position. (The last part being somewhat of a problem in CM, because concealment is not properly simulated in CM), your tank can be in perfect hulldown in some scatered tree and still be hit betw. 2-3 shot almost always, whereas in real this would be more like 5-6 shots atleast.

Only engage enemy armor when they are in the Infantry perimeter (300 m) and start to button up, because of infweapon fire, success is guaranteed.

3. Sadly, bunching up brings success in CM almost always in defensive battles (overwhelming firerate at selective targets), that's because camouflage and hulldowns don't have the importance as in real life in CM (Hit probabilities are much to high trough foliage and on moving or hulldown targets).

4. Tanks in CM are much, much to slow when not on roads. In real when you moved during an engagment, creeping around meant being a firing excercise target for the enemy -> death. The correct behaviour was: Drive at topmost possible speed for the terrain to the next firehalt, fire, and again move at topmost speed to your next firehalt.

Expecting anything useful in CM from this is out of question because even in dry flat terrain speeds esp. for fast tanks like T-34, Panthers and the like are far to low, and hit probabilities much to high even when fast moving perpendicular to the shooting gun on an asphalt covered road and at ridiculous ranges (A M4-Sherman taking out a fast moving Stug in softly rolling terrain with the first to third shot at 2000 m is just ridicolous).

5. Battles fought from the deep (for instance a tankreserve trying to spoil an enemy breakthrough in the most used method of flank attack) are hardly possible in CM, because scale is just to small. A Tankbattle needs atleast 5 x 5 km space when being fought in "open" terrain. However one can circumvent this again by artificial tactical enlargment of a given scenario by use of fog to some extent, giving up superior weapon performance at long range of course, however another inacuracy pays off here in this respect. With Fog on tanks have stupidly low hit probabilites even at 200m actually expressing a result otherwise valid only at much longer ranges.

6. CM centers around "stupid" frontal annihilation engagments normally avoided, unless one uses very big maps, but then again the relatively low movement speeds and short timeframes hinder extraordinarily. The average battle didn't last under half a day including movement to contact other then a classical storming out of the trench straight ahead as in WWI. Moreover a battle seldom was undertaken with smaller than Battalion sized forces, because small unit engagments are normally to be avoided because of their average high casulaty rates and therefore uneconomic.

Greets

Daniel

[Runyan99]

6. CM centers around "stupid" frontal annihilation engagments normally avoided, unless one uses very big maps, but then again the relatively low movement speeds and short timeframes hinder extraordinarily. The average battle didn't last under half a day including movement to contact other then a classical storming out of the trench straight ahead as in WWI. Moreover a battle seldom was undertaken with smaller than Battalion sized forces, because small unit engagments are normally to be avoided because of their average high casulaty rates and therefore uneconomic.

Amen.

[Fossiili]

Becouse I do not have a credit card I can not buy from the Web and get the book. So answer my question here:

Having T34's or PanzerIV's on a plain, how to advance?

1) In groups of four to five

2) Dispersed as irregular line

3) As pairs the other one always staing and beiing ready to shoot.

Against the AI for example in Proekrohovka scenario 2 and 3 works fine, but against human opponents I have not had much success.

In case of 1 you must be prepared for airattac.

[Fossiili]

What is the right taktik having for example T34's and T70's or PanzerIV's and III and II?

1) You have the light ones on the side of the heavy's

2) You send the light tanks forward first so you know where the enemy is hiding although you loose some light tanks.

I have applied 2.

[Alech]

Originally posted by Fossiili:

What is the right taktik having for example T34's and T70's or PanzerIV's and III and II?

1) You have the light ones on the side of the heavy's

2) You send the light tanks forward first so you know where the enemy is hiding although you loose some light tanks.

I have applied 2.

Well, later in the war (around Kursk) the Germans would use a “Panzer Wedge” which consisted of a few Tigers at the point of the wedge. They where flanked by Panthers that made up the “outer wall” of the wedge. Inside the wedge they put the more vulnerable PzIII and IV.

I guess they felt this would preserve the maximum of firepower the longest. A Tiger of Panther would hopefully survive the first few shots from the AT-guns, and then the whole wedge would fire back. At least I think that’s the theory behind it.

No idea if that works in CM though, and it stalled in Kusrk as well.

-Alech

[danielh]

Alech,

Tigers were not used together with Panthers in the Kurskbattle to my knowledge. Only ArmyDetKempf had a Tigerbattalion, whereas the three SS-PzDivs (LAH, Reich, Tot) each had a 13th Tigercpy (12 Tigers ea). Panthers were also in 4th Army area but as a Brigade in the area near Grossdeutschland Division IIRC.

But it's correct they used the Tiger at the point in their attackwedge.

However the 2nd SSPzKorps in no way stalled in Kursk, after battle of Prokhorovka (last (3rd) russian defenceline) the 4th Army had achieved tanksuperiority in the sector of 2nd SSPzKorps, Manstein still had a tankcorps in reserve (The russians had used up allmost all in the nearer area even those of Steppe Front), he and Hausser opted for the continuation of the offensive and comittment of the reservecorps. The attack was called off by Hitler (if anything useful could have wrenched from the Kurskoperation, now would have been the time..), and Tot & Reich were sent to help 6th Army at the Miusfront (Russian Diversiontattack to provoke the described reaction by Hitler). LAH was earmarked to be sent to Italy (As the situation didn't develop to a severe crisis only parts were actually sent). GD was sent to 9th Army to check the Russian attack toward Orel.

In Augsut (after filling up their ranks to some extent) the Russians launched the massive Rumjantsev Operation (in 4th Army area around Belgorod -> Kharkov). Here Reich, Tot & Grossdeutschland, were commited to check the russian spearheads in the area of Aleksandrevka (North of Kharkov), and badly mauled the russian armor once again, pushing the line back to the Merla river, enabling an orderly retreat (more or less) to the Pantherline at the Dnjepr.

Sources: Glantz's Battle of Kursk and Nipe's "Decision in the Ukraine Summer 1943 2nd SS & 3rd Tankcorps"

Greets

Daniel

[Alech]

Originally posted by danielh:

Tigers were not used together with Panthers in the Kurskbattle to my knowledge.

Hmmm... I could have sworn I saw a diagram of a "Panzer Wedge" with both Tigers and Panthers in it. Maybe that wasn't from Kursk though.

-Alech

[Fossiili]

As usual, no clear answer. Have you read the book "Panzertaktik"?

Panzerwedge suggests to put the best tanks in front and keep the week ones in relative shelter.

[Alech]

Sorry, I haven't read it.

When I'm forced to make an armored charge in CM I try to keep my softer AFVs in support of the heavies. I'm very conservative when I play, and hate to take losses. By keeping the heavies in front I hope they survive long enough to fire back, and with the support of the light AFVs it often works.

-Alech

[Fossiili]

"I try to keep my softer AFVs in support of the heavies". Sounds to be the best taktik. Any other opinions?

Supposing the opponent has some Panzerschreck teams waiting? Or some 75 mm AT-guns or T34 85 mm versions? Ar'nt T70's or Panzer II - IIIs cheaper to offer as tagets?

[rexford]

I was told that the Panzertaktik book has a discussion on page 487 of a German technique that allows quicker fire with a high hit %. The technique would be similar to U.S. Battlesight aim, where guns would be aimed at a range where the trajectory height never exceeds the target tank height.

Is the books' discussion worth buying the book?

We have German ballistic tables where the 50L60 APC, and APCBC for 75L48 and 88L56 guns, would not exceed a 2m flight path height if they were aimed for 900m shots at the target bottom. This suggests that a "Battlesight" aim technique may have been used by the Germans, resulting in higher rate of fire and increased hit probabilities.

We were also told that one of Patrick Agte's books has something on a similar panzer crew tactic for aiming at a range where the trajectory height does not exceed the target height, but the specific book was not identified. May have been something about German Tiger Commanders.

Anyone familiar with the Agte series of books?

Thanks for helping out on this stuff.

Lorrin

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by rexford:

I was told that the Panzertaktik book has a discussion on page 487 of a German technique that allows quicker fire with a high hit %. The technique would be similar to U.S. Battlesight aim, where guns would be aimed at a range where the trajectory height never exceeds the target tank height.

Is the books' discussion worth buying the book?

[snips]

I have already said elsewhere that I don't think the book justifies its very heavy price, so I could hardly recommend purchasing it just for the gunnery discussion. That said, the coverage of gunnery techniques and training is interesting. However, it does not describe anything I recognise as a "battlesight" or "Bovington method" style of shooting.

To give an idea of the standard of shooting required, I summarise here the school exercises mentioned as being in effect on 08 Jul 44, at a time when training had been made both shorter and more realistic by the pressures of war:

1st exercise: 4 rounds HE at a target representing an ATk gun at an unknown range between 800 and 1200 metres.

2nd exercise: 6 rounds HE against a similar target at an unknown range over 1200 metres.

3rd exercise: 4 rounds AP against a target representing the frontal aspect of a tank at an unknown range between 1200 and 2000 metres.

4th exercise: 3 rounds AP within 30 seconds against a target representing a tank crossing the line of fire at 20 km/h at an unknown range between 800 and 1200 metres.

The requirement for each exercise is to obtain 1 hit. Targets over 1200m away are ranged using a bracketing procedure, for those within 1200m fire for effect is opened immediately.

It is also stated that the gunner is trained to open fire on his own initiative, with the possibility of being overruled by the TC. Mention is also made of using AP as the usual "battle-carry" round, and a range of 800 or 1000 metres already set on the sights.

All the best,

John.

[rexford]

Thanks John.

Interesting that there is no mention of range estimate averaging by the tank commander (gunner estimate weighted twice as much), as included in Tiger Fibel.

[ August 02, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[rexford]

"It is also stated that the gunner is trained to open fire on his own initiative, with the possibility of being overruled by the TC. Mention is also made of using AP as the usual "battle-carry" round, and a range of 800 or 1000 metres already set on the sights."

That's it!

Set the range for 800m or 1000m before the target comes into view, and then adjust fire onto the target and use that one range for all shots from point blank to 800m. That is what I was looking for.

Our calculations showed that using a range setting of about 800m with aim at target bottom would result in a high percentage of first round hits from point blank to 800m against 2m high or taller targets.

800m would work great for 50L60, 75L48 and 88L56, and 1000m for 88L71.

1000m range setting would probably catch most 2m high targets from 800m to 1000m.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by rexford:

[snips]

That's it!

Set the range for 800m or 1000m before the target comes into view, and then adjust fire onto the target and use that one range for all shots from point blank to 800m. That is what I was looking for.

To be strictly picky and pickily strict, the book does not actually say that the first shot would be fired at the pre-set range. By way of analogy, the SLR I carried in my TA days had sights adjustable to 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 metres. The sights were, as a matter of routine, set to 300 metres. That did not mean that you were not expected to make a correct sight-setting if firing at a different range.

Originally posted by rexford:

Our calculations showed that using a range setting of about 800m with aim at target bottom would result in a high percentage of first round hits from point blank to 800m against 2m high or taller targets.

800m would work great for 50L60, 75L48 and 88L56, and 1000m for 88L71.

1000m range setting would probably catch most 2m high targets from 800m to 1000m.

I wonder if similar thinking was behind the British early-war practice of aiming at the bottom of a tank target. The Royal Armoured Corps abandoned this practice and adopted the current on of aiming at the centre of mass, and I believe their gunnery standards improved as a result.

All the best,

John.

[rexford]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

[snips]

That's it!

Set the range for 800m or 1000m before the target comes into view, and then adjust fire onto the target and use that one range for all shots from point blank to 800m. That is what I was looking for.

To be strictly picky and pickily strict, the book does not actually say that the first shot would be fired at the pre-set range. By way of analogy, the SLR I carried in my TA days had sights adjustable to 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 metres. The sights were, as a matter of routine, set to 300 metres. That did not mean that you were not expected to make a correct sight-setting if firing at a different range.

Originally posted by rexford:

Our calculations showed that using a range setting of about 800m with aim at target bottom would result in a high percentage of first round hits from point blank to 800m against 2m high or taller targets.

800m would work great for 50L60, 75L48 and 88L56, and 1000m for 88L71.

1000m range setting would probably catch most 2m high targets from 800m to 1000m.

I wonder if similar thinking was behind the British early-war practice of aiming at the bottom of a tank target. The Royal Armoured Corps abandoned this practice and adopted the current on of aiming at the centre of mass, and I believe their gunnery standards improved as a result.

All the best,

John. </font>

[danielh]

Hi Rexford !

I'm glad i'm not so dumb as i may sometimes seem....

The game in question is a "massive" Multiplayer Online-Game. I've left long time ago because of to many gamesystem related fundamental problems.

Nevertheless one can sometimes extract interesting insights on some tactical/technical questions of warfare. In this special case in tank/AT-Gun vs. tank combat.

Btw: Many thanks, for your tireless research on ballistics, armor, ballistics and procedures to deploy tankguns !!!!

Greets

Daniel