Any Tactical Use of Panzer Grenadiere?

[The Schwabian]

Hello again, all!

I was recently reading the book "Panzer Tactics" by Wolfgang Schneider, wherein the idea of the tactical use of Panzer Grenadiere is expounded apon. From reading it i got the sense that mounted panzer grenadiere were used tactically at a ratio of about 1 company PzGd per battalion of tanks. I know that this company was switched around, as there were not that many companies of PzGd per panzer division. the book says that the infantry were to fight mounted for as long as possible. when they had to dismount, two of the three machine guns were removed from the halftrack (the ones attached to the squad) and carried on dismounted combat. this leads me to believe that they were used in a tactic sense at least part of the time. but i've heard in the forums here that they are only useful at the operational level, or even simply as lorries in the strategical sense.

sooo basically i want to know if someone could describe how the panzer grenadiere were used tactically, like how would an average panzer attack work, with maybe a battalion of tanks and a company of PzGd, or less or whatnot?

Or am i wrong, and they were simply used at the operational/ strategical level?

and lastly, does the CM engine portray mounted firing? i don't think it does, but i could be wrong. and are there any other problems with CM in demonstrating this kind of combat (such as the price being to high or something?)

thanks for all replies.

~Schwabian

[Cuirassier]

See this thread here

[George MC]

If you want to fight using SPW as they would be used and not on some 1km by 1km battlefield check out these Blowtorch Battalion Scenario Series

Peiper made SPW an offensive weapon and these scenarios recreate that use.

On the otherhand SPW in your average CMBB battlefield have limited use, mostly due to the size of the battlefield and latter timescales used (where AT weapons and PAKs become more prevalent).

Cheers fur noo

George

[Vergeltungswaffe]

One more thing to keep in mind is that a good percentage of battles in WWII, in the east and west, were basically infantry versus infantry, without tanks and things around that are so hard on SPW's.

[Redwolf]

There is a book "fighting techniques of the Panzergrenadiere" which is in places a little naive but nontheless has good parts on basic tactics for mounted infantry.

It's one of these big-format but cheap books with a lot of diagrams and drawings.

[JasonC]

It is beyond naive. It is a doctrinal wish list comic book, with no relation to wartime reality.

No reflection on you Redwolf, just on that particular source. I understand the tendency to rely on a source just because it is there and is the nearest thing to what is really wanted, in subject covered etc. The same thing sent me to the same book, in the past. But it is just so untrustworthy as to what you can and can't actually expect to accomplish with the things, and what they actually did.

[ May 19, 2007, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[RockinHarry]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

There is a book "fighting techniques of the Panzergrenadiere" which is in places a little naive but nontheless has good parts on basic tactics for mounted infantry.

It's one of these big-format but cheap books with a lot of diagrams and drawings.

"fighting techniques of the Panzergrenadiere", is that the exact title and who´s the author? Is there any mentioning of sources the author refered to?

I find Middledorfs, "Taktik im Russlandfeldzug" as well as Guderian/Munzels "Panzer Marsch!" quite useful and reliable (credible) when it comes to Panzergrenadier (mounted) attack techniques applied during the war. These also don´t conflict with a 1944 german training manual ("Gefechtsausbildung der Panzergrenadiere"/Combat training of the Panzergrenadiere, by Helmut von Wehren) in my posession.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by George Mc:

Peiper made SPW an offensive weapon and these scenarios recreate that use.

Err, no. Sorry to intrude on the hero-worshipping, but Peiper did no such thing, it already was an offensive weapon. Just read up on what the armoured KG of 1. PD did in 1941.

As for the point by Vergeltung - well yes, but those infantry on infantry battles were not where the tanks would be found, by definition, and the SPW went with the tanks, since they were a part of the Panzerdivisions. And since the Red Army intelligence from at least mid-war onwards usually had a good grasp of where the few mechanised formations of the Wehrmacht hung out, they made sure they put lots of things that could hurt SPWs and tanks into their way.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

I see armoured Panzergrenadiers like cavalry. They are great if you are using them against a disorganised enemy, and/or one that has no means to defend itself against even lightly armoured vehicles. In that case speed can be used to cover distance, dismounting inside a position is possible, because the superior training and morale will tell. That's why these tactics were so successful in 1941 in Russia.

Now scroll forward a bit. Suddenly your enemy is tough as nails, has lots of ATRs, and is willing to use them, and is under command and control. Try repeating the stunt and you are bound to lose quite a few of your vehicles. Sure, there will still be situations where you are facing demoralised badly led conscripts, and the key is to understand when that is the case. But more often than not you won't have that pleasant situation, and the defenders will make you pay for using doctrine drill.

All the best

Andreas

[George MC]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by George Mc:

Peiper made SPW an offensive weapon and these scenarios recreate that use.

Err, no. Sorry to intrude on the hero-worshipping, but Peiper did no such thing, it already was an offensive weapon. Just read up on what the armoured KG of 1. PD did in 1941.

All the best

Andreas </font>

[Andreas]

Sorry George, I did not get a lot of sleep recently (nothing to do with magma, just ordinary jetlag), which makes me testy.

Here is something you maybe interested in - not sure which sources you used:

Agte's book is the purest form of forging history. Peiper's command of the LSSAH Panzer-Regiment in the 1943/44 Ukrainian battles was a disaster. The other officers in the regiment feared that his gung-ho "SPW-style" methods would destroy the regiment and they were right. Peiper simply did not understand tank warfare. He burned down his panzers in a series of catastrophic attacks against dug-in Soviet AT guns, moved deep into enemy territory without any protection on the flanks, to such an extent that LSSAH commanders like Albert Frey refused to attach their men to Peiper's outfit in fear of losing them. Each and every attack, even when succesful, cost too many tanks and too many men. The fighting near Radomyschl on December 10, 1943, was especially disastrous. Peiper did not care about recconaissance or tactical manouvres, he send his troops forward and smashed his regiment head first into strong Russian defensive positions. The German tanks were helpless. Divisional commander Teddy Wisch witnessed the slaughter of his tanks and he ordered to abandon the attack to prevent further "turkey shooting" by Soviet AT guns. A few hours later Peiper insisted to try again and in similar fasion, and the result was the same. Again, a furious Wisch had to stop the attack and ordered Peiper back. It was only three weeks after he had taken command after Schönberger was killed and after those three weeks Peiper had only 12 tanks left. He was ordered back to the divisional staff to be replaced by Kuhlmann. Peiper was with the divisional staff and in Germany for rest and holiday while Kuhlmann led the remnants of the Panzer-Regiment through the Hube Pocket. In April the survivors of his unit were send to Belgium were Peiper joined them again. His Oak Leaves and promotion were a propaganda present for his godfather Himmler.

I seriously reccomment the upcoming English translation of Jens Westemeiers book about Peiper.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=106165

All the best

Andreas

[ May 25, 2007, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[George MC]

Hi Andreas

No offence taken

Charie and used Agte, Lehmann, Nipe, Restayn, and Glantz. With some other stuff from After The Battle. Reading between the lines me could deduce that Peiper for all his dash with SPW was not a hot favourite with the panzer crews of the division. When he took command of the panzer regiment a lot of his senior officers in the regiment promptly asked for transfers...

Cheers fur noo

George

[Antman]

Hey George,

Currently fighting the final battle of

"Peiper's Chariots Of Fire" (PBEM, I'm

Soviet)and I've gotta say that the

aggressive use of SPW's by my opponent

just creates lots of KO'd SPW's....

Without tanks, I shot 'em to bits with

ATR's and 45mm ATG...with tanks, the

same but they explode...you can kill

'em with the ubiquitous 50mm light mortar

as well...

Fun battle, though Thanks for your work!

[George MC]

Hi Antman

Aggressive use of SPW when tanks and PAK are around maybe it not a good idea You have to pick the time to use aggressive tactcis I guess. Glad you are enjoying it

Cheers fur noo

George

[Vark]

Andreas, that brief passage, debunking the uber-Peiper myth rang true. In Reynolds "The Devils Adjutant" (good book, awful title) detailing the dash for the Meuse, Peiper is seen to be an aggressive commander with little, if any, tactical subtlety. Perhaps this was the reason he was made commander of the most powerful KG for the operation, as he habitually ignored his flanks and just drove at the enemy, often suffering because of his recklessness. Correction, often his men suffered because of his fanaticism.

[RockinHarry]

Originally posted by The Schwabian:

and lastly, does the CM engine portray mounted firing? i don't think it does, but i could be wrong. ....

You´re correct...it does not unfortunately.

Mounted combat would add fun and more realism, but as already said repeatedly, half tracks are just battlefield taxis in the game and also do provide just limited fire power (heavy support stuff like "Stummel" ect. excluded). In case of the german 251/1 halftrack, the single mounted MG was normally operated by the assistant driver and once he was dead there was no more use of the MG. In this regard the treatment of the game mechanics is correct. But once a Panzergrenadier squad is on board, the assistant driver is freed from operating the MG and instead the Panzergrenadier squad machine gunners would take the job, also adding one of the two squad machine guns to the rear mount and use it when necessary (AA role or soft targets at the six of the vehicle). Also the remaining squad members could add their remaining weapons (rifle, SMG, hand grenades) fire power all round at mostly very close ranges to discourage and suppress enemy infantry, throwing hand grenades or using hand held AT stuff.

All that is not implemented in the game.

Didn´t yet see HMG vs half track lethality mentioned in any of my sources, so I assume the armor penetration capability of CMs standard HMG´s (tripod MG34/42, Maxim/Vickers, Cal 30 ect.) is way overemphasized and simplified (Smk/AP always and instantly available) in the game. Well,..other topic.

Cases that would see mounted combat applied, would be breakthrough attacks vs an enemy that has little or no lethal AT stuff around (mainly speaking of PAK and Tanks) with the halftracks beeing on the move more or less constantly until circumstances demand the Panzergrenadier squads to dismount. These could be reaching a particular objective, effective enemy AT fire that can´t be avoided, tank/vehicle obstacles (Ditch, mine fields, barricades), ect. If the little firepower of the HT´s can´t be used effectively, then these would be moved into nearest cover. Not speaking of the heavy support HT though.

If a user made CM scenario provides the right environment with regard to terrain and enemy forces, the historical tactics can be applied to some amount, even without mounted firer capabilities. Large enough maps, time and space to make appropiate reccon to find AT opposition, exit map scenario goals or attacker selectable victory flags would help to justify adding half track borne infantry IMO. GeorgeMC´s Blowtorch scenario series has many or most of these features applied, so I find it to be a good training ground when it comes to handling half track borne infantry forces.

[bitchen frizzy]

Originally posted by RockinHarry:

All that is not implemented in the game.

That's because it's Hollywood BS.

Maybe a squad member should be able to man the mounted MG, true. The inside of a halftrack moving across the battlefield is like a bucking bronco. Imagine a schoolbus driving across a cowpasture, but without padded seats. Infantry just hang on.

[Redwolf]

In CM you really don't want to do battle with the armored halftracks.

Apart from the fact that their combat power is undermodeled at least by the fact that the two MGs owned by the embarked squad cannot be mounted in the corners as they were in real life there's also the "victory points" issue.

I don't say that halftracks should be "free" to be knocked out, but in CM their value is more than the squad they carry, which is a joke. Even an easy abandonation without major damage costs you these points, and the halftrack crew (2 men) comes on top. In combination with most CM battles including all Quickbattles not having enough value in flags you must keep them safe.

[ May 30, 2007, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[Misereor]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

In CM you really don't want to do battle with the armored halftracks.

Paraphrasing Bruce Lee:

"If circumstance warrants it, don't be afraid to bite. But if you start a fight with the intention of making bite attacks, don't be surprised when you get all your teeth knocked out."

Seems appropriate to the HT assaults discussion

[Andreas]

Originally posted by RockinHarry:

Didn´t yet see HMG vs half track lethality mentioned in any of my sources, so I assume the armor penetration capability of CMs standard HMG´s (tripod MG34/42, Maxim/Vickers, Cal 30 ect.) is way overemphasized and simplified (Smk/AP always and instantly available) in the game. Well,..other topic.

I think you are flat-out wrong on this one.

All the best

Andreas

[RockinHarry]

Originally posted by bitchen frizzy:

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

All that is not implemented in the game.

That's because it's Hollywood BS.

Maybe a squad member should be able to man the mounted MG, true. The inside of a halftrack moving across the battlefield is like a bucking bronco. Imagine a schoolbus driving across a cowpasture, but without padded seats. Infantry just hang on. </font>

[RockinHarry]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

Didn´t yet see HMG vs half track lethality mentioned in any of my sources, so I assume the armor penetration capability of CMs standard HMG´s (tripod MG34/42, Maxim/Vickers, Cal 30 ect.) is way overemphasized and simplified (Smk/AP always and instantly available) in the game. Well,..other topic.

I think you are flat-out wrong on this one.

All the best

Andreas </font>

[JasonC]

There are 3 rounds involved (maybe 4), in considering the AP effect of German 7.92mm from HMGs.

Most ammo was the standard "heavy" bullet, with pathetic AP properties. 5mm at point blank, 3mm at 500 yards. Wouldn't hurt a halftrack, barely hurt a truck in material damage terms. These were around 90% of the rounds produced.

The top of the line AP was the smKH, which is tungsten core. Those could penetrate up to 15mm. But they were rare - 1% of production and discontinued due to tungsten shortages in March of 1942, with the last field issue in February 1943. Priority uses were the Panzer I (to give any AP ability at all) and aircraft. The chance of a typical foot MG 34 team having any of these in a typical belt is miniscule.

But the third type is the smk (no H), which was steel core. Types with that designation made up to 8% of production. And here is the main reason why, and why they would be common enough to be in a typical MG belt - the *tracer* round for the MG 34 was a modification of the smK, not of the standard heavy (uncored) bullet.

People put in tracers typically every 6 to 12 rounds to see what they are shooting at. With the high ROF German MGs, you don't need them as often as with lower ROF types, meaning there can be more regular rounds between each tracer, but you do add them to the belt. Hence the relatively high portion of production.

What was the penetration performance of the smK that wasn't smkH? Sources on it vary, but most say either 8mm or 10mm at 100 yards flat. It isn't going to hole a typical US halftrack at 400m, but at close range, sure.

In CM, they give enhanced AP performance to all the MGs, compared to single round weapons like ATRs. They apparently meant this to reflect weakening of plates from multiple hits. But it is dubious at best, especially when the AP quality ammo is really only 1 or 2 rounds in a typical burst. The behind armor effect of only a few rounds per burst penetrating is also going to be quite low, and not the swiss cheese effect the designers apparently imagined (most hits have 3-5m penetration ability and will simply bounce etc).

The bottom line is that HMG 42s and 34s in CM shred early Russian tanks far too readily. Other people's MGs get a boost from the automatic thing, but in my experience are rarely actually effective below the 50 cal varieties. (Through multiple causes - SPWs have 15mm fronts, the flanks usually show side angle, the ranges are typically medium, etc).

50 cals are effective and deserve to be. German HMGs deserve to be moderately dangerous to thin 8mm stuff, close in and with sustained fire, but in the game hole thicker stuff at longer ranges than it probably should, with single bursts having too high an behind armor effect, and e.g. US halftracks being intensely vulnerable within about 400m, which they would generally fail to actually kill.

Incidentally, the "maybe 4" above stems from the fact that smK existed in non tracer as well as tracer form. Might slightly increase the portion in a typical belt, but more likely upped the effectiveness of aircraft 7.92mms, since those had a dedicated anti-materiel role.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by RockinHarry:

In CM you can shoot at one infantry (soft) target with one burst and switch instantly to SmK/AP when a suitable hard target (a lightly armored halftrack or armored car ect.) for the next burst comes into sight. Wrong?

There is no switch of ammunition.

Originally posted by RockinHarry:

I think if half tracks/armored cars were so vulnerable from small calibre (<8mm) HMG fire, these would´ve been taken out of service very quickly.

I can not make a pizza in my kitchen blender, but that does not mean I will retire it.

All the best

Andreas

[Kineas]

"When the machine guns used the normal sS ammunition they achieved an armor penetration of up to 10mm and more at close ranges."

This is probably attributed to the "attrition" effect, because the article contains almost the same what JasonC have said.

article