Pz Gdrs not SPW hotrodders - US MTO experience

[jrcar]

Jason your original contention was that PzGren did not attack mounted.

I think you have now accepted that they did.

So coming back to the initial discussion it is historically valid for a CM player to use mounted attacks dismounting on the objective.

It is a tactic that will work very well under ideal circumstances. Just as a well prepared infantry attack over open ground can.

But I would normally expect such an attack to fail, given a competent defender.

That light armoured vehicles, even jeeps, were used in the front line, with the whole idea that they get shot at to revel enemy positions, is historical fact. It is still acceptable doctrine today.

Given the unrealistic time and intelligence pictures of many CM battles I do not find the use of vehicles in CM scale battles to be out of historical character. (I don't support the use of jeep or M-8 style hordes though).

And a gunner, explains a lot

Cheers

Rob

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The Germans did have light armor in the early war. But it wasn't SPWs and it didn't carry infantry.

They had about 1000 armored cars with MG or 20mm main armament, and 1500 MG armed Pz Is, and 1250 20mm and MG armed Pz IIs. The light tanks were in the panzer regiments - the Pz II was an average tank during the France 1940 campaign.

The armored cars were in the recce regiments, working with motorcycle infantry. The schutzen were in trucks; the guns were also towed by trucks (SPA didn't come until the second half of the war).

By the time of Russia, the tank regiments had become distinctly heavier, with some Pz IIs but mostly medium tanks - Pz 38s and Pz IIIs were the average tanks. The recce guys still had armored cars, only a few SPWs in addition, and motorcycles.

Only about 1/6 of the SPWs built over the whole war had been built by the end of 1942. In any numbers, they were a late war item, like Panthers or Hummels. Which also didn't have much role in the success of "the blitzkrieg".

You ignore the fact that at least one division already had a full complement (1 battalion) of these, 1.PD. Others had a company at least (12.PD, will check 13.PD tonight). So if you want to continue down your 'they never did this early in the war' line, you need to check the individual combat records of those divisions to prove it. Just to numerically analyse it at a high level and say 'they had almost none, so it did not happen' is not good enough, when some units were equipped to the full or a significant level. I do not disagree with the gist of your argument, but I do disagree with the analysis you undertake to arrive there.

In my example there is another addition you have not covered. Moving through gun-equipped bunkers mounted. BTW - the guns were not taken from the rear, they could cover the area in their arc, but they could not be depressed enough to deal with the Germans.

[JasonC]

Andreas, you know perfectly well that the only way to prove a negative is indirectly, and by surveying to look for counterexamples and not finding them. I'm not the only one looking. And what is being found of anything like regular mounted SPW attacks against real opposition is so far very thin.

My original contention, for those coming in late who didn't even see the original thread, was that they mounted to follow tanks and keep up with them. I was asked what passages stressing staying mounted meant, and I answered -

"they are just following in the wake of an entire battalion or even regiment of tanks, on a very narrow front. They just want them to follow those and keep up with them. The HT weapons shoot up holdouts, and only those nearest a given strongpoint dismount to clean it out if necessary. This is breakthrough fighting doctrine. Unless you have 30-50 full tanks on a single kilometer, though, you aren't going to have the conditions that could let it work (in CM)."

Is this what the other side is maintaining? No. They describe SPWs as a routine way to cross open ground for direct infantry assaults on the battlefield. A CM use e.g. -

"simple to rush up the HTs concentrated onto two buildings, keep them out of grenade range and heads down for the gunner, and then at the end of their drive all the infantry disembarked at once and opened the fire at effective range - while trying to storm the building quickly. Since the HTs added to the suppression, it worked very well. I dont think trying to get across the 200 meters open ground without HTs could have been done at that speed."

Are SPWs a routine way to cross open ground to deliver immediate infantry assault, or are they operational "battlefield taxis" that at most help some infantry keep up with leading heavy AFVs, and often just drive people to the edge of the battlefield? All agreed the former requires "favorable conditions". The question was then put by Mike Dorosh, how often were the conditions favorable?

It was to that question that I answered, it basically did not happen. If you or anyone else thinks otherwise, it should be trivial - I mean it should take you 30 minutes on the web, or less than two hours in a library, if you don't already have it in your own home book collection - to find dozens of examples. Examples that is, of the use I am saying they didn't do - i.e. typically used to cross the last 200m of open ground sort, or charging mounted against a full enemy, or leading with them rather than following a large unit of real AFVs.

As for how much you can conclude from indirect evidence, you can conclude plenty. You falsify alternatives. If a CM player is losing more SPWs in 20 minutes of battalion level action (in reckless charges), than a typical Panzer division lost in the entire Kursk offensive, then that CM player is using his SPWs in ahistorically reckless ways.

As for jcars' sneers, firepower is what actually allowed attacks in WW II, not 8mm of armor plate. Whether delivered direct by full tanks, or indirect by arty. These days too, the razzle dazzle in tin can boys only get to police the aftermath, while the boys in blue (that means the USAF for those in Rio Linda), since they still have a firepower based doctrine, fight and win the nation's wars. Supplimented, certainly, by direct ground firepower (from heavy formations, not light ones). But that is another fight, not the subject of this thread.

[Michael Dorosh]

The problem with finding examples is that most histories - especially German ones (!) - seem short on actual tactics and concentrate on more of a running dialogue of events such as Andreas as posted, which is of virtually no use in a discussion such as this.

Andreas, maybe instead of buying ales in England you had best move yourself to the town where the Bundesarchiv is located and start watering down some good German-English historians who might be able to access truly useful stuff like battalion war diaries, after-action reports, battle questionnaires (if such a thing existed) and other primary documents.

The only other alternative will be Sven Hassel and...dare I say it...Guy Sajer?

Up to this point its been like watching three men argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, without reference to what kind of dance they will be doing or much room they would really require to do said dancing - or for that matter any kind of technical data on how much physical space an angel occupies.

[JasonC]

I'm all for more sources Mike, but your comment is charitably put an exaggeration. The other side does not see them in fight after fight (detailed Allied defense narratives make no mention of them). They don't get destroyed in combat (Kursk SPW loss data).

The periods when doctrinally they would be most commonly used for this, they aren't even there yet (early war). At the "sweet spot" where they are out but the Germans are still attacking, a handful of higher level narratives do show offensive use, against unprepared enemies and typically behind real AFVs. (Kharkov era).

If it were the normal use, the Allies should be reporting them in the attacking waves and they should be getting holed in combat like the regular tanks. They aren't. Only marginal cases will be found, at most.

I should add - I have now looked for this stuff in the Kursk staff narratives for half a dozen PDs, in all the US Army green books plus Army at Dawn for North Africa, in divisional histories of SS panzer divisions, in a dozen general tactics books focused on WW II armor doctrine including some on Pz Gdrs specifically.

All of them are consistent with it being a doctrinal wish, and with move to contact use (mounted) behind main bodies of full AFVs, with occasional dashes (behind small groups fo full AFVs, typically) in "transitional" terrain (edge of town e.g.) or against unprepared enemies (night raid, foot columns caught on a road during exploitation e.g.). None of them are consistent with regular use of mounted assault against full defensive positions, or leading in combat "recon by death" style.

[ March 04, 2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Michael Dorosh]

I wonder though if most histories wouldn't view SPW losses as tangential and perhaps not even bother to mention them at all? FWIW I agree with Jason and think it is incumbent on "the other side" to make a case and support it. I don't see that they've done so convincingly. Andreas' example of the attack in Russia is interesting, but seems sufficiently vague to allow multiple interpretations - the problem with histories not interested in technical or doctrinal matters.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by jrcar:

Jason your lack of military background is showing

It is interesting that you say this:

"What they are not doing is recon by death, or charging the defended treeline, or acting as the first wave mounted, under tank overwatch. Things CM players love to do with light armor - in part because they treat it as expendable when the real participants never would. It was too valuable as mere transport (operationally I mean) for that."

Because that is very much how recon consider themselves in real life, even today.

Recon are generally expected to fight, and die, to gain information (especially from a German and American perspective. Thats why recon forces have generally become heavier and heavier (witness the Bradley recon vehicle).

A lot of the time the first thing the recon knows about the enemy is when they fire on the lead vehicle, in the worst case hopefully the second vehicle survives to report on the resulting fireball.

Historical examples include the Brit Recon units trying to find their way to Arnham (just off the top of my head). Light vehicles, yes including jeeps, driving around well out in front.

BTW confirmed this with my ex Armd Corps LTCOL colleague (who bought our last lot of recon vehicles, the ASLAV), in case you don't trust an ex intelligence guy

Well shame on the two of you. You should both march yourselves off to your nearest staff college library.

Once there read the recent Jane's IDR article about the US Army saying that the Bradley is a poor recon vehicle on account of its large size and noise signature that causes OPFOR to kill it regularly and reliably at NTC. Thus the use of the HMMV in the recon role. Also not a perfect vehicle but less likely to be spotted and killed, resulting in the loss of your valuable recon unit.

The 1 AB Div jeep Sqn at Arnhem is a nice example. Better characterised, I think, as an attempted coup de main to seize the road bridge than recce. And look what they achieved... More reasons for not driving to work blindly in light vehicles if fighting is your business.

I'm amazed that this non-argument has got as far as it has. Well done all.

[Michael Dorosh]

One might add Graebner's "recon" at Arnhem to the mix also. Not sure what it was supposed to be - not recce, surely, coup de main? Assault?

Stupid is what it was - in hindsight. I thought I mentioned it a few pages ago.

Thanks to Determinant for pointing out that Gough's jeep squadron was not a recce. They were expecting no resistance and, as he pointed out, they were ordered to rush to the bridge and secure it, not find out what was in front - they thought they already knew that. Brian Urquhart notwithstanding.

Check the Panzerfaust and Platoon HQ thread (post#25, top of page 2) for a War Diary entry I copied for a CW battalion on a deliberate attack. Their recce consisted of the battalion scouts and some carriers. They did their recce at night, and seem to have been more concerned with finding mines than getting shot at or dying. I know the old Crescendo of Doom manual quoted "an old Army saying" that "a good scout is a dead scout" but if the Germans really thought that way, why did they put two drivers in their armoured cars - one to drive forward and another to drive in reverse?

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Bastables:

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

In Normandy, either 17SS in the Caretan (oops, don't even have any), or Lehr in July (they had scads of them, but only half a dozen make it into actual combat reports), or at Mortain (other than artillery targets for holdouts, nada)? Doesn't happen. A few SPWs trailing tanks in a night attack with Lehr is as close as it gets - while flocks of them are just parked under trees behind the attack.

B

SPW were sent to the rear during Normandy as the Grenadiers (and Panzer Divisions themselves) were expected to dig in and hold defensive positions; this is especially true of Panzer Lehr with its SPW heavy TO&E.</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Andreas, maybe instead of buying ales in England you had best move yourself to the town where the Bundesarchiv is located and start watering down some good German-English historians who might be able to access truly useful stuff like battalion war diaries, after-action reports, battle questionnaires (if such a thing existed) and other primary documents.

There are few, if any battalion or regimental war diaries of the early war left. I blame Bomber Command for fire-bombing the place they were stored in. I have looked at Korps and Divisions KTB excerpts from the 11/42 MARS defense, but they don't go into this kind of detail for SPWs.

Anyway, if I did move to the Bundesarchiv, I would do the research myself and write books in English about it. There must be a market for sensible analysis based on German KTBs.

Just for the record - I don't see myself as part of 'the other side'. I pretty much agree with Jason on the misuse of the HT in CM, I am just more catholic about it and willing to entertain the idea, at least as an analytical exercise, that the Germans at some point early in the war did use them in a more aggressive way. I do not like the logic of 'there were none, so it did not happen', because the first half of that sentence is not correct.

Jason - I would agree with you that it is impossible to prove the negative here if it was not the case of having to look at a very low number of units, even though the data quality is going to be bad (see above). How many Panzerdivisionen did have a full complement of SPW battalions in 1941? Less than a dozen I am sure.

[Michael Dorosh]

Andreas - let me know when you do get into print, I would gladly pay double for an autographed copy of each volume you put out.

Sirocco - yes, 3rd Can Div did maul 12th SS Pz Gren Div - and vice versa - but are you saying the 25th and 26th Grenadier Regiments fought mounted - or dismounted?

Unfortunately, Andreas, few writers seem to have thought the way you do. I keep thinking of FRONTSOLDATEN and what an abomination that book was, and how truly nice it would be to see something on the order of what you are talking about. Instead, we get lots of glossy-covered hardbacks with stock photos of Tigers and Panthers, and words like "Blitzkrieg" and other crap that really give no idea what they really did in any kind of nuts and bolts ways.

[Kitty]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Andreas - let me know when you do get into print, I would gladly pay double for an autographed copy of each volume you put out.

Yeah, me too. Dorosh will gladly pay the extra amount for me. =)

Kitty

[Andreas]

Do you have double my volume Kitty?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Kitty:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Andreas - let me know when you do get into print, I would gladly pay double for an autographed copy of each volume you put out.

Yeah, me too. Dorosh will gladly pay the extra amount for me. =)

Kitty </font>

[Kitty]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Did you respond to my other post about the SS hats....I have some nice black ones in stock, pink piping, death's head insignia in bullion....I think one even had your name on it....

No, Mace did. He said they looked like they were made from paper mache and colored pencils.

Kitty

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Unfortunately, Andreas, few writers seem to have thought the way you do. I keep thinking of FRONTSOLDATEN and what an abomination that book was, and how truly nice it would be to see something on the order of what you are talking about. Instead, we get lots of glossy-covered hardbacks with stock photos of Tigers and Panthers, and words like "Blitzkrieg" and other crap that really give no idea what they really did in any kind of nuts and bolts ways.

While I disagree with a lot of Jason's thinking, I would certainly by a published copy of his thesis when he has finished it. One day I have to get Zetterling's book, just to support what he does, although I am also not quite sure about his conclusions, from what I have read in various discussions.

The problem is IMO lazyness. It is a lot easier to get a copy of Panzergeneral and five Carrell/Schmidt books at Barnes & Noble for a fiver, and then write a book in the style you describe.

Before I do it, I have to find a question that is interesting enough to answer that I would stick through the project. Since we are both round-about the same age, expect to have to wait to your fifties, depending on how my career goes.

Anyway, back to SPWs - 13.PD did not have any in June 1941.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Kitty:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Did you respond to my other post about the SS hats....I have some nice black ones in stock, pink piping, death's head insignia in bullion....I think one even had your name on it....

No, Mace did. He said they looked like they were made from paper mache and colored pencils.

Kitty </font>

[JonS]

eh? yes you did.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

eh? yes you did.

Don't confuse the issue with facts! :mad:

[Kitty]

DID TOO!!! DID TOO!!!! JonS is right!!! I want a neato looking one! =)

Kitty

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Kitty:

DID TOO!!! DID TOO!!!! JonS is right!!! I want a neato looking one! =)

Kitty

Whatcha got to trade?

[Guest Mike]

I was in an infantry batallion Recce platoon a couple of decades ago - and I'm buggered if any of our doctrine was to die!! :eek:

If fired at our drill was to execute a smart about turn and run like ferk, placing out M-16's on our shoulders and firing completely blind backwards on full auto! For real - that's what we practiced!

Our role was to infiltrate, hide, observe, report and return.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mike:

I was in an infantry batallion Recce platoon a couple of decades ago - and I'm buggered if any of our doctrine was to die!! :eek:

If fired at our drill was to execute a smart about turn and run like ferk, placing out M-16's on our shoulders and firing completely blind backwards on full auto! For real - that's what we practiced!

Our role was to infiltrate, hide, observe, report and return.

Our Recce guys still practice the "Australian Peelback" (as I believe it is called). Not exactly as poetic as you describe, but not far off the mark - it does involved each man firing a full mag on full auto...

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Sirocco - yes, 3rd Can Div did maul 12th SS Pz Gren Div - and vice versa - but are you saying the 25th and 26th Grenadier Regiments fought mounted - or dismounted?

I was making the general point that the Germans weren't entirely on the defensive in Normandy. I looked through Maple Leaf Route Caen and couldn't find anything specific. It would be interesting to discover where and how 12th SS used it's SPW's in the first day or two.

[Kitty]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

DID TOO!!! DID TOO!!!! JonS is right!!! I want a neato looking one! =)

Kitty

Whatcha got to trade? </font>