Light Tanks

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Sir Augustus:

The germans however overlooked (except for the lynx) the need for a light tank and rather relied on their scout vehicles to do the recon. How could they have done this with their massive R&D department?(research & development for all of you who don't know)

Overlooked??

How about this version...

They themselves choose not to (very) actively purse the development of this type of vehicle.

Or, if you prefer, in the prevailing situation their priorities were elsewhere.

M.

[Andreas]

I would rather go with Mattias explanation as well. The Germans post-war went for wheeled lightly-armed (20mm + 1 MG3) recon vehicles as well (the 8-wheeler, incidentally called 'Lynx'), and not for fully-tracked fully armoured vehicles. I think it is more a matter of doctrinal thinking than 'uh, we could have won the war if we had not overlooked the smashing potential of the light tank, you know'.

Mind you, the Stuart was not used for fighting in Real Life as it is now in CMBO, unless there was no other way. It was used for recce, and its speed was used to get you out of trouble quicker than you got into it, while the pop-gun was used to frighten hostile crunchies. If you read the accounts of the recce squadron of the South Albertas this will become quite clear.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Sir Augustus:

... The germans however overlooked ... the need for a light tank and rather relied on their scout vehicles to do the recon. ...

Huh? :confused:

The PzKw I and II series were produced in large numbers since the Versailles treaty forbid Germany from building heavier tanks. So they built these light tanks intended to be used initially for training and later on for reconnaissance. They were combat tested in Spain, and the armour tactics laid out...

At the start of WW2 there were roughly twice as many light tanks (PzKw I/II) as there were mediums (PzKw III/IV/35(t)/38(t)) in the German army. (As a comparison one can notice that the US tank fleet by this time had a total of less than 40 "gun tanks" (tanks armed with something heavier than a MG), instead relying on the M1 armoured car that any other nation would consider to be a light tank.)

Later on in the war, some time after the Kursk battle, the PzKw III was "degraded" to "light" status and used in roles previously taken by PzKw II variants. So a more relevant German equivalent to the Chaffee would be the PzKw IIIN.

Cheers

Olle

[MrSpkr]

Hmm. Interesting topic.

I think my favorite would have to be the Stuart as well. It is fast, generally accurate, and has a stupendous rate of fire that will increase your odds of at least immobilizing or knocking the gun out on an enemy tank.

I ran a series of experiments on this issue. I took a horde of Stuarts (two dozen or so) at an enemy heavy tank force of approximately equal point value. The enemy tanks included King Tigers, Jagdpanthers, etc., etc.

Every time I ran it, the Stuarts won the day. They generally wiped out the enemy armored force while losing about 1/3 to 1/2 of their own tanks. My basic strategy was to charge the Stuarts at the enemy position, focus an assault on one particular enemy tank at a time, then move on to the next one. Had I used more cover and concealment, I am pretty sure the Stuart casualties would have been much lower (aroun 1/5-1/3 of the force as losses).

This convinced me of the Stuart's abilities. Sure, it can't suppress infantry all that well, but that is really not what it is designed for. If you want to suppress infantry, take a Sherman 105 or a Cromwell VI.

If you want an agile, multi-purpose scout unit that can cause significant problems for enemy armor in pinch situations, the Stuart is the way to go.

Steve

{edited as to # of Stuarts)

[ May 02, 2002, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by PondScum:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

I knew the M24 was using a bomber gun, but i've always wondered how did this plane use a 75mm , and for what purpose exactly ? :confused:

It made a serious mess of any shipping it encountered on low-level coastal attacks...</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Mind you, the Stuart was not used for fighting in Real Life as it is now in CMBO, unless there was no other way.

True enough in the ETO. But in North Africa in 1941-'42 the Brits were using them as MBTs. They were roughly equivalent to the Crusaders in gun performance, a little bit more lightly armored, had a bit more speed, and lots more mechanical reliability.

Michael

[Auggy]

At the start of WW2 there were roughly twice as many light tanks (PzKw I/II) as there were mediums (PzKw III/IV/35(t)/38(t)) in the German army. (As a comparison one can notice that the US tank fleet by this time had a total of less than 40 "gun tanks" (tanks armed with something heavier than a MG), instead relying on the M1 armoured car that any other nation would consider to be a light tank.)

True they had these tanks at the begining of the war and during the spainish cival war. But they never really advanced the designs of their light tanks and went for " Bigger & Better " tanks where they even started working on super heavy tanks and left the scouting to be done with the thin skined wheeled armoured cars. That is where I think they went wrong. CM:BO takes place in 1944-45. So this shows that the early years tanks were basically outdated by newer technology. All I'm sayin is that a light tank at least has a sporting chance against a panther/sherman than a MG toting 8-wheeler.

I know the americans practiced with wonden poles and sticks instead of real guns before the war started. Trucks were imagined to be tanks but you have to remember what america was going through at that time. The depression really kept America from spending all that they wanted to on the Military. Plus the generals still had the tactics of trench warfare still in their minds as did the french with the Maginot Line. They also knew they had nothing to fear at the time being from invaders as did the french & russians.

P.S. I'm only a kid so I don't know EVERYTHING about WWII that you may think i do. I'm stunned by how much you guys know on this subject.

[Mattias]

Well, the main thing time teaches you is that you will never know everything. This is especially try with a subject like this where you can almost feel the historical facts running like sand through your outstretched hands...

In the case of the German light tank it was not for lack of projects that the type was dropped. Pz 38 N.a., the 50mm Armed Pz II and Leopard are prime examples of what could have been, had there been an interest in it.

In real life however a "sporting chances" does not cut it. You need a damn good reason to jeopardize thousands of marks or dollars worth of materiel and men and the development of vehicles and SOP's reflect that (more or less).

The lack of light tanks was not an oversight it was just not a kind of vehicle that the German forces needed in the second half of the war.

M.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Sir Augustus:

... they never really advanced the designs of their light tanks and went for " Bigger & Better " tanks where they even started working on super heavy tanks and left the scouting to be done with the thin skined wheeled armoured cars. That is where I think they went wrong.

I think they did the right thing.

The main tanks were mediocre by 1940 and had to be improved fast. As the gun and armour race escalated the older AFVs were downgraded by name and put aside to less combat heavy duties.

There was no reason to "improve" the light tanks, since they'd be at the losing end of a battle with heavies anyway.

The main principle for recon forces is "to see without being seen and to hear without being heard".

Tanks (of any kind) are easily seen and heard while having a hard time to see and hear, and are therefore very limited in the recon role.

Wheeled vehicles are both faster (on road, where they should be), quieter and more reliable.

The Puma was probably one of the very best recon vehicles in WW2. It had good mobility, fair armour and a gun capable of knocking out most AFVs.

CM:BO takes place in 1944-45. So this shows that the early years tanks were basically outdated by newer technology.

They were usually outdated in their previous role, yes. So what?

All I'm sayin is that a light tank at least has a sporting chance against a panther/sherman than a MG toting 8-wheeler.

Depends on which light tank it is.

Situation 1:

A US Stuart comes racing around a bend in the road and finds itself face to face with a Panther at about 100m.

My bet would be with the Panther...

Situation 2:

A German PzKw IIIN moves into sight of a Sherman M4A3(75) at about 200m.

The first hit will win, the bets are even.

Situation 3:

A German PSW 234/1 (8x8, 20mm gun) comes racing around a bend in the road and finds itself face to face with a Sherman at about 100m.

The front driver hit the brakes and the rear driver accelerate the vehicle back around the bend while the gunner fires a hail of HE and/or AP against the tank.

Unless the Sherman crew was well prepared they won't get a shot off.

Any use of smoke dischargers on the recon vehicles will probably add to their advantage.

... The depression really kept America from spending all that they wanted to on the Military. ... They also knew they had nothing to fear at the time being from invaders ...

I don't argue against this. In fact I think they did the very right thing! The US army of the time seem well equipped and able to fight off any potential invasion from Mexico or Canada. The only (proven) weakness was in the defence of islands in the Pacific...

Nobody had to fear a US invasion which led to a fairly stable western world. (As opposed to the state today where the only somewhat effective defence against a US invasion is an all-out pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US mainland. Something that makes the world very instable...)

WW2 was caused by a series of diplomatic blunders (primarily the extremely harsh conditions of the Verailles treaty) leading to Hitler's raise to power and initial successes in foreign politics.

BTW, you do know that officially it was the Poles that started WW2? The German invasion was only a justified payback for the attack on a German radio station in East Prussia... or at least that was the official German explanation until it was proven that it was all a hoax.

Makes you wonder what would happen if some US governmental organisation (with or without approval from the president) staged an attack on some US installation, using fake evidence to officially putting the blame on some specified other nation and demanding military retaliation...

P.S. I'm only a kid so I don't know EVERYTHING ...

I knew that, and it's why I'm spending time on explaining this matter in depth.

Cheers

Olle

[Zipper]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

The US army of the time seem well equipped and able to fight off any potential invasion from Mexico or Canada.

And that, my friend, is the only thing that kept the US from becoming Canada's 11th province. (OK, 10th province at the time... Newfoundland was late joining the confederation. They're 30 minutes behind, you know.)

Zipper

[Jarmo]

I read from somewhere (reliable in my info, as always ) that the reason Germans produced so few Pumas in comparison to the 20mm armed variant, was that the Puma crews tended to "take their chances" against enemy tanks and vehicles.

20mm variant was basically helpless against any tank, so the crew would try to escape at the first sign of trouble. And that's what recon vehicle were supposed to do anyway.

[flamingknives]

It's interesting to see how similar the 234/1 is to the modern Bundeswehr 'Luchs'.

Both are 8 wheelers, both mount a 20mm autcannon in the turret, and both have a rear-facing driver.

In addition, most modern armoured recon vehicles mount autocannon as their main weapon, for example: Scimitar, LAV-25, Luchs, BRDM (I'll count a 14.5mm MG as an autocannon).

[Patgod]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

can you say golf of tonkin.

[kevwrite]

My favorite tank in the game is the Stuart, and here's why: it can do everything. It's not necessarily good at everything, but it can really kick butt and it has LOTS of ammo. If you play games longer than 30 turns you'll notice how quickly your Sherman and PzIV tanks run out of shells unless you are very careful. (This doesn't mean you should waste armor points on 10 of them.)

The Stuart isn't great against medium or heavy armor, but then again, if you want that kind of capability you shouldn't be thinking "light." The M24 Chaffee is truly awesome and I love it, but it has a low ammo count... despite the fact that it can hang with the big boys, it's chances of survival on the battlefield vs heavy stuff aren't that much better than the Stuart but it will kill more before it dies.

The high RoF, fast turret, and quality shell of the Stuart is decent against light armor or vehicles and also infantry. Yeah, it's better for suppresion, but isn't that also great? The high RoF--not to mention 3 MGs on each tank--makes it great for pounding infantry. Just watch for AT.

[Slapdragon]

I want to point out that the Germans did not overlook light tank production or choose not to follow up on in, but by the time of CM:BO it was abandoned for the most part. Like Mattias and Andreas said, they spent their money on cheaper armored cars.

The M3/5 however was in no way a looser IRL though. Until 1943 they were capable of fighting German mediums toe to toe. The 37mm cannon had lots of ammo, fired fast, the vehicle was fast, could fire on the move, and she was easy to maintain. After 1943 they would take a bath from German tanks, but no one used them for front line vehicles in any case. The 37mm had a powerful cannister round for the size of the weapon, combined with high rate of fire made it a great panic weapon for defense against infantry attack. The M3 and M5 had great strategic mobility, and the tanks did a lot of shoot and scoot recon. By 1944 these tanks were useful, but not up to speed. The new M24 still had excellent strategic mobility, but gave the light tank back its anti-infantry role. Of course it did not solve the problem with an anti-tank role for the vehicle, but there was no real way to provide one to a light tank in 1944.

[Renaud]

Olle wrote:

"Situation 2:

A German PzKw IIIN moves into sight of a Sherman M4A3(75) at about 200m.

The first hit will win, the bets are even."

This depends on whether the IIIN had the 50mmL60 or 50mmL42. Most production PzKw III's got stuck with the L42 because Hitler ordered that all the new 50mmL60 be made into anti-tank guns. That's why you see the 50mmL60 german AT gun appearing in CMBO. I think they changed their mind on this rather quickly, in time to get the 50L60 into the PzKw IIIj and later the Puma (very few made anyway). However, this initial decision crippled the PzKw III tankers on the 1941/42 Russian front as they were left with the 50L42 vs the T34's sloped armor. Which brings to mind... CM2 german tankers are going to have fun trying to penetrate T34 frontally with 50mmL42 guns. It'll be like trying to kill a hetzer frontally with the sherman short 75...or worse. Prepare for a nightmare in 1941/42. The 88 flak is going to save your a$$. Mmmm...the scenario possibilities!

Back to my original point...A 50mmL42 is going to be dicey penetration at best against sherman M4A3 frontal armor at 200 meters unless it's firing the tungsten ammo. I THINK a 50mmL60 may penetrate M4A3 front armor reliably at 200m, but I don't have the numbers in front of me. I know with the ground-mount 50mm AT gun I always angle for the side shot on shermans, particularly beyond 100m.

I'm sure a grog can add to or correct this.

Ren

[Doug Beman]

Renaud, the PzIIIN was armed with the same 75mmL24 gun as the early PzIVs. The reason was that, by mid-1943, the Germans realized that the PzIII simply could not be upgunned/armored enough to stay even with the Soviets, and the PzIV and V would be the "way of the future." Therefor, the PzIII and IV reversed roles; the IIIN became a close-support tank, while the IV made up about half the TO&E strength of a Panzer division.

DjB

[Renaud]

Aha! Thanks Doug I forgot about that...the IIIN was a kind of weird recon/close support thing.

In that case the IIIN would be useless against the M4A3 and get murdered at any range including 200 meters. The 75L24 had next to no armor penetration value.

Ren

edit: hmmm...unless they had shaped charge shells which would give the 75L24 a bit of a chance.

[ May 03, 2002, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

It's interesting to see how similar the 234/1 is to the modern Bundeswehr 'Luchs'.

Both are 8 wheelers, both mount a 20mm autcannon in the turret, and both have a rear-facing driver.

In addition, most modern armoured recon vehicles mount autocannon as their main weapon, for example: Scimitar, LAV-25, Luchs, BRDM (I'll count a 14.5mm MG as an autocannon).

As you can see, the Luchs is a very big vehicle. According to Bovington, that is because of its fully amphib capability, which is probably the biggest fundamental design difference between the two vehicles.

This is from the Sdkfz 234 site:

COMBAT TECHNIQUES

Quoting Heinz Guderians war diary, October 1st 1944:

"Panzerspähwagen is fast, moveable, lightly armored vehicles equipped with radio with a long range, great firepower but no armor piercing ammunition. As wheeled vehicles they are capable of crossing light terrain. They are the eyes of the battalion and only fight in self defense or to be able to complete their reconnaissance task. Using them as assault guns or tanks is forbidden. The armored recon group shall not be more than

3 vehicles.

"See much, but not be seen!"

Panzerspäh-Kompanie excercise the tactical ground reconnaissance. Only in open terrain, when being followed or to protect withdrawal the company is used all together.

Panzeraufklärungs-Abteilung gain through reconnaissance and combat information for

the rest of the division, and it is the divisions quickest fighting force. The battalion is committed to battle all together. To commit independent combat duties it must first be

reinforced."

I would be surprised if the Bundeswehr doctrine today was much different.

[Redwolf]

That pre-war theory is all very nice, but in late war the Germans got extremly agressive at reconnaissance. They figured if they found some unprepared unit, better deal with them on the spot than sometime later. That is what the 234/3 and 234/4 (Puma with 75mm L/48) were made for, and these units were sometimes bumped up even with StuGs. If you are on a thousand-mile retreat, this makes sense, there will always be enemy screens which are not dug in to pick up.

This of course raises the question whether it's not better to drop the whole war thing when you reach the point of building special AFVs for 1000 mile retreats...

[CombinedArms]

Getting back to the Stuarts, the Allies built thousands of them and each US armored division had, IIRC, its own recon battalion, plus there were separate recon battalions, etc. My understanding is that this was because armored divisions were seen in US doctrine as providing high speed exploitation and you needed a sizeable recon component that was faster than your Shermans.

So my question, for those more historically informed than I, is--how did this work out in real life? How were the Stuarts actually used--real tactics vs. doctrine-- and did they pull their weight in the ETO?

Also, did the British/Canadians use their Stuarts differently than the Amis? Did they mix them with Daimler's, etc., etc.

[ May 03, 2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Priest]

Actually the Panzer IIIN was loved by their crews and a good portion of the Panzer IIIM production was switched over to the 'N' Model. The reasons I have read are below:

* Better AP performance of the short 75

* The 'C' round (hollow charge) had a similiar if not better penetration performance as the L60 50mm gun.

As a side note, the 88mm gun earned it's reputation on the Steppes of Russia, but Panzer IVs with their short barreled 75s (and Stugs) also gained their reputation (a the genesis of the idea to upgunn them to true AT vehicles) by using their 'C' rounds. Similiar to how the 95mm Churchill VIII has gained popularity in CMBO.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Priest:

* Better AP performance of the short 75

* The 'C' round (hollow charge) ...

My point exactly. The regular AP was lame, but the HEAT rounds weren't.

Cheers

Olle

[The Vyrdolak]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

[QB]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

How were the Stuarts actually used--real tactics vs. doctrine-- and did they pull their weight in the ETO?

Also, did the British/Canadians use their Stuarts differently than the Amis? Did they mix them with Daimler's, etc., etc.

The canadian regimental history "South Albertas - a Canadian regiment at war" has a fair amount of coverage of their Stuart units. Including the famous "this is what happens when a Stuart gets hit by a 88" photography.