Armour and it's conflict.

[plan_D]

Well, an '88' Flak sneaked up on him, but he'd bought a one-way ticket.

I believe this is proof of my point. Aside from there being no source of evidence that you have provided to state this actually happened. You have collapsed your own argument. This T-34 had managed to find itself nine miles from it's own army and it's own supply. It was cut off and destroyed, this happens to all those that put themselves into that position. As I said, they can advance but the line will just close behind them and they're trapped.

Loose cannons can be very, very effective.

No they cannot. A "loose cannon" cannot achieve operational success. The tank is an assault weapon, it's capability to hold ground is practically nil without the aid of supporting infantry and artillery.

Also with the Germans having radio, news of the Matilda2 ("hundreds of tanks!") and T34 spread fast.

Good you'd think? wrong, the Germans were scared and lost morale.

You will find that you are wrong in that statement. Knowing about the enemy action, or reaction, defeats surprise. Surprise is the greatest weapon of war, with fast communication the surprise is lost and a quick reaction to the enemy is possible.

The German soldiers may have been scared but the Divisional, Corps or Army HQ would have the information to provide counter-measures. It is better to know about your enemy and be scared than not know at all until their advance has reached your HQ.

One of the main troubles with the French defence in 1940 was slow communication. The German forces would be advancing at break-neck speed and the French could not react. There are many stories of French Commanders ordering counter-attacks on an area only to find the German forces had advanced through that area and in fact were miles behind the Commanders HQ. The French needed a faster system of communication to allow for reaction.

Communication is also vital to allow, if the enemy is over-whelming, a hasty retreat of all equipment. Fixed artillery positions would soon be overrun if the front line troops did not communicate the information back through the lines.

Even more so, the tanks on the front line could react to the advancing troops with communication. Radio communication between platoons of tanks could allow them to change position and move around in any kind of attack or counter-attack with lightning speed.

Yes, radios are good, but not vital, not in WW2.

What if it's knocked out? What then?

Radios are vital for operational success and tactical flexability. Tactical, local, success can be achieved with little communication but to enable a breakthrough, leading to operational success, good communication must reign throughout the tanks. This cannot be achieved with flag signals. The fog of war and heat of battle will cloud and distort communication with flags.

The odds are if the radio is knocked out on that tank, then the tank is knocked out. The only possible destruction of the radio is in the Command Tank which was also bristling with radio equipment. These would not normally tank an advance role but would be with the leading troops to react to any situation. The enemy did aim for the Command Tank when it was spotted, just like they would aim for the officer in the field. However, what happens when the Command Tank is knocked out? What happens when the lead plane is knocked out? What happens when the CO is knocked out? It's a silly question.

In the worst case the attack must be halted for the tanks retain any kind of unit cohesion. As that is most important in tank assaults on an operational scale. The Allies learnt so in the Great War in Cambrai.

I'm interested in what you consider so different from World War 2 and now. Sure, the technical ability of machines today are much more advanced but the tactics are exactly the same. World War 2 was a modern way and it has laid the structure for combat today. Panzer Battles was read by the majority of U.S Armour Commanders in the Gulf War.

Kinda like indicators on a car etc.

Indicators on a car are vital for safe driving on the roads. Sure, the car can drive without them but it cannot act safely and successfully on the roads without them. That is why it's illegal not to use them on the roads. They're a vital safety aspect to inform everyone else what you're doing, a lot like a radio in a tank.

"Communication between the members of a tank crew is effected by lights, speaking tubes, internal telephones and other devices. For external communication nearly all command tanks have radio transmitters and receivers, while all other modern tanks have radio receivers; the company commanders of the World War, hastening ahead of their tanks on foot or horseback, are figures of the past. The continuing development of radio apparatus is of great relevance to the direction of larger tank formations and their deployment for tasks in depth."

From Achtung! Panzer! by Heinz Guderian (1937). Note: Bold is my own.

Guderian realises, in 1937, that the deployment of large tank forces for operational success relies solely on the radio.

Again, from the same book:

"Tank forces are directed by radio, and the smaller units from company downwards also by visual signals. As long as radio silence has to be observed, orders and reports can be transmitted by means of aircraft, vehicles or telephone. Commanders ride in the command tanks, which are followed by the necessary radio tanks for secure communication with superiors and subordinates."

The tactics of tank forces clearly include the use of radio for tactical flexibility. From company level downwards, they did use visual signals as you can see. But company down is platoon strength, little more than four tanks most of the time.

Again from the some book:

"In the World War the shortcomings of the signals and communications systems greatly impeded the command of tank forces, and their co-operation with the other arms. Tank company commanders were sometimes reduced to accompanying their forces on horseback, to exercise a modicum of control, and they had to make considerable use of runners. Here is the origin of the accusation that tanks are 'deaf'. This shortcoming has now been overcome by that magnificent invention, the wireless telegraph and its relation, the voice radio. Every modern tank has a radio receiver, and every command tank is equipped with both the receiver and transmitter. Tank units are now under guaranteed command and control. Inside larger tanks are various devices to enable the crew members to communicate with one another."

As is quite clearly stated by Guderian, the lack of communication in World War I impeded the progress of armoured forces. He, as many others, found it of vital importance that tank forces could communicate in efficient and clear manners. Command and control is vital in any operation, from infantry to aircraft with artillery and tank inbetween.

Not only that, the mention of control between the different arms. The tank needs to be in contact with it's supporting arms. It cannot act on it's own. It needs the support of engineers, aircraft, infantry and artillery to be of any success.

If you believe the tank can act on it's own, you're wrong. If you believe the tank does not need good communication for a success on an operational basis, you're wrong.

I carry on with various quotes;

"Radio is likewise the principal medium of control between tank units and the other forces, and radios are the main equipment of the signals elements which provide the communications for the tank units and their supporting arms."

As said before, the communication between the tank and it's supporting arms is vital.

"However visual signals are used up to company level as a replacement for radios in case of breakdowns."

It explains itself.

"In combat these commanders will be right up front with their tanks, which means that armoured radio vehicles with full cross-country capability are essential for the panzer signals elements."

It's said, time and time again, the tank forces need to be in communication with one another as well as with other arms for any kind of operational success.

"In combat the transmission of orders are conveyed to the rapidly moving armoured forces in different and much shorter forms than with infantry divisions."

Most powerful aspect of a tank force? It's mobilty and quick reaction, which requires fast, powerful and clear communication.

[schwarzpanzer]

Aside from there being no source of evidence that you have provided to state this actually happened.

Shall I try to find the info?

The tank is an assault weapon, it's capability to hold ground is practically nil without the aid of supporting infantry and artillery.

Who said anything about holding ground? Thats usually not a breakthrough tanks job (T34, Tiger and Comet)

Radios are unnecessary of the (succesful) Soviet techniques of rushing a point in a massed assault or creating carnage individually, though Stugs would not have this option, though some apparently did.

You will find that you are wrong in that statement.

Well, what I said was right, but your point is more common and makes more sense and I was aware of it.

Most powerful aspect of a tank force? It's mobilty and quick reaction

To a point, Tigers and KTs were pretty crap here, but still effective.

If the enemy has air superiority it is essential though, but was lacking under these circumstances for Russia and Germany.

The only possible destruction of the radio is in the Command Tank which was also bristling with radio equipment.

Well ISA bullets could do this, as could small-calibre HE rounds and non-penetrating AP rounds, if the 1 command tank goes down before an assault though, that assault then likely doesn't happen.

You've given a lot of seemingly good info, I'll have to read it thouroughly and dig up Achtung:Panzer!

I know radios are an advantage, I know that, just not always vital.

A point is that with radio a Storch could range targets to German tanks, a huge advantage that.

[plan_D]

The tank during breakthrough needs the support of the infantry and artillery also. What good is a tank breaking through if the land is not held after it's moved on?

The Soviet attacks were not successful at the start of the war. They only began to gain radios around 1943. And the Soviets were successful on a tactical basis, not always on an operational basis.

How can you possibly hope for the point of attack to change with speed without radio?

No, again, you're thinking of the basic speed of the Tiger and King Tiger. But you're not paying attention at all. It's the operational basis of the tank which means it's mobilty and speed is it's greatest strength. As long as the tank can go at least 20 km/h it's fast enough for the breakthrough. And it will not get tired like marching infantry. The Armoured Division is the greatest formation, it's fast and it can bring everything to bear.

No, the Command tank doesn't need to be constant contact. An Armoured Division has radio tanks and other vehicles capable of taking over the role of the Command Tank if it gets knocked out.

I advise you do get Achtung: Panzer! You'll learn the tactical usage of tanks, because your knowledge of it seems limited.

[schwarzpanzer]

What good is a tank breaking through if the land is not held after it's moved on?

Hit-and-run destruction or Kamikaze-style. Or more tanks than you could hit with a spade! (like Kursk)

The T34 was considered a 'Cavalry tank' remember.

How can you possibly hope for the point of attack to change with speed without radio?

You don't! - Human wave tactics, like WW1.

As long as the tank can go at least 20 km/h it's fast enough for the breakthrough.

Unless it breaks down and needs refuelling every 5 minutes - there were a few very embarrasing situations involving KTs like this.

An Armoured Division has radio tanks and other vehicles capable of taking over the role of the Command Tank if it gets knocked out.

I think the Soviets had only 1 vehicle? certainly only 1 tank per company, though he/she usually led from the rear.

I have Achtung Panzer, haven't read much though and had it yonks!

I advise you to read up on Soviet 'techniques'.

Only the Soviets really could do without radios. I understand no other Army could do this really.

[plan_D]

You do not prepare for an operational assault on the basis of hit and run. That would be a tactical plan inside the division itself with no long term goals or operational objectives. The sole purpose of a tank is to breakthrough and exploit. The aim of a tank force should be far in the enemy rear to destroy, disrupt or encircle their rear forces such as reserves, artillery, supply stations and command HQs. You're thinking tactically, not operationally.

You use WWI tactics? And suffer the exact some problems, then fail. Merely increasing the numbers of men does not win a war. It was discovered that you had to have at least 3:1 ratio of manpower to secure any kind of advance against enemy positions that are well fortified. Even then the chances of success were low. The tank was needed to be used as a mobile breakthrough unit, capable of quick changes of direction and movement.

The King Tiger wouldn't need to advance very far. There's breakthrough and there's explotation. The King Tiger would only to break through the enemy's defence and the rear echelons would take over with faster and longer range tanks to wreak havoc in open areas, never letting up to deprive the enemy of any chance to form a new defence line.

I do know of the Soviet tactical thinking pre-war, early-war and late-war. Pre-war they thought much like the Germans and also believed that radio was a vital aspect of operational success.

Early in the war the Soviet Union lacked any kind of tactical thought. They had no radio, no unit cohesian, tanks were sub-ordinate to the infantry and acted individually, they had no support from aircraft. They lost so amazingly it's quite hard to comprehend. Soviet forces were encircled some many times due to lack of communication. The German forces could change direction at a moments notice because of their radio.

The late-war tactical thought arrived back, somewhat, towards the pre-war doctrine. They lacked radio and communication. These massive assaults were extremely costly. And even in the days of German retreat the Soviets risked encirclement and destruction, which did happen from time to time. By 1944 the Soviet Union had radio but not in every tank, they had command vehicles supporting attacks and radio units with any assault. The Soviet Union understood the need for communication, without it even their vast armies would be encircled and destroyed.

[schwarzpanzer]

The aim of a tank force should be far in the enemy rear to destroy, disrupt or encircle their rear forces such as reserves, artillery, supply stations and command HQs.

Same for anything really, only fools rush in head-on. Though sometimes it's necessary.

Merely increasing the numbers of men does not win a war. It was discovered that you had to have at least 3:1 ratio of manpower to secure any kind of advance against enemy positions that are well fortified.

WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War - worked OK there didn't it?

there's explotation.

There's also exploitation too! :P (Just getting you back for Sitfire)

The King Tiger wouldn't need to advance very far.

Well, you can't surprise anyone with a KT, apart from defensive purposes, it was really quite vulnerable.

Early in the war the Soviet Union lacked any kind of tactical thought.

Yes, but the Germans were seen as liberators then, who would rid them of tyranny.

Later on, they knew it was kill or be killed.

The tankovy-desant changed Soviet tanks role a little too, dunno if that would be a factor though?

By 1944 the Soviet Union had radio but not in every tank, they had command vehicles supporting attacks and radio units with any assault.

They always had tank 1 per company with a radio for assaults.

Later on T34/85's had more radios - just more back-up really?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

Same for anything really, only fools rush in head-on. Though sometimes it's necessary.

Have you ever heard of the Armoured Cav? That is what they do. Spearhead ahead with M-1's and destroy everything in there path. Basically busting a whole for the rest of the army to come in. They get behind and destroy everything from rearl, supplies, basically everything. And it works quite effective out in open terrain. Look at the Gulf War and the War in Iraq in 2003 as an example.

[schwarzpanzer]

Yes, but an Abrams can have Iraqi equipment any which way but loose.

Didn't the Tawalkana cause them severe problems once?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Armoured Cav would have made easy with anyone. They were trained and equiped to be that effective.

[schwarzpanzer]

I don't think against T95's or Merkavas?

- Or other Abrams/Challengers or Leopards for that matter?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What the hell are you talking about. You have completly lost me.

[plan_D]

What are you talking about? I didn't mention a flanking attack! The aim of the tank forces is to break through, be it head-on or in the flank! You don't have to always aim for the flank. You take each situation as it comes. But the sole purpose of a tank forces is to get to the enemy rear and roam free without allowing them to set up new defence lines.

Again, what the hell are you talking about? WWI, increase in manpower did nothing. It took the tank to achieve any great success. The Allies realised that. They increased the number of men, artillery and airplanes but it all achieved nothing. In WWII all the increase in manpower had to be given machines to win.

Do you have ANY clue about operations? Any at all? You can surprise the enemy with King Tigers, you hide their presence until the attack begins. The enemy doesn't even know you had King Tigers in that sector = SURPRISE. My god, you don't have a single clue about operational use, do you? It's all combat in your head.

What the hell are you on about? The Soviet Union lacked tactics because Stalin had killed all his freakin' generals! It has nothing to do with Germany being seen as liberators albeit not by all!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeah I am lost also.

[schwarzpanzer]

Right, sorry if I'm confusing.

Look at the Gulf War and the War in Iraq in 2003 as an example.

I may have been jumping to conclusions, but I guess the Armoured Cav 'snipes' them at a distance with lower numbers?

The best the Iraqi's had at that time were Polish-built T72 'pigs' (export models-twice removed!)

These were not up to Russian T72 standards, or to the T80 & T90+.

Nor were the Iraqi crews any good whatsoever.

This would likely not work against Russian crews in T90's (certainly not T95's!) or Isreali crews in Merkavas.

Also German crews in Leopards etc, etc.

Am I making sense?

Sorry if I'm not.

I didn't mention a flanking attack!

I thought you did? I see what you mean now, thanks for explaining.

Going straight ahead does not require a radio, does it?

The Allies realised that. They increased the number of men, artillery and airplanes but it all achieved nothing.

Yes, but they didn't outnumber the Germans silly-amount to 1 like the Russians, did they?

Also Rorkes Drift, you must understand?

In WWII all the increase in manpower had to be given machines to win.

Did I argue that?

You can surprise the enemy with King Tigers, you hide their presence until the attack begins.

Chris Foss said something like:

The KT was a large tank, difficult to conceal and also ponderous, prone to being left behind. - a fate that happened to many.


The point is, you couldn't sneak with a KT unless it was stationary. They had to come to you, impossible the other way round??

However the 1st were supposed to make the Russians think they were PantherII's - it didn't work!

Besides even if the Russians didn't know KT's were there (highly unlikely) then they'd usually pull back were they were unable to follow.

you don't have a single clue about operational use, do you?

Yes I do, KT's (ideal) operational use = ambush, 'sniping' or mobile bunker - that's pretty much it!

You could ambush with a KT, but you'd be very, very lucky to do so.

The same goes for the TigerI & Panther.


Yes, the purge, those under him though Hitler couldn't possibly be as bad? - they were wrong!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

Right, sorry if I'm confusing.

I may have been jumping to conclusions, but I guess the Armoured Cav 'snipes' them at a distance with lower numbers?

The best the Iraqi's had at that time were Polish-built T72 'pigs' (export models-twice removed!)

These were not up to Russian T72 standards, or to the T80 & T90+.

Nor were the Iraqi crews any good whatsoever.

This would likely not work against Russian crews in T90's (certainly not T95's!) or Isreali crews in Merkavas.

Also German crews in Leopards etc, etc.

Am I making sense?

Sorry if I'm not.

No the tactics of the Armoured Cav is to punch a big whole through so the Heavy Divisions can punch right on in. The Armoured Cav can take on a any kind of tank and they dont do it at a distance. If you are talking about the Light Armoured Cav Recon then yes they attack at a distance if they attack at all since there main mission was to Scout out the enemy. The Heavy Armoured Cav hits you hard and fast before you know what hit you with There M-1 Tanks and Artillary in conjunction with Apache helicopters and OH-58D Kiowa Warrior Helicopters. It is sort similar to the Blitzkrieg tactics of WW2.