Infantry VS Armor

[renrich]

Do naval guns count? The Germans in Italy found that infantry supported by naval gunfire was a nasty proposition. The 24th division in Korea had to do a lot of fighting against T34s without much armor support. They found the WW2 bazooka was not very effective against T34s.

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by DBII

I have pictures of the Plt leader that made the first contact with the 101st Abn if anyone is interested in seeing them.

DBII

Of coarse we'd like to see..

They may be worthy of their own thread.

[plan_D]

It is true that generally infantry can only repulse armour in urban areas, and most have some handheld AT weapon at hand.

I don't want to hi-jack the thread but for me the Ardennes Offensive was going to fail with or without fuel. There were no reserves for the advancing German forces, so there would have been nothing to fill in the bulge they would create. I do not see any possibility of that force holding the British in the north and the Americans in the south for any length of time without reserves to fill in the gaps along the German lines.

[DBII]

I agree. If the Germans made it to Antwerp the Allies supply lines would have been messed up but the Germans could not have held their gains. Patton's relief of Bastone would have become an flanking attack on the Germans. Would the sucess of the Germans resulted in a cease fire or surrender terms? I think that Hitler would demand continued offensive operations after feeling good about the operations.

DBII

[Juha]

Plan D
"It is true that generally infantry can only repulse armour in urban areas"

I'd say that infantry has a chance in any terrain which clearly limited tanks ability to manoeuvre and the ability of their crews to observe the neighbourhood. I was trained to fought against overhelming tank-heavy enemy in heavily forested terrain. Afgans showed the effects of mountainous country and Vietnamese the effects of jungle and rice paddies.

Juha

[Soren]

Juha there's a big difference between your AT training and that given to Allied soldiers of WW2. Today handheld AT weapons are used by everyone everywhere, very much affecting how soldiers today are trained. During WW2 US & UK only had the Bazooka and PIAT at their disposal, which were completely useless in open terrain.

In the incident at Metz you refered to the 90th Div. directed a mass of artillery and AT fire at the 106th Pz.Brigade, which is the only reason that attack got repulsed. Had this support not been available to the 90th division they would've been overrun in no time.

[Juha]

Soren
we combat engineers had at the time when I was in the army, ie many years ago, only A/T mines and one RPG per squad as A/T weapons, our S55 RPG had max range of some 100-150m against moving tanks. And our secondary function was that of A/T reserve! And of course we got some training with Molotov's cocktails, effective range say 10m. Not so much difference with that of 1944-45. So I know what close combat with tanks means, not very healthy occupation. I even made some shooting with WWII Suomi smg, got excellent results but what a disappointment after assault rifle, no kick to mention, only brrrr, really a pop gun. Also got some training with Degt... the soviet lmg/BAR with big flat magazine on the top, but never fired one, instead did some shooting with new (then) Finnish LMG, was that Model 62. but I was trained to disassemble and assemble Degt.., the Finnish WWII BAR Lahti-Saloranta Model 26 and even the WWII bolt-action rifle. But did shooting only with Suomi, assault rifle RK 62, LMG 62 and RPG S55.

Now 106.PzBr vs 90. InfD. The firefight began at night, US tanks were during darkness mostly rather passive in fear of friedly fire incidences. And heck, if tanks attacked infantry division of course there was also A/T guns and artillery around. The US artillery fire was so effective because US infantry/AT defences succeeded in forcing Germans to bunch up and at least one group of German AFVs got so confused that they bunched up onto one sunken road to perfect target to US artillery.


Juha

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Juha

I'd say that infantry has a chance in any terrain which clearly limited tanks ability to manoeuvre and the ability of their crews to observe the neighbourhood. I was trained to fought against overhelming tank-heavy enemy in heavily forested terrain. Afgans showed the effects of mountainous country and Vietnamese the effects of jungle and rice paddies.

Juha

I have to agree with this statement. The key is the lack of mobility of the AFV and the lack of visibility, be it caused by buildings, forests or mountains.

The obvious difference between WW2 and modern AT weapons is the increased range and accuracy.
I admit I don't fancy the idea of having to use Molotov's cocktails!!

[parsifal]

The first true allied victory of an Infantry force, against armour was by the Australian 9th Division at tobruk, April-June 1941.

The battle was one for a number of reasons, and cannot be attributed to any one factor really

The 9th had 2pdr AT guns, which did help, but were not solely responsible. The Australians were the first to use 25 pdrs over open sights, even though there were no AT rounds as such, a direct hit by a 25 lb shell was found to be enough to blow apart a Mark II, Mark I or even a Mark III. The Germans lines of advance had been carefully laid out so that the support indirect fire was able to lay down very accurate fire to break up and isolate the attacking armour from its Infantry support. the Infantry support for the axis attack was at first halted, and then pushed back by the ferocity of the Australian Infantry's counterattacks, which continued, without respite, day and night until the Axis Infantry had had enough and withdrew. Meanwhile, the Axis armour continued to push forward, unsupported, and into a trap. The Australians were fortunate in that on the second day (I think) ther was a heavy dust storm. This allowed the Australian assault teams to stalk and attack the german Tank force with great efficiency. At the end oif it all, the Germans had lost something in the order of 40 tanks.

During Crusader, it was the New Zealand Division who blunted Rommels armoured attacks, not the british armour. The Brit armour time and again let down the supporting Infantry.

Finally it was the french general Weygand who in the latter stages of the battle Of france worked out the best means for Infantry to defend against armoured attack. It was called the "Quadrillage" system of defence, which i think means "checkerboard". The Russians used a variation of this technique at Kursk. The Infantry basically does not try to hold a continous front but forms self supporting strongpoints (the British called them "boxes, or "Hedgehogs" in the desert. The objectives of these strongpoints is simple, to resist for as long as possible to impede the enemy armours mobilty, impede his logistical support, and tie down the enemy supporting Infantry. If help is likely to arrive, the hedgehog stays in place, if not, at some point it must prepare to break out and make for safety.

What is required for this kind of defence to work is good nerves. if people panic they will lose. If air support is available it can be a big help. A mobile counterattack force is also pretty important. this was lacking in the Battle Of France, and for the germans (who also used it) in many parts of the Eastern Front after Kursk (their armoured reserves were just too weak to effectively stop the russians). Ardennes saw the US forces hedgehog in exactly the same way, until the armoured reserves arrived. The germans were going nowhere fast in the Ardennes, which was admittedly excacerbated by their fuel shortages, meant that they could not manouvre properly. Once the weather broke, it was all over

Armour is generally surpisingly weak against determined Infantry. it needs plenty of support from the other arms in order to be effective. Armour in urban situations is vulnerable, and has to trade places with the Infantry, ie, the Infantry leads, and the armour provides the support.

[Juha]

I have known maybe since I was some 13 years old that Molotov’s cocktail was a weapon only used when better weapons were not around and I have been since both angry and sad that Finnish Army had to use them as one of its main AT weapon during the Winter War. Using it myself during training reinforced my view but of course also increased my admiration to those Finns, Spaniards, Russians and Japanese who had had guts to use them effectively under fire. Really suicidal weapon to use against groups of tanks with some infantry support. How near our experience was to that of WWII is shown by the facts that we used the cocktails against old Vickers 6 tonners or T-26s and our training with or against running tanks was made in co-op with Charioteers which were WWII Comets with new bigger turret with 20pdr gun. And our RPG S55 was effective only against side and rear of MBTs just like bazooka was against Pz Vs and VIs. I was also trained to lay some WWII era mines such as Tellermine 42, S-mine (the jumping mine), but on the WWII era mines used as live only Finnish pipemine Model 43 and wooden box mine, used by Russians, Finns and Germans during WWII and of course some 60s types.

Parsifal
first "victory" during WWII against tanks I'm aware was at the beginning of the war when one Polish cavalry brigade stopped 4th PzD for appr 24 hours and inflicted to it rather heavy losses with its 37mmA/T guns and A/T rifles.

Juha

[parsifal]

Parsifal
first "victory" during WWII against tanks I'm aware was at the beginning of the war when one Polish cavalry brigade stopped 4th PzD for appr 24 hours and inflicted to it rather heavy losses with its 37mmA/T guns and A/T rifles.

Juha[/quote]

Hi Juha

There were many occasions where delay against the Panzers was achieved. However, within a reasonable time frame the germans were back and had taken, or achieved, their objective.

in the case of the Tobruk battle, this was the first time that this did not occur. Despite being outnumbered, the germans were forced to abandon their attack, and did not achieve it subsequently. As far as I am aware, this did not happen prior to this date.

[Ramirezzz]

the Finns were very effective to combat the armoured units of the RKKA indeed, the whole brigades were encircled and wiped out by their mobile anti - tank units.
But as I always say, that's not an infantry job - in fact, if you as a grunt are facing the tanks with your bazooka, that means something went wrong))

[Juha]

Parsifal
” There were many occasions where delay against the Panzers was achieved. However, within a reasonable time frame the germans were back and had taken, or achieved, their objective.”

Yes I know, therefore I used “ ”. I was also too cautious, it seems that the cavalry brigade held its front more or less intact almost 40 hours and an important reason for its disengagement was that the southern neighbour of 4th PzD, the 1st PzD, had achieved a breakthrough further south and the southern flank of the cavalry brigade hanged in thin air, the point of 1st PzD being some 20km further east.
After tanks were able to freely use their mobility, cavalry was in big troubles and 4th Pz were ready to begin its dash towards Warsaw, where it was to suffer more heavy losses when it tried to force its way into the city.
I think that the cavalry brig. did very well even if it was supported by an armoured train. In the defence of the 4thPz, IMHO it was easier to be in defence than attacking in one’s first real combat. Also 4th was one of the “new” PzDivs, maybe not yet as well trained than the 1. – 3.PzDivs or the light divs (later converted to 6. – 9. PzDivs)


Ramirezzz
“in fact, if you as a grunt are facing the tanks with your bazooka, that means something went wrong))”

Or that the politician of a small country had been too stingy before the war and the soldiers must pay a heavy price for that. Of course in democracy and with a conscript army the soldiers were partly guilty because they were/are also voters.

And we got some touch on what it had been during the WWII when shooting with Suomi smg with WWII era helmet on our head and WWII era great coat rolled on our back, boots were also like those used during WWII, almost only "modern " gear being our camo uniform.

Juha

Juha

[MacArther]

Gimme some time, I'll post an article that I have about an infantry man knocking out a Panther with a rifle grenade, and then using said Panther's AA machine gun to attack German troops.

[Soren]

Juha,

The two worst places for a tank to be are urban & heavily vegetated areas such as dense forrests.

Out in the open you guys wouldn't have stood a chance, you would've all been blown to smithereens within seconds. And based on the equipment you said you had available you guys wouldn't have lasted long against even 3 well commanded tanks in pretty much any place but very dense forests and urban areas.

Besides I'm sure most soldiers will scoot when then only have a single RPG and see two or three tanks coming their way. Just the sight of a tank is enough to make many panic.

Now back to WW2 imagine a squad seeing a Tiger coming their way when they only have a PIAT at their disposal ! Sheer terror mate! Sheer terror! If Allied tankers suffered from Tigerphobia think about the poor infantry who bumped into one without any AT support!