Importance of artillery versus tanks

lljadw

Active member
I don't know if this has already been discussed (if so,the moderators may delite my post ),but what are the members of the forum thinking :what was more important in the war against Germany :tanks or artillery ? (Btw :I am an heretical :Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers are guns,no tanks )
 
I don't know if this has already been discussed (if so,the moderators may delite my post ),but what are the members of the forum thinking :what was more important in the war against Germany :tanks or artillery ? (Btw :I am an heretical :Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers are guns,no tanks )

I would argue that Tank Destroyers are not artillery either.

On the whole I will go with tanks being the most important.
If you look at the battles on the eastern front you see large scale use of artillery, Germans used it extensively at Leningrad, Kursk and Sevastopol with limited success and the Russian preliminary artillery assault at Kursk had little effect on the outcome of the battle.

On the whole artillery seemed most effective against exposed troops such as the Falaise gap but against entrenched forces such as those around Berlin or Seelow Heights it had very limited effectiveness by comparison to the follow up millions of troops and thousands of tanks.
 
The tank is a really just a mobile artillery piece wrapped up in armour. The Falsie Pocket well most the damage there was done by the Thunderbolts and Typhoons which were lined up all day to get there turn to blast this pocket with rockets and machine gun fire.
 
Tanks were the most decisive war-winning weapons (other than tactical airpower) but artillery was very important as well. The 'new' Red Army that formed in late 1942/43 made extensive use of artillery to 'soften' up static German defences. I think if you asked any infantry soldier in WW2 what they feared most I think the vast majority would say artillery.
 
I thought that the tanks were the modernised successor of the cavalry and could only act with good performance against weak targets,and were in most cases helpless against ATG ,while the artillery was more important,no attack beying successfull without beying preceded by artilery bombardment .
 
They both have their uses, but there is nothing as impressive as seeing an entire armored brigade on the move.
 
I think after the First World War the allies would of happily stuck to tanks after the realisation that artillery did very little effective damage, especially on entrenched troops.
 
WW2 Tanks could be very vulnerable in less than ideal terrain against a brave and determined enemy. Isn't is true that essential components of the Panzer divisions were mobile infantry to provide support? Tanks are sometimes criticised or being only useful for destroying other tanks with armoured fighting vehicles being more useful!
 
Tanks are sometimes criticised or being only useful for destroying other tanks with armoured fighting vehicles being more useful!

Why? Tanks have both the main gun, coax machine gun, and at least another machine gun for the loader and/or commander. That is bad news for any infantry. The main gun would wreak havoc against any fortifications the opposing infantry may use.
I don't reckon AFVs of the World War II era were that well armed nor that heavily armored.
 
The dominance of air power in open terrain, and poor visibility and movement in restricted terrain/poor weather are the main reasons. The Superior German armour was at the mercy of allied air-power in the later stages of the war in anything but close covered terrain.

With regard to the Artillery v tank debate surely these were complementary, the former being necessary to weed out dug in positions which could be used as positions against the weaker side or rear armour of the tank when advancing.
 
Doesn't answer your claim that AFVs were considered better for troop fire support than tanks. With a lack of air power both would be just as vulnerable and the thinner skinned AFVs, even more so.

Actually Perseus, trying to get a direct hit on a bunker with artillery, even when fired en masse, doesn't always work out well. In World War I, artillery was used to try to destroy enemy units while they were still in their trenches and machine gun emplacements but we all know how that worked out. This is not a mission for artillery, rather this is a mission for infantry to accompany the tanks. The infantry makes sure the enemy does not get to ambush the tanks easily and the tanks make sure that anyone who opens fire on its protecting infantry gets a HEAT round in their face.
 
I start the thread with some provocativequestion ;the reason is the myth(even today )of the omnipotent tank :if people are discussing allied,German or SU strength,they are giving X men, X aircraft and X tanks,but never are mentioning the number of artillery .They always talk of King Tank,but was King Tank that dominant ?let's take Dunkirk :was the failure of the Germans to take Dunkirk that the tanks were exhausted ?Or was it because there was not enough artillery and infantry available in the nearness ?
Let's take Barbarossa:the quarrel between Guderian and Kluge,Guderian saying that the infantry was not fast enough and was holding up the tanks;if is it's true that's assuming that without the infantry,the tanks would advance further and obtain victory . But is this true ?Could the tanks break trough a Russian defense line that was supported by artillery ?
Was there any exemple of a Allied,German or SU offensive not preceded by artillery bombardment ?
 
There seems to be two questions here; importance of artillery and the effectiveness of tanks.

Artillery was/is important as it's the best way (airpower aside) to soften up static defences. Although its damage dealing effectiveness is limited against entrenched troops, the effect on soldier morale cannot be underestimated. Against exposed infantry artillery is quite effective but has little impact on tanks.

Tanks in WW2 were used by Germany to break through at weak points in the enemy line and then to disrupt communications and supply lines to the rear. The major weakness of tanks (airpower aside) is that they cannot hold objectives. This is why the German General Staff were so concerned when the likes of Guderian and Hoth surged far ahead of the supporting infantry columns. At one point Guderian's panzer divisions were 2 weeks' hard marching time ahead of their supporting infantry.

Each of the 4 Panzer Armies in the Wehrmacht had infantry divisions to hold objectives secured by the tanks. In theory, these infantry divisions were to be motorised but very few divisions in the German Army ever achieved this. Panzer divisions had their own organic artillery component but this was modest compared to that of an infantry division. Another weakness of tanks is their vulnerability to mines. German tanks (aside from the ill-designed Elefant) had machine guns to stop Soviet soldiers getting close enough to plant explosives on their hulls etc but sometimes these were not enough. In certain terrain tanks are very vulnerable (urban, forested) and need infantry to protect them from minefields and other infantry.

I mentioned airpower twice because IMO it's largely replaced artillery and tanks as the defining weapon type in war.
 
The dominance of air power in open terrain, and poor visibility and movement in restricted terrain/poor weather are the main reasons. The Superior German armour was at the mercy of allied air-power in the later stages of the war in anything but close covered terrain.

Second to this guy this is a myth:

"Modern literature on WWII is replete with accounts of devastating air strikes on tank units. There are many stories about dozens or even hundreds of enemy tanks being destroyed in a single day, thereby destroying or blunting an enemy armoured offensive. These accounts are particularly common in literature relating to later war ground attack aircraft, most commonly the Soviet Ilyushin II, the British Hawker Typhoon, the American Republic P-47, and the German Henschel Hs 129. All these aircraft have the distinction of being called ‘tank-busters’ and all have the reputation for being able to easily destroy any type of tank in WWII. In some cases, authors go so far as to claim an aircraft type was the ‘best antidote’ to certain tank types, eg the Tiger I tank’s nemesis in Normandy was apparently the rocket firing Typhoon.


Did this really happen? Today, many people think about the capabilities of modern combat aircraft when thinking about a WWII aircraft’s ‘tank busting’ ability. However WWII was an age where there were very few guided weapons and aircraft had great difficulty hitting small targets, especially if they were well protected.(1) In fact all the so called ‘tank-busters’ proved relatively ineffective against armoured ground targets (AFVs) or even small, defensively deployed, ground targets. This is despite the very exaggerated claims made by aircrew and much immediate post-war aircraft literature on the effects of air attacks on hard (i.e. armoured or fortified) ground targets. These claims were almost never ratified by corresponding after action ground reports from either the defending or attacking side’s ground forces. The following examples illustrate this occurrence, and are classic examples of how WWII stories and claims have found there way into the history books."
 
The dominance of air power in open terrain, and poor visibility and movement in restricted terrain/poor weather are the main reasons. The Superior German armour was at the mercy of allied air-power in the later stages of the war in anything but close covered terrain.

With regard to the Artillery v tank debate surely these were complementary, the former being necessary to weed out dug in positions which could be used as positions against the weaker side or rear armour of the tank when advancing.
Was the German armour superior?In which year ?Against which opponent ? Against allied tanks ? Against allied ATG ?And what do you mean by superior ?
 
There seems to be two questions here; importance of artillery and the effectiveness of tanks.

Artillery was/is important as it's the best way (airpower aside) to soften up static defences. Although its damage dealing effectiveness is limited against entrenched troops, the effect on soldier morale cannot be underestimated. Against exposed infantry artillery is quite effective but has little impact on tanks.

Tanks in WW2 were used by Germany to break through at weak points in the enemy line and then to disrupt communications and supply lines to the rear. The major weakness of tanks (airpower aside) is that they cannot hold objectives. This is why the German General Staff were so concerned when the likes of Guderian and Hoth surged far ahead of the supporting infantry columns. At one point Guderian's panzer divisions were 2 weeks' hard marching time ahead of their supporting infantry.

Each of the 4 Panzer Armies in the Wehrmacht had infantry divisions to hold objectives secured by the tanks. In theory, these infantry divisions were to be motorised but very few divisions in the German Army ever achieved this. Panzer divisions had their own organic artillery component but this was modest compared to that of an infantry division. Another weakness of tanks is their vulnerability to mines. German tanks (aside from the ill-designed Elefant) had machine guns to stop Soviet soldiers getting close enough to plant explosives on their hulls etc but sometimes these were not enough. In certain terrain tanks are very vulnerable (urban, forested) and need infantry to protect them from minefields and other infantry.

I mentioned airpower twice because IMO it's largely replaced artillery and tanks as the defining weapon type in war.
I have to disagree with the last sentence,because airpower was not the defining weapon in the war in the East .
 
Was the German armour superior?In which year ?Against which opponent ? Against allied tanks ? Against allied ATG ?And what do you mean by superior ?

I said in the later stages of the war, so say from D Day onwards, admittedly this applies more to the Western front. With regard to your other comment, this aircraft must have been as effective as the T34 if not more so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2

Joseph Stalin paid the Il-2 a great tribute in his own inimitable manner: when a particular production factory fell behind on its deliveries, Stalin sent a cable to the factory manager, stating "They are as essential to the Red Army as air and bread." [4]
 
Last edited:
I have to disagree with the last sentence,because airpower was not the defining weapon in the war in the East .

Well I think he is referring to now in actual fact, but take into consideration that air power had rapidly improved by the Second World War and was taking over artillery reasonably. Maybe not so much on the Eastern front for the soviet's were relatively poor. lol.
 
Back
Top