Peterminator
Active member
because all the WW2 games and books are confusing me
godofthunder9010 said:The use for Tanks that didn't work out so well: Intermixing the tanks and using it as a support for the Infantry, depending on WW1 style fixed lines and trench warfare. The French are the greatest failure story in this regard.
Not sure I agree with you there.
Your right such tactics failed the French, but the Americans and Russians used such intergration with great success. The Tanks job was to deal with enemy armor and fortifications such as pillboxes and bunkers while the infantry was to clear the way for any threats to the tanks such as land mines, AT-Guns, and Panzershreck/Panzerfaust teams. This combo worked quite well in western Europe.
ironhorseredleg said:On the other hand, the German blitzkrieg attacks were initially very effective, literally rolling over the enemy. However, this lengthy stretching out of the mechanized lines put serious strains on supply chains and depended upon captured enemy supplies to maintain the strategy. German armored unit were regularly thrust ahead into battle without sufficient numbers of ground or air support.
godofthunder9010 said:What did work out very well: Massing a giant concentration of tanks and using it to repeatedly cut the enemy line in half and/or outflank them. The Infantry would come in after to secure the ground the Tanks had taken. Ideally, this was mechanized Infantry, deployable almost immediately behind the tanks, but more often than not, the tanks far outran the non-mechanized Infantry.So what purpose did non-mechanized infantry have in warfare.
Peterminator said:godofthunder9010 said:What did work out very well: Massing a giant concentration of tanks and using it to repeatedly cut the enemy line in half and/or outflank them. The Infantry would come in after to secure the ground the Tanks had taken. Ideally, this was mechanized Infantry, deployable almost immediately behind the tanks, but more often than not, the tanks far outran the non-mechanized Infantry.In an ideal world, all infantry would be mechanized so that they could keep up with the tanks and allow for quicker securement of objectives. For the Germans and Soviets in WW2 the vast majority of their infantry was non-mechanized. The US and UK fared better but still had a large part of their infantry slogging it on foot.So what purpose did non-mechanized infantry have in warfare.
An all-mechanized infantry is ideal but very expensive. Also, mechanized infantry is not suitable for every terrain type, i.e. heavy urban, forest, mountains. So non-mechanized infantry would be deployed in those types of terrain.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.