Peterminator
Active member
because all the WW2 games and books are confusing me
How were tanks used with infantry in combat during WW2?
Armyjaeger
Active member
Im under the impression that atleast german tanks of the time were there for the sole purpose to destroy enemy tanks and not so much to act for infantry support, other than the tanks that were specifically desgined for the role.
AussieNick
Forum Digger
Well the normal role of a tank is shock action. They can destroy the enemy who hold ground, but the infantry need to actually physically seize and hold the ground. A tank can't "hold" ground. They support each other, in the sense that tanks can advance under fire, infantry cannot (without massive losses). And the Inf can then be fighting force that fills and holds the void that the tank creates. A tank can't hold ground the same way Inf can because they are large targets, most often "above ground" (as opposed to Inf who can be dug in with overhead protection. I'm sure I'll have what I've said contradicted by a tankie, but that's what I've been taught.
LeEnfield
Active member
A lot of on how the tank was used depended on just what attack was going in. If it was a rapid advance over open ground then the tanks raced on ahead followed by motorised infantry. If it was work in a built up area then they would be together supporting one another. If was a fixed defence then often the infantry and sappers would go in and clear the minefields for the tanks to break through the lines. A lot always depend on just what you expect to happen every little Battle is different in it's own way.
Peterminator
Active member
Go to www.lonesentry.com
if you go down they have a long list of tactics, weapons,ect.
if you go down they have a long list of tactics, weapons,ect.
Peterminator
Active member
uhhhhhhhhhh
why is no one posting stuff anymore :cen:
why is no one posting stuff anymore :cen:
Spartacus
Active member
Read How Hitler and the Allies misread the Strategic Truths of WWII.
Brief;
Germans originally designed as crushing penetration, Infantry fills gap. However, they began by operating in columns.
Russians; heavy firepower, back-up for infantry.
French; (now this is interesting because they actually had more modern firepower than the germans at start WWII) Used for back-up, but believed in stationary emplacements.
American; Back-up/Reinforcement especially in assaults.
Brief;
Germans originally designed as crushing penetration, Infantry fills gap. However, they began by operating in columns.
Russians; heavy firepower, back-up for infantry.
French; (now this is interesting because they actually had more modern firepower than the germans at start WWII) Used for back-up, but believed in stationary emplacements.
American; Back-up/Reinforcement especially in assaults.
godofthunder9010
Active member
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.
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.
The Germans got the best of what worked, but not even they were able to fully escape the military tradionalists who were determined that only the Infantry was suitable for the front line, whilst doing everything possible to preserve the role of the horse in modern warfare ...
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.
The Germans got the best of what worked, but not even they were able to fully escape the military tradionalists who were determined that only the Infantry was suitable for the front line, whilst doing everything possible to preserve the role of the horse in modern warfare ...
ironhorseredleg
Active member
Tanks were much better integrated into the Allied strategy in WWII than they had been earlier. Yet the main function for Allied tanks was still a forward assault with follow-on infantry. However, depending upon terrain and mech problems, the infantry leaders would often forge ahead of the armor to "accomplish the mission" and end up with large losses, sometimes even do to mechanized cross-fire.
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.
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.
Doppleganger
Active member
ironhorseredleg said:
You're essentially correct but only in the Soviet Union did this really become a problem for the Germans, because of the huge distances involved and the gross underestimation of the SU's ability to resist. In a 'normal' European-sized country Blitzkrieg tactics had no real problems with outstripped supply lines. It's important to remember that there was hardly ever a time when the German Panzer divisions had a full strength complement, never mind having any supporting elements aiding them.
There's a fine balance in allowing your armoured spearheads to breakout and move forward on their own initiative and not allowing them to move too far ahead of the supporting infantry. Too far and they risk being cut off. Not far enough and the advance slows down, allowing the enemy to regroup and counter-attack. Surprise is a HUGE advantage in offensive warfare and that's one of the reasons why the Wehrmacht was so initially successful. Allow a Panzer Korps sized force to advance on its own and it's probably strong enough to capture enemy fuel depots (when available) and strong enough to breakout if surrounded. As long as the enemy is kept off guard and not allowed to think it works very effectively.
Guderian understood perfectly well that the infantry was, ideally, required to be in range of the panzers but his requests for halftracks to move the infantry at panzer speeds were never even close to being met due to German heavy industry not being geared for war and because of the influence of the traditionalists in the German Army, both of which had a big impact. What Blitzkrieg in effect did was essentially replicate the tactics of the Mongols some 800 years earlier by using mobility, feints, diversions and the shock effect of surprise at key points on the battlefield.
Limeyfellow
Active member
The allied only hamstringing came from Patton, who thought that allied tanks would never face axis tanks in battle so we had no need to have anything bigger than the Sherman. That costs us thousands of tanks and their crews when the tank was outclassed by the Germans. It wasn't really to the end with the Pershing that the western allies had a decent tank capable of fighting the germans in a ratio of less than 4-1.
Peterminator
Active member
godofthunder9010 said:
Doppleganger
Active member
Peterminator said: