Importance of artillery versus tanks
sunb!
Forum Barbecuer
Tanks for fast attacks and rapid (counter) movements, artillery for destroying the enemy morale and softning the frontlines.
A tank may be stopped but artillery shrapnels are a bit harder to catch.
Yin717
Active member
But then shrapnel can be inaccurate and rely on luck while tanks are much more accurate.
Doppleganger
Active member
Well, my original comment meant 'now', not back in WW2. On the Eastern Front I think that the impact of tactical air power was significantif not decisive, as what really decided the Russo-German war was the numbers of troops and numbers of tanks each side was able to field at various stages of the conflict.
The Sheer ruggedness and numbers of the Il-2 must have compromised German armour considerably in the later stages of the war, so I'm not too sure about that
I think it superficial,to count only tanks (as weapon)
I made a comparison:number od troops versus tanks and AG
For Germany
june 1941:1 to 700
july 1942 :1 to 1O4O
july 1943 :1 to 89O
july 1944 :1 to 620
For the Red Army (operational forces without the Stavka Reserve )
june 1941 :1 to 21O
may 1942 :1 to 1400
july 1943 :1 to 640
july 1944 :1 to 9OO
Yin717
Active member
Why the sudden surge un 1942? Is to do with volunteers?
there was no surge in 1942
For the Red Army :
1941 :2743000 Tanks 12683
1942:5678000 Tanks 4022
1943 :6627000 Tanks 1O321
1944 :6750000 Tanks 7445
For the Germans
1941 :2700000 Tanks 385O
1942 :2635000 Tanks 2535
1943 :3140000 Tanks 3520
1944 :2600000 Tanks 4200
Tank ratio
1941 3 / 1O
1942 6 /10
1943 3 /10
1944 6 /10
Partisan
Active member
Surely it is all elements of the armed forces working together, using C3I to best advantage to exploit tactical and strategic weaknesses, whilst maintaining a clear focus on the overall objective and results required.
To this end I reckon that the most important factor on the battlefield is still the politician and the general public. If the public lacks the will fight the war they will degrade the morale of the armed forces, which will reduce their effectiveness.
Purely my personal opinion.
To this end I reckon that the most important factor on the battlefield is still the politician and the general public. If the public lacks the will fight the war they will degrade the morale of the armed forces, which will reduce their effectiveness.
Purely my personal opinion.
Yin717
Active member
Then what's up with the 27,000,000 in 1941 and then 31,400,000 in 1943> I'm not getting that.
sunb!
Forum Barbecuer
Just as accurate as the tank driver, you never know where he will drive.
In fact 1942 was the 'best' year for the SU:they lost the following tanks
1941 :205OO
1942 :15000
1943 :22400
1944 :16900
1945 :8700
only tank losses,without Assault guns
German tank losses (report of the IG of the panzertruppe )
1941 (till 30 november ):24O3
1942 3195
1943 5637
1944 (december not complete ) 4438
on both sides a great part of the tank losses were due to mechanical failures,shortage of fuel
Doppleganger
Active member
Well I said troops and tanks, troops being men basically.
The fact that Artillery was important is IMHO already proved by the fact that the Architects of the german Tank force insisted in the development of fast moving Artillery, able to accompany the advancing tanks (known as the Sturmgeschütz).
However, most imortant IMHO was airsupremacy. It was essential for the fast defeat of poland and france by the germans, as it was for the allied invasion forces.
However, most imortant IMHO was airsupremacy. It was essential for the fast defeat of poland and france by the germans, as it was for the allied invasion forces.
rattler
Active member
Arty (or ARI for us Germans) was at that time (WWII), all through the Cold War, and to a certain extent (depends on the form of clash, hard to use well in a COIN or a ROE restricted MOUT environment ) the queen of the battlefield. In WWII, both on Eastern and Western Front air supremacy had a lot of impact, sometimes (more in the EAST) relegating arty to the 2nd important factor (I have no sources for that but have come to understand the situation as such over the last 35 years).
Probably because everybody has this basic layout down pat, it does not get mentioned, they are talking the secondary forces.
Rattler
Last edited:
Korean Seaboy
Active member
True reason
Actually in Dunkirk, Hitler wanted the prize to go to Bock's infantry, so he intentionally held up the Panzers. As with Barbarossa, I think it was the infantry's fault, particulary in Stalingrad. They fought for every inch of ground with painstakingly bad results. Of course, the use of tanks in urban areas during the siege was also a huge mistake, but still, the use of infantry was more of a mistake...
Actually in Dunkirk, Hitler wanted the prize to go to Bock's infantry, so he intentionally held up the Panzers. As with Barbarossa, I think it was the infantry's fault, particulary in Stalingrad. They fought for every inch of ground with painstakingly bad results. Of course, the use of tanks in urban areas during the siege was also a huge mistake, but still, the use of infantry was more of a mistake...
HokieMSG
Active member
Hitler ordered Guderian not to advance on Dunkirk. Guderian attempted to get Hitler to let him attack. Hitler and the German GS told Guderian not to Attack. In spite of this Guderian ordered a recon in force and attempted to smash the British forces. As it happened the British escaped before Guderians recon force arrived.
Understand that Tanks were developed in response to trench warfare. At their level of development in WWII they were fast enough and strong enough to smash through prepared defensive positions and race into the rear areas causing havoc in general and making the defenders pull back to new positions. Rinse and repeat.
The infantry formations that Guderian was complaining about were non-motorized. Guderian had to keep his motor infantry in place defending his flanks while the non-motor infantry moved up. This is one reason why Guderian pushed so hard for complete motorization of infantry forces.
Artillery at it level of development in WWII was supposed to soften up the defenders. Kill some of them. Injure some of them. Make them keep their heads down so they couldn't see the attackers coming.
Yes. Absolutely. Anyone who has tried to call for fire on a moving target without TRP's registered knows just how difficult it is.
Both branches (Armor and Arty) are important. Both have specific things they are designed for. Look at my picture and you can figure out which one I favor. Don't get me wrong. As a scout I loved having IDF available. Good to have when you are trying to break contact.
Tanks can attack and take enemy territory. If Arty is available, the tanks can take even more.