tanks everywhere

[drgslyr]

Is an undue amount of attention paid to the role of tanks in history books and television documentaries? Tanks make great spearheads, and played a decisive role in significant campaigns, but how predominant was their role in most of the war? Historians have a tendancy to focus on the tank and give the impression that masses of tanks roamed Eastern and Western Europe during WWII, but the actual figures are astonishingly low in comparison to other types of units. For instance, in 1941 Germany invaded Russia with over 3 million troops and 3,350 tanks. Put in perspective, that is roughly 10,000 personnel for every 10 tanks.

I believe part of the reason tanks appeared to be in greater number than they actually were stemmed from the fact that tanks were transferred to areas where major offensives were planned. Also, tanks naturally grab a person's attention and they look good on film, so if two tanks accompanied three hundred foot soldiers in an operation, it is understandable that a camera crew would focus their lens in the direction of the big imposing machinery. Likewise, historians would have a tendency to note the part tanks played in a battle; I'm sure in many cases out of proportion to their actual significance.

So the question is, are tanks given an undue amount of attention for the role they played in WWII, or was their contribution really as predonimant as it seems?

[Za Rodinu]

You raise a good point. Indeed tanks catch the camera lens better whereas the PBI just slogs off, poor, bloody, sick, cold (or hot) and dirty infantry.

I have a text by Jim Dunnigan or Richard Berg exactly on this theme, his main point is that most combat in the Western Front (well, Eastern Front for you westerners ) if outside the tank battle picture was mainly in the WW1 style: infantry attacks against prepared positions, preceded by more or less long artillery preparations.

When I find the text I'll find a way to post it.

[Za Rodinu]

Here it is, it's the introduction of a scenario for Talonsoft's game East Front. The wargamers among you certainly never heard of this, but to me this series is the best ever I removed some irelevant parts as more directly associated with the game.

Designers Notes for "The Real Deal" scenario
When Jim Rose asked me to do a scenario for this game, I agreed as long as I could do something a little different. My first idea, to do a 1939 battle between the Russians and Japanese in the Far East, proved impossible because of how the first release of East Front was being designed. My second idea was to do one of the first encounters with the Russian KV series heavy tank. This didn't work out because these encounters tended to go on for hours, or even days, until the Germans were able to bring these beasts down. Then I realized that what east front tactical games tend to ignore is what the troops there spent most of their time doing. Namely, defending and attacking fortifications. The attacks were breaking and entering on a very large scale. Note that the Russians did not give so much provenance to artillery because of mobile warfare, but in order to win at the more prosaic trench battles. Designers, and gamers, prefer the more glamorous, or at least less tedious, armored battles. But most of the action on the Russian front was in the trenches. Not very glamorous, and rather plodding, these set piece battles defined the fighting in the east more than anything else. It was the Russians who set the pace for developments in trench warfare. While the Germans became quite good at it, the Russians were always a little better.

So I decided to do a scenario on trench warfare. Yeah, it's a downer, but most of the other scenarios will cover the dashing mobile warfare. I don't mind doing the less appetizing stuff. Besides, I think I may have broken the game along the way. But enough of that, The Real Deal scenario covers the opening hours of the Soviet 20th army's August, 1942 assault against three divisions of the German 9th army. These three divisions were at about half strength, as they had not yet recovered from the beating they had taken in the previous Spring and Winter.

...

Why the Soviet 20th Army? Why August, 1942? Glad you asked. When I decided to go after the KV tank scenario, I promptly came up short on real information. So I went to a friend of mine, Allan Rehm, who, in addition to being a wargamer, has the largest collection of Soviet era Russian language unit histories and staff reports. He's also a lot faster at translating Russian than I am. He checked through his collection and came up with the fact that there were no really exciting encounters between the KVs and the Germans. In the process he began translating the staff report that follows. And then I realized that this was what the war out there was really about and asked Allan to translate all the good parts. He did and it is shown below ... The staff study translated is one of several dozen that were prepared after World War II and used by the Red Army as "case studies" for the training of their staff officers.

...

With The Real Deal scenario itself, keep in mind that you should always let the computer play the Russians. As the German player, you will spend most of your time moving your dwindling supply of mobile reserves around to plug the gaps. The Russians will keep on coming. At this stage of the war, the Russians were losing up to five troops for every German casualty they inflicted. Of the 80,000 Russian troops involved in this campaign, a bit over half became casualties.

...

I hope you enjoy this scenario. If you don't, you'll at least know the real reason why Germans tried to avoid service on the Eastern Front.

Jim Dunnigan

>>

[von Poop]

It is a point but I'm not sure it's generally true, I always picture the Infantry being the greater part of most engagements. Tanks are definitely a little more 'filmic' than blokes though. One area the suggestion perhaps stands most clearly is in the desert where the Afrika Korps reputation (though perhaps 'image' is a better word), to most people, hangs on tanks, whereas at some points Rommel was down to astonishingly low numbers of functional AFV's.

Patrick Wrights 'TANK' is a study of the sociological impact of the vehicle rather than the mechanical, it goes quite some way to explain it's perceived dominance in many c20th events from Cambrai through the Prague Spring to Tiananmen square.

[Za Rodinu]

Never heard of that book, I'll look for it.

[Kyt]

One way of examining the role of tanks could be to examine the war against Japan, where the Japanese were predominately infantry based. How important were the tanks to the US forces, and/or Commonwealth forces? Anybody fancy a bit of research?

[Cpl Rootes]

Tanks had a valuable role to play, if Infantry advanced on their own, they would be slaughtered by enemy tanks and gun positions, if tanks advance on their own then they would be distroyed by AT Infantry hidng in rubble, dead ground etc.

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by Kyt

One way of examining the role of tanks could be to examine the war against Japan, where the Japanese were predominately infantry based. How important were the tanks to the US forces, and/or Commonwealth forces? Anybody fancy a bit of research?

If I recall armour, when available was very handy in that the Japanese tanks were so markedly inferior, to the extent that Stuarts and Lee/Grants were used as 'A' vehicles until the very end, but that conflict underlines one of the major deficiencies of AFV's... they're near useless in the jungle itself, excellent for denying an enemy without effective counters access to the more open areas/roads etc. but seriosly deficient in enclosed spaces. Not unlike the various disastrous attempts to use 'em in cities, a lesson learnt early on that was often forgotten; perhaps due to their imposing presence. It must always have been so tempting to use them if available.
I still think any reading of any 20th century war underlines the fact that "it all comes down to the bayonet".

[spidge]

Australian Service History
The Pacific war did not lend itself to the huge armoured units and tank battles that marked the western desert, France and the Russian steppes. However small and medium tanks were used by both sides. They were used mostly as mobile gun platforms for close infantry support.


The Matilda filled an urgent need for a tank to operate in New Guinea. Approximately 140 tanks were provided by Britain in early 1942, and these vehicles subsequently proved suitable for jungle operations.
The Aussies adapted some of them to become bulldozers and flame-throwers.



In 1943, a flamethrower version was produced, known as the Frog. Frog's were used in Borneo by 2/1 Armoured Brigade. A bulldozer version was also developed.


Many of the tanks were fitted with a variety of battle-field modifications, including wire mesh over the engine covers, spare track links on the hull and/or pierced steel planking (PSP) which was normally used in the construction of aircraft runways. It was also a common practice to festoon the exterior of vehicles with additional stores and personal items of equipment.
An example of the strength of the tank was shown in an action at Pabu Hill near Sattleberg (NB: There is a fine sculpture of a Matilda, titled "The Sattleberg Tank" in the Museum). On this occasion, a tank assisting the infantry was engaged and disabled at a range of less than 50 meters, by a Japanese 37 mm gun. Later a 75 mm gun, anti-tank mines and grenades were used against the tank. Although it was hit more than 50 times, the crew continued to fight the vehicle until its ammunition had been expended. They then managed to escape from the vehicle and return to it the following day. It was subsequently repaired and put back into action one day later.
During the South Western Pacific Campaign, the Matilda served with distinction as part of the 1st Australian Tank Battalion (The Royal New South Wales Lancers).

[MikB]

Originally Posted by spidge

On this occasion, a tank assisting the infantry was engaged and disabled at a range of less than 50 meters, by a Japanese 37 mm gun. Later a 75 mm gun, anti-tank mines and grenades were used against the tank. Although it was hit more than 50 times, the crew continued to fight the vehicle until its ammunition had been expended. They then managed to escape from the vehicle and return to it the following day. It was subsequently repaired and put back into action one day later.

Sounds about standard performance for a Matilda anywhere there ain't no 88s. Except how'd they manage to disable it with a 37?

Regards,
MikB