Tank vs Tank

I've noticed something on these tank vs Tank debates. We always argue which tank was better, based upon how it fared against other tanks. But how often did tanks actualy fight other tanks? Wasn't there main reason to support the infantry?

Hmm, well we don't _always_ argue about that, the techno-nerds obsessed with gun/armour specs do. The incidence of tank battles really depends on which period of the war you are talking about & which nationality as the doctrine of most countries changed as time went on.

Original doctrine for Panzer Divisions was that the Panzerjagers fought enemy tanks, while their own tanks were reserved for breakthrough operations against soft targets (transport, infantry, artillery positions) and for assault operations against fortified zones. The Sturmartillerie existed as a separate arm to provide SPG support for infantry units (in a similar manner to the British Infantry Tank brigades). In practice, especially during the 1940 French campaign, Panzer units did get involved in tank battles (not many tank battles in Poland or Norway, although there was some armoured action), although again as far as possible they tried to employ towed and SP anti tank weapons against enemy armour first. At e.g. Arras, it was the failure of the Germans anti tank screens that forced them to commit both their divisional Flak and Artillery units in the AT role, as well as directly sending 25th Panzer Regiment to engage enemy tanks (who in turn suffered at the hands of British AT guns), OTOH a major tank battle was fought in Belgium between Hoeppners Panzer Corps and Priouxs Cavalry Corps, both sides losing around 100 tanks each.

So, the answer is, it depends. However viewing tanks as purely infantry support weapon is a very WWI type attitude.

Cheers.

It depends on who you talk to, how they intended to utilize their armored assets and the design of the tank in question. For the US the answer would probably yes, tanks are for infantry support (a.k.a. Sherman and Grant) thats why the Shermans only had a short barrel 75mm early on. Of course Patton would say, rightly so IMO, that the tank is an asset best used as a tool of attack _supported_ by infantry (mechanized of course). The Germans would say the same (as they invented the concept) and add that tanks should smash through enemy lines and run amok in the rear while the infantry secures the breach and the flanks. Their tank designs reflect this.

Not all, perhaps not even most, of the German armor losses were against the British and Canadians. Actually a great proportion of the panzers perished in the ill-fated Operation Luettich against the Americans at Mortain. It would be interesting to see a comparison of German tank losses on the two fronts

Of the 1700 tanks and assult guns the Germans committed to Normandy, only 100 escaped over the Seine.

For Operation Luttich the Germans managed to scrape together 185 tanks and assault guns and apart from Luttich at no point did the American forces face more than two Panzer Divisions (2nd SS and the remains of Panzer Lehr) and one PanzerGrenadier Div (17th SS), whereas the Commonwealth forces engaged the Ist and IInd SS Panzer Corps (1st, 12th, 9th, 10th SS Panzer Divs), plus Panzer Lehr (at full strength), 21st Panzer Div, all three Tiger battalions etc etc.

I can't remember what happened to 116th, 9th and 2nd Panzer Div - I think the 116th was committed at Mortain, 9th fought in Southern France, but the 2nd?

During Goodwood the British destroyed more German tanks (200) than were committed to the entire Mortain offensive. I could go on and on....

I'll go home and look at some books tonight and see if anyone has done some comparative stats.

Cheers.

You are correct, most of the German armor was committed to the Caen sector. It consequently was enveloped in the Falaise pocket and destroyed by Commonwealth units from the north, American units from the south and incessant air attacks from above.

oh god, how to respond to this.........

ok. world war I tanks were (for 99.9% of the time) designed to support infantry. post-wwII tank followed the same train of though, and this persisted into wwII.

now, the russians had a few tanks that were designed to be able to stand up to any tank out there, and dish out a fairly decent blow. ie: KV-1 and T34.

The germans responded with up-gunning the Pzkw III and IV models, along with designing and releasing the Tiger I, Panther and Tiger II tanks (Pzkw VI, V and VII respectively).

Germans moved away from the idea that you had two types of tanks: anti-armor and anti-tank tanks. IMHO they seemed to put assault guns into the more dominant infantry support role.

English and Russian units also narrowed the gap between support tanks and anti-tank tanks. Most of their large caliber tanks could fire both HE and AP shells.

The US stuck blindly with the idea of *Tanks for Infantry* and *Tank destroyers for tanks* role UNTIL the pershing came out. The sherman (even the M4A4E8) were not specifically designed for tank-to-tank confrontations (though the M4A4E8 was alot better than the regular sherman).

Fifties and sixties, tanks continues to have a dual purpose (anti tank and infantry). Seventies, eighties and nineties have seen military planners move to the exact OPPOSITE of the wwI general's original plans:

Tanks to kill tanks. Infantry (plus infantry tanks.... IFVs) to kill infantry.

The abrams doesnt even carry HE shells (useful against infantry).

does this explain a little?

later-

[Moderator's note: Follow-ups should try to stick to the WW2 era]

Tanks in WWI were made to break the static trench defenses that existed at the time, and to counter machine-guns and artillery which chewed up millions of infantry. 'Infantry support' ended up being their role, but not necessarily what they were designed for.

The Soviets were at the forefront of theoretical and applied armored warfare until Stalin purged the officer corps. They kept the weapons and lost the ideas.

The Germans moved away from it, after it was proven not to work. Remember, the Pz-IVd and e models were infantry support tanks, and the Pz-III models were intended for the anti-armor role.

They used assault guns in the infantry support role, as tanks, and as tank killers. Mainly because they were cheaper and easier to make, not because of any real doctrinal emphasis on turretless weapon platforms.

With the exception of the Soviets, no country in 1941 had a tank with a high velocity gun over 60mm fielded on a tank. The mainstay of the British armored force for the first years of the war was the good ole 2 lb cannon, with which there was no HE shell provided.

The U.S. entered the war late, so its pretty easy to see why they lagged behind theoretical armored tactics.

In armored warfare, tanks have ONE purpose: rapid envelopment and exploitation. This hasn't changed since the German invasion of Poland in 1939. What has changed is the type of threats the tank has to face. Its one thing when a Pz-IVF2 is facing off against infantry armed with a Boys AT rifle, and another thing entirely when a T-72BMII is facing off against infantry armed with TOW-2 missile launchers with tandem warheads.

The M-1A1 and M-1A2 Abrams don't carry HE shells because with the 120mm gun they can only carry 40 rounds, a problem in a high intensity armored battle that they were expected to fight. The U.S. worried much about 5 T-80Us and 30 BMP-2s going up against 2 M-1A1's and 4 Bradleys. The M-1 that was armed with the 105mm gun had HE shells, FYI.

- Lane

The German heavy tanks (both Tigers and the Maus) were really anti-tank tanks. The idea of the heavy tank was that it could engage medium tanks and survive hits better with its heavy armor, while the big gun of the heavy tank would destroy many mediums. This concept was made obsolete by the Main Battle Tanks, which carried big enough guns to penetrate the armor of the heavy tanks. It was not possible to make even more heavily armored heavy tanks, because their weight would be excessive. The Maus is a good example of that.

The heavy tank concept was already obsolete by the end of the WWII, because medium tanks like Panther and Centurion could carry powerful enough guns to penetrate the armor of almost any heavy tank. The Soviet IS-III/T-10 series heavy tanks were an afterthought, but in the '50s the heavy tanks no longer had any significant role in the Soviet doctrine, even though they were used until late '60s.

Turretless tanks or more correctly turretless tank destroyers are a somewhat different matter. They were mostly used, because they are cheaper than turreted tanks and they can carry heavier guns and more armor than turreted tanks on the same chassis. The Germans also used the assault guns, which were originally infantry support vehicles. After 1943 they were often used as tank destroyers though, and the difference between the assault guns and the Jagdpanzers was more organizational than technical during the late stages of the war. Anyways, the Jagdpanzers were tank destroyers, not turretless tanks. Attempts to use the Jagzpanzers as 'real' tanks were usually unsuccessful.

Tero P. Mustalahti

The Russians were also the first ones to develop and use air-to-ground rockets. They had them deployed and ready for use already in 1940, three years earlier than the Western powers. This didn't help them much in summer 1941 though, because the Germans had a complete air superiority.

Minor correction: the Jagdtiger carried a 128mm gun, which was an overkill, since the 88 could destroy any Allied tank.

Tero P. Mustalahti

Hmmm, yes, but Great Britain still produced tanks that were WW-1 like, for instance Matilda and also the Churchil. The German tanks up to Pz-IV were designed for the new war-effort, and the Tiger and PAnther were responces to the T-34. Actually, the Tiger was being developped before the encounter with the T-34, but the Panther had to become Germany's T-34. Which it did, but it didn't keep up with the T-34 as it still used the 75mm gun where the T-34 went to an 85mm gun.

But Russia also had it super-heavy tank. I forgot it's name, but it was troubled with an engine not getting completed and thus, cancellation. This was before WW-II started. The French had the Char-B tanks. The Germans had no large tanks, perhaps the DW-1 and DW-2 and the projects for VK-7000 tanks, but none materialized.

Still, the Germans beat the soviets back to around Moscow with inferior tanks. Yes, in the end the Germans lost, but the Russians first had to re-think the situation and then get on their feet again and come up with a counter-offensive. Had the KV-1 and T-34 been so superior, the Germans had been stopped sooner, which could have led to a different outcome. Now, the Germans got stuck much later in the year, winter was coming and supply-lines were stretched. Had the Germans been stopped sooner, the supplies could have reached them easier, but this is another topic.

And in the end, blatantly defying the treaty. All German aircraft of the 1940's had been developed as civil-planes. He-111, Ju-88, Do-17, all initially passenger-planes.

But the tanks were there on september 1 1939.

The Maus again. The Maus was defined as your rolling Bunker. Bigger means better. Look at the E-100 tank. Bigger means better. Heck, look at the Tiger-II. Bigger means better. And the rule was to have a Stug based on every new tank that came. Panther