DUST Search - A history of 'the tank' in warfare, by local historian Grezkev

Grezkev wrote:

We didn't see the tanks true potential and power however until World War II against the Germans in Europe. A.H's Panzerjager division was well equipped with vehicles that featured heavy armor in the front, and large powerful 80mm cannons. The use of the tank by the ***** was quite simply: Demoralize the enemy. Troops would create a line of scrimmage, then after securing a position would charge their tanks into enemy territory. The tactic was part of the German Blitzkrieg, however it came with a heavy consequence: There was a loss factor of about 40% of all tanks that engaged in the first assault.

The French and the Allies used their tanks in a different manner. Rather than arm them with large cannons that could destroy an entire building, they built smaller 45-60mm turrets that could use a variety of shells (anti-tank, anti-infantry, anti-air). Some of the tanks were even so versatile that rockets could be placed on them to fire blind into enemy territory.

In the Allied Invasion of Europe (Operation Overlord), the Canadian, British, and American forces siezed upon key cities such as Carentan in the inner regions of Northern France with the primary goal of linking up beachheads together. The reason was obvious: Tanks could not advance into France without a clear road. Infantry were required to secure areas of advancement before tanks could be used to control the area and lock it down. In other words, The Allied used the tanks as a secondary defensive line, and their primary role was to assist troops.

Not surprisingly, the Allies won the war and lost less tanks than anyone...including the Soviet Union who tried to use tanks in a similar way to the Germans.

The lesson here is simple: Tanks are not blitzkrieg devices or tools.

That's my opinion on everyone's complaints about the tanks.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
VicBoss Militaires-Sans-Frontieres 216	Posted - 2013.05.04 21:06:00 - [1] - Quote Grezkev wrote: We didn't see the tanks true potential and power however until World War II against the Germans in Europe. A.H's Panzerjager division was well equipped with vehicles that featured heavy armor in the front, and large powerful 80mm cannons. The use of the tank by the *** was quite simply: Demoralize the enemy. Troops would create a line of scrimmage, then after securing a position would charge their tanks into enemy territory. The tactic was part of the German Blitzkrieg, however it came with a heavy consequence: There was a loss factor of about 40% of all tanks that engaged in the first assault. The French and the Allies used their tanks in a different manner. Rather than arm them with large cannons that could destroy an entire building, they built smaller 45-60mm turrets that could use a variety of shells (anti-tank, anti-infantry, anti-air). Some of the tanks were even so versatile that rockets could be placed on them to fire blind into enemy territory. In the Allied Invasion of Europe (Operation Overlord), the Canadian, British, and American forces siezed upon key cities such as Carentan in the inner regions of Northern France with the primary goal of linking up beachheads together. The reason was obvious: Tanks could not advance into France without a clear road. Infantry were required to secure areas of advancement before tanks could be used to control the area and lock it down. In other words, The Allied used the tanks as a secondary defensive line, and their primary role was to assist troops.** Not surprisingly, the Allies won the war and lost less tanks than anyone...including the Soviet Union who tried to use tanks in a similar way to the Germans. The lesson here is simple: Tanks are not blitzkrieg devices or tools. That's my opinion on everyone's complaints about the tanks. The semi long version I did not read all the posts however this brings up a interesting historical point. Not to be too blunt but the Germans used Blitzkrieg to DESTROY the French early in the war. That is why all of France fell in 6 weeks. Now lets look at the French and German tanks at the beginning of the war. The French had the LARGEST and HEAVIEST tanks. They were prepared for another WWI not a WWII. The Germans had lightly armored FAST tanks. And so they simply outflanked, double envoloped, and Blitzkrieged the heck out of the French. Spearheaded by their Panzers. It was not untill later when the King Tiger came around than the Germans used big heavy tanks. The American's Sherman was picked apart and destroyed by the German tanks, Its main advantages were the fact it was small, easy to repair, and REALLY CHEAP, so the US just pumped out thousands of them. The French tanks were buried in tank trenches so they could be used as mobile artillery, and to get the best angles on their shots. Its called Blitzkrieg for a reason. Because the Germans used it very well in WWII, and it was impossible without tanks. Don't even get me started on other wars that use tanks with Blitzkrieg. Patton came in and used the Germans Blitzkrieg methods to beat the Germans. And so you have said Grezkev wrote: Tanks are not blitzkrieg devices or tools. really Ask Heinz Guderian, Patton, or Rommel about that. Grezkev wrote: Tanks are not blitzkrieg devices or tools. REALLY?! In short, Your military history is wrong.
VicBoss Militaires-Sans-Frontieres 217	Posted - 2013.05.04 21:14:00 - [2] - Quote Sentient Archon wrote: VicBoss wrote: Rommel Field Marshall Erwin Rommell! ! You know some historians actually believe that if Rommell were allowed to do what he wanted to Germany could have won the war. The 7th Panzer Especially in Russia. If he was directing Operation Barbarossa the war could have been much longer, and may have ended much more favorably for the Germans.
VicBoss Militaires-Sans-Frontieres 217	Posted - 2013.05.05 03:26:00 - [3] - Quote Grezkev wrote: You sir, apparently did not read my OP very accurately. The Blitzkriegs were effective, but had a high loss ratio of tanks in comparison to allied pushes which were done primarily through infantry platoons backed up by tanks behind them. We're talking about what the tank is ideally used for. The Blitz of the Bulge didn't help in the long run...so....yea..... Patton didn't blitz anything, btw. Patton would be facepalming over anyone who disagrees with my OP. "Patton trained tank crews to operate in support of infantry, and promoted its acceptance among reticent infantry officers" Source: Axelrod, Alan (2006), Patton: A Biography, London, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-1403971395 Similar statement made in: Blumenson, Martin (1972), The Patton Papers: 1885GÇô1940, Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, ISBN 0-395-12706-8 Tell me where this statement says patton did not Blitz anything. So tell my why was Ike and Bradly so afraid of Pattons supply lines being cut? Why was the famous third army charge cut short? because Patton was BLAZING across Germany in record time. Yes obviously Patton did not command only tanks and no infantry. However infantry supporting tanks or vice versa and are tanks used for Blitzing are two completely different topics. Obviously tanks need to be supported, in game and in history, a combined arms synthesis is paramount in any military, RL or not. However Patton Blitzed the Germans SOOOO hard no one knew what to do. Not even his superiors. The Blitz in the bulge was extraordinarily successful for the state of the German Army. It was on its dying breath, and it did not work like the first Blitz through the Ardennes forest because they now used larger tanks and now it was during winter. Despite this they still made ridiculous gains in land. The German army was already gone at that point, it was only a matter of time, but they went out swinging, as Fredrick the II said "Audacity, Audacity, always Audacity." BTW Patton called the attack, saying that that was what he would do in their situation. The Americans did beat them back, simply due to being in a much better place in terms of supply troop number, vehicle count, and freshness of troops. Don't even get me started on American Blitz in the Iraq War.