Sure, tanks of WW2 were technically very different, but when used correctly, they did things known to work in WW1. The Conceptual use stayed very coherent.Originally Posted by Fuchs
You may be right on a very, very abstract level, but you're completely wrong on a technical level.
Sure, tanks of WW2 were technically very different, but when used correctly, they did things known to work in WW1. The Conceptual use stayed very coherent.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
...except that they as similar to each other as were medieval knights to Celtic nobles.
The WW2 tanks were - with exception of assault guns, tank destroyers and infantry tanks - an operational enabler while it was merely a moving pillbox for tactical support in WW1. All WW1 tanks - even the Whippet - were either infantry tanks or carrier vehicles.
I fail to see that 'conceptual use' in a Tiger2, Chaffee, Pzkpfw III or T-34.
WWI versus WWII
In WWI, you find some tanks armed only with MGs (the "females"), a mobile pillbox/machine gun next.
This idea/concept carried forward into early (39/40/41) with a number of countries fielding a number of models of tanks armed only with MGs.
The idea/concept of an MBT is an outgrowth from WWII. No more, infantry & cruiser tanks, no more light, medium & heavy tanks.
Today, recon vehicles and IFVs serve in the WWII light tank role, recon, screening etc. medium & heavy are merged into the MBT. The function of infantry support or cruiser now comes from organization not some much from the individual tank itself.
Actually, what it does best is to exploit, which relegates infantry to a "tank support weapon".
Which is as it should be. Inferiors SHOULD support their superiors.
Are you confusing concept with design? Everything those tanks were designed to do, was being done in WW1. I would further suggest that the Tiger2 was a failed concept, and poorly designed as a result.
Light, Medium and Heavy, all exist today, and never went away. They have merely morphed, from what they were in WW1.
So show me 8-10 + times where unsupported armour successfully exploited to gain ground and hold it? The historical records shows this as very rare and often leading to sever tank losses.
Guys, I am not writing my Thesis here on a bulletin board. OK, my bad for letting the cat out of the bag, but I am merely trying to get away from the "I love tanks" school of history.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
My point, exactly!!!
Tanks need infantry for support. Otherwise, infantry is just a form of protoplasmic track lubricant.
Wilf, I'm yanking your chain, man.
I couldn't care less what tools one uses to win wars. It's about the mission, not the means....
Ahhhh.......
It would appear that I am as emotionally bound to the antithesis as some may be to the hypothesis!!
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
As I said - on a very, very abstract level that may be true. It's highly unlikely that you'll find much agreement by focusing on this level, though.
One example: No tank in WW1 ever bounced a cannon shell. Tiger2 was definitively built to do exactly this. The first tank built to stop shells -not only bullets and fragments- was the Char B-1bis, with a few days advantage over the Mathilda II.
Show me a tank type of WWI which served as command tank or was in radio contact with all other tanks.
Show me a WWI tank which was meant for reconnaissance.
Show me a WWI flamethrower tank.
Show me a WWI tank with a useful operational range and speed - enough for the encirclement of an army or corps.
Show me a swimming WWI tank.
Besides; Tiger and Tiger 2, even Ferdinand/Elefant were highly successful vehicles in the context of open terrain (Eastern front), well worth their price. These designs have been bashed a lot for their difficulties, but the kill ratio is outstanding and they were able to harass front lines or support a local counterattack at little risk.
Fuchs,
I don't know if its a confucsion based upon sematics but as I see it you're confusing conceptual/doctrinall issues (what are tanks for and how should they do it) with technical design (i.e., how they are designed to fulfill their conceptual potentionl in accordance with military doctrine.
You criticise that there were no command tnaks in the Great War. Tanks were infantry support vehicles, not an autonomous arm. Sure, after 1918 and Fuller's embryonic operational concept/scheme of manouvre for 1919 (Plan 1919) tnaks begun to be thought of as an autonomous arm rather than an adjunct branch of the Army. Sort of like air warfare doctrine, fighter tactis only developed as a by product of the original purpose of the plane...reconnaisance.
Secondly, (actually I think I might not be addressing the issues in order) the idea of reconnaisance beyond the FEBA was alter development. I see a lot of people applying hidsight in the discussion...you've got to rememebr that unlike Athena who sprouted from Zeus' head fully armed an armoured tank warfare doctrine develoepd in penny packets. WILF, your comments against Fuller are, on the whole, accurate but you have to remember that Fuller was one of the first, if not the first, to serously sit downa nd consider the implications, applications and ramifications of the tank (and the internal combustion engine) for warfare. It wa sonly the interwar years that the Soviets and Germans really tried to figure things out practically (as opposed to theoretically as was the case in the cash strapped UK).
p.s. A defence of Tukhachevskii...like many of the inter-war innovators he experimented with various designs for the army but his primary goal was the mechanisation of the soviet army. His advocation of meachnisation was as much a political ploy- aimed at the cavalry and infantry gurus like Budenny and Voroshilov (also Stalin cronies) who despised the former Tsarist era voin-spetsy (military-technical specialist) as rivals and saw mechanisation as a threat to the proletariant workers and peasants army- as it was a "purely" military exercise. Tukhachevskii and many of his supports advocated mechanisation to get the industrialisation of the USSR going (i.e., to get production targets and manufacturing on line)...they were NOT settled on the tactcal composition of mech units. In fact, IIRC Tukhachevskii advocated Bde based formations organised aropund loose Corps HQ (Divisioanl size acording to Soviet nomenclature) based on the mission, terrain and enemy.
If you want to aim your fire at tank design try this on for size....Tsar Tank
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 10-17-2010 at 01:20 PM.
Command tanks fitted with radio existed as early as 1917.
....and that's not the point. My point is that the major roles, applications and limitations of the tank/AFV were all known or in place by November 1918.
It's not abstract. It's all there in the operational record. Point being there were ample grounds to challenge the Tank Avant Garde, based on what was known at the time.
Says who? What is the basis for a comparison with other causes of action? A few more Hetzers and a few less Tiger 2s?Besides; Tiger and Tiger 2, even Ferdinand/Elefant were highly successful vehicles in the context of open terrain (Eastern front), well worth their price. These designs have been bashed a lot for their difficulties, but the kill ratio is outstanding and they were able to harass front lines or support a local counterattack at little risk.
Yes, some achieved a very high LER, but never high enough to win. Not much good having a tank fleet that could suffer 30-75% loss if it had to march any distance.
Note: the most mechanically reliable German AFVs power-trains of WW2 all dated from 1937-39 designs.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Tukhachevskii, read my reply again with these quotes in mind:
He completely downplays the difference between WWI and WWII tanks, apparently deliberately ignoring the differences in order to fit history to an idea.
Ya Allah! I do not down play the difference between WW1 and 2 tanks. There was nothing like the Panther in WW1! - Not the point!
The Major ROLES IN WHICH THE TANK HAD BEEN PROVEN EFFECTIVE, had NOT CHANGED! Did the role or basic employment of artillery magically altered between WW1 and 2? Did Infantry? That's my point. We need to get beyond the TAMIYA history of tanks!
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Really?
Based on what parameter of factor?
How much they weigh?
Caliber of their Armament?
Their Mission?
There are "light" MBTs armed with 105mm+ cannons out their, but they are not normally used in the "Light tank role" scouting, recon, screening ect.
The modern analog to the PZII is a cannon armed IFV or scout/recon vehicle.
There are a lot of very "heavy" MBTs out there M1A1, M1A2, Leo2A4/A5/A6, Challenger 2 are all examples. But the concept of a heavy/breakthrough/infantry support tank (lots of armor and slow) is gone.
So are the last generation MBTs, (M60s, Leo1s, AMX30s) your mediums?
Yes, I concur. No more T-10's for example. The "Breakthrough Tank" has ceased to exist, - BUT the basic taxonomy (Lt, Med, Hvy) continues, albeit in an evolving form - as it has evolved since 1918.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
The role of artillery was altered between both world wars, as was the role of most tanks.
Artillery assumed a role in support of mobile warfare in WW2, including quick reaction defensive and offensive fires - its job was much more about pre-planned fires in WW1, which restricted it to a much smaller role in that war.
Likewise, tanks had very different roles in WW2 than in WW1. They were breakthrough tanks with marginal exploitation capability (about the depth of a division sector) in WW1 , but became the spearhead of exploitation efforts in WW2 - the German army even preferred to achieve breakthrough without much if any tank involvement. The Japanese tank actions in Malaya had no resemblance of Cambrai either. The role, purpose and technical abilities were entirely different.
It's simply not appropriate to throw them into a bag and downplay the differences (AS YOU DID). An Frankish knight at Poitiers had certain similarities with a heavy Mongol horseman, but it's inappropriate to throw them into one basket labelled "horse cavalry" unless you want to dumb history down for a 6th grader.
It's the same with tanks. They're all the same if you go very abstract or dumb down very much, but that serves no real purpose. It's much more useful to look at the differences, for that's where the lessons are hidden.
Really? I see no evidence that any of that is the case, and nor do any artillery historians. How does an 18 pounder Field Gun of 1918 get employed so differently than a 25 pounder of 1944? Because one was horse drawn the other vehicle drawn?
Why is a Sopwith Camel, so different to a Spitfire?
As I say, I am not going to debate my Thesis here and this has been a very good example of why it was dumb to even try. Salutary lesson on the pitfalls of straying away from the model-makers version of history.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Oo, you really don't know the answers to your questions?
Sir, I respect everything you have said thus far but LEAVE Tamya out of it! Perhaps some of the fondest memories I have of childhood revolve around Tamiya kits...one more slur against them and I shall demand satisfaction sir!
OTOH you can slate Revel and Airfix all you want
p.s Can we/I assume (safely or not) that your thess, once completed, will be post on the SWJ (or another reputable journal, of which, f course, there are many) where we can all get our teeth into it?
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 10-18-2010 at 12:48 PM.
Please. They all date back to Da Vinci. All WW 1 did was copy his brilliance.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks