Wilhelm_Klave wrote:Gustav_SC wrote:Yes, that's pretty much how I envision them in action...destroyed! Any 20mm, 37mm, 45mm or 47mm (all common armaments of opposing vehicles of the time) would be able to penetrate at engagement ranges.
True, certianly a piss-poor tank however you look at it - poor armor, no AT-capable gun, tall shilouette for such a small craft (in comparison to similarly armed and armored TKS for example), less-than-stellar cross-terrain performance, not a very good suspension...
Still, they did play a big role in the German tank doctrine that envisoned mass tank use. Due to low numbers of better units, these at least were there for anti-infantry support and scout duties. Anti-infantry duty remained the most common panzer role even in most of the 1940 French campaign, not to mention 1939.
I don't think that was the right tank for the job, but there might have been a use for it, one that violates the principle of mass.
When Barbarossa began, there were enough Mk. I's to give 100 Infantry Divisions each a platoon of Mark I tanks. They would have been handy in a number of ways, including giving recon some armor. It would also be helpful to have some bullet-proof MG nests to fend off Partisans or the usual human-wave attacks that so many of them faced.
The important thing is, while they lasted they could have done much to reduce casualties among the infantry. That's the key here.
And it would have been easy to support them, they use the same ammo as the infantry, what spares and support they need can be carried on one truck, or one horse-drawn wagon.
I have no doubt that those that survived the AT rifles and the Mud would have been abandoned in the snow that winter, but my guess is that there would have been a hell of a lot more Infantry alive .... or would it have made any difference?