German Tank Support For Infantry
German Tank Support For Infantry
Reading Stephen Zaloga'a excellent book "Armored Champion: The Top Tanks Of WWII".
Came across an interesting comment in the book, to wit:
A widely overlooked consequence of the small scale of German tank production
was the inability of the Wehrmacht to provide adequate tank support to the infantry
divisions. Unlike the Red Army, the Wehrmacht did not deploy separate tank regi-
ments for infantry support missions, concentrating its tanks entirely in the panzer
divisions. The lack of direct tank support degraded the offensive capability of the
German infantry divisions, especially when attempting to conduct breakthrough
operations against the Red Army.
I was always under the impression that the STUG had the role of infantry support, especially in the early years of the war.
Is that not so?
Came across an interesting comment in the book, to wit:
A widely overlooked consequence of the small scale of German tank production
was the inability of the Wehrmacht to provide adequate tank support to the infantry
divisions. Unlike the Red Army, the Wehrmacht did not deploy separate tank regi-
ments for infantry support missions, concentrating its tanks entirely in the panzer
divisions. The lack of direct tank support degraded the offensive capability of the
German infantry divisions, especially when attempting to conduct breakthrough
operations against the Red Army.
I was always under the impression that the STUG had the role of infantry support, especially in the early years of the war.
Is that not so?
-
- Member
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 19:56
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
It might simply be he's drawing a distinction between the use of non-Divisional armoured units by both Western armies and the Red Army, which were equipped with tanks and handled as such, while the German Army left the armoured support role for its Inf Divs in the hands of the Artillery arm, via the Stugs. While the Stug grew to be all things to all arms (assault gun, panzer replacement and tank killer) I suspect each body operated it differently. Would a German assault artillery unit provide close support down to Rifle Coy level as was found in Br/US practice, or would they offer covering fire from a distance for example?
Gary
Gary
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
That was so, but they also were used for panzer divisions and the infantry got short changed to keep the Panzers up to strength.Pips wrote:Reading Stephen Zaloga'a excellent book "Armored Champion: The Top Tanks Of WWII".
Came across an interesting comment in the book, to wit:
A widely overlooked consequence of the small scale of German tank production
was the inability of the Wehrmacht to provide adequate tank support to the infantry
divisions. Unlike the Red Army, the Wehrmacht did not deploy separate tank regi-
ments for infantry support missions, concentrating its tanks entirely in the panzer
divisions. The lack of direct tank support degraded the offensive capability of the
German infantry divisions, especially when attempting to conduct breakthrough
operations against the Red Army.
I was always under the impression that the STUG had the role of infantry support, especially in the early years of the war.
Is that not so?
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
The Stug was not available in really large numbers during the first years of the war. As to the quote in general, while I too think Zaloga is an excellent historian of armour, after reading his works for any length of time you'll soon notice a consistent bias against the German army. Both on western and eastern fronts. Take a look at even this one passage.
http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/943GGBA.pdf
As an afterthought, recently I've been reading a lot of books by Robert Forczyk. I'd highly recommend his work on the eastern front. He is neither overly biased towards the Red Army or the Wehrmacht (or in Zaloga's case, against the Wehrmacht), and gives credit and criticism to both sides where it is due, a fairly uncommon trait among most Eastern front historians.
It's almost like he gives the impression that it was the Wehrmacht that was responsible for inadequate tank support, not economic factors outside the army's control.A widely overlooked consequence of the small scale of German tank production was the inability of the Wehrmacht to provide adequate tank support to the infantry divisions.
He makes it sound like the Red Army's approach was superior. And yet it was this strategy with the limited resources they had that made the six-week defeat of France possible.Unlike the Red Army, the Wehrmacht did not deploy separate tank regiments for infantry support missions, concentrating its tanks entirely in the panzer divisions.
As you note, there is no mention of the Stug arm and how it substituted for nominal tank tank support. Though in early years it was fairly scarce, as the war went on Stug support became an increasingly important part of German military doctrine. For instance, feel free to check out the German battle of Kursk OOB. In the north the fighting was done mostly by infantry divisions. Every corps involved in the northern assault has 1-2 Stug battalions for infantry support. The Germans could not hope to build Stug battalions for all their infantry divisions, but contrary to Zaloga, they did have a substitute for direct tank support in breakthrough (and other) operations.The lack of direct tank support degraded the offensive capability of the German infantry divisions, especially when attempting to conduct breakthrough operations against the Red Army.
http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/943GGBA.pdf
As an afterthought, recently I've been reading a lot of books by Robert Forczyk. I'd highly recommend his work on the eastern front. He is neither overly biased towards the Red Army or the Wehrmacht (or in Zaloga's case, against the Wehrmacht), and gives credit and criticism to both sides where it is due, a fairly uncommon trait among most Eastern front historians.
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
I would be careful with that book- it has mistakes and methodology issues.
Yes there were 200 Stugs in 12 Stug battalions among the forces invading the USSR June 1941.
Yes there were 200 Stugs in 12 Stug battalions among the forces invading the USSR June 1941.
Pips wrote: I was always under the impression that the STUG had the role of infantry support, especially in the early years of the war.
Is that not so?
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
Re The OP.
Armour theorists would argue that the Germans had the right idea. Armour should not be sprinkled along the front line to support the infantry as the French did in 1940. Not all terrain is suitable for armoured operations.
As Guderian wrote (and said) "Nicht Kleckern sondern Klotzen!" (Boot 'em, don't spatter 'em!) He also practiced this with the result that the Germans had a superiority in armour at the critical points of the 1940 West campaign, despite fewer and more lightly armed and armoured tanks.
Nor did the Soviets automatically assign armour to support infantry.
The German artillery arm owned the StuG which were designed for close support of the infantry = but became interchangeable with the SP anti tank arm.
Armour theorists would argue that the Germans had the right idea. Armour should not be sprinkled along the front line to support the infantry as the French did in 1940. Not all terrain is suitable for armoured operations.
As Guderian wrote (and said) "Nicht Kleckern sondern Klotzen!" (Boot 'em, don't spatter 'em!) He also practiced this with the result that the Germans had a superiority in armour at the critical points of the 1940 West campaign, despite fewer and more lightly armed and armoured tanks.
Nor did the Soviets automatically assign armour to support infantry.
The German artillery arm owned the StuG which were designed for close support of the infantry = but became interchangeable with the SP anti tank arm.
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
The StuG is not a tank. I believe Zaloga is explicitly referring to tanks, not generically armored fighting vehicles (to include tanks, assault guns, tank destroyers, self propelled guns, etc.)
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
Dunnigan is correct, StuGs were not tanks and couldn't operate as tanks. Their main role was close artillery support for infantry units and, later in the war, anti-tank protection for same units. Due to its design limitations (fixed gun with very limited elevation and horizontal angle of fire) it could not play the role of tanks in any engagements but was mainly operating from ambush positions or directly supporting advancing infantry with direct fire (against enemy strong points, pillboxes, fortifications etc)
But the assessment of Zaloga is also a bit misleading; actually, the German doctrine never contemplated the distribution of tanks among infantry to bolster its firepower. Germany never designed any "infantry tank" like all the other powers did: Matilda I &II in UK, R35 & H35 in France, T-26 in USSR, L3 in Italy. The German concept was, since the beginning, to concentrate all armored assets in fully motorized/mechanized, powerful units capable of independent operations. And, by the way, total German production of armored vehicles was not small at all; it was dwarfed by the combined production of UK-US-USSR but, to say, it was roughly on the same level of UK but of much higher combat capabilities.
But the assessment of Zaloga is also a bit misleading; actually, the German doctrine never contemplated the distribution of tanks among infantry to bolster its firepower. Germany never designed any "infantry tank" like all the other powers did: Matilda I &II in UK, R35 & H35 in France, T-26 in USSR, L3 in Italy. The German concept was, since the beginning, to concentrate all armored assets in fully motorized/mechanized, powerful units capable of independent operations. And, by the way, total German production of armored vehicles was not small at all; it was dwarfed by the combined production of UK-US-USSR but, to say, it was roughly on the same level of UK but of much higher combat capabilities.
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
So it sounds like Zaloga's 'analysis' is high disingenuous in terms of German infantry division armor if you're leaving out StuGs.
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
Zaloga is an expert at producing English language versions of German and Russian material. He is not an expert at military tactics or strategy. There is a reason why he has omitted to mention that the Wehrmacht had gone down a different path in supporting their infantry with armour. And why did they do that? Well, remember that the Wehrmacht was still a horse and cart supported army. Did they really want to tie their pantsers to the speed of advance of a horse? Sort of defeats their entire doctrine a wee bit.
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
The Australian, British and New Zealand defenders of the Florina Gap on the 12 and 13th of April 1941 all tell of being attacked by pantsers. And yet, the LSSAH had not a single one to their name. But they had some StuG and some JagdPz which, I guess, can be easily confused.stg 44 wrote:So it sounds like Zaloga's 'analysis' is high disingenuous in terms of German infantry division armor if you're leaving out StuGs.
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
Prior to the war the German Army had 2 tank brigades whose primary mission was support of infantry:ML59 wrote: But the assessment of Zaloga is also a bit misleading; actually, the German doctrine never contemplated the distribution of tanks among infantry to bolster its firepower.
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gli ... rig4-R.htm
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gli ... zBrig6.htm
Yet they were used to form new armored divisions in 1939.
T-26 wasn't designed in the USSR You don't need special type tanks for separate tank units. US Army was doing fine with the same Shermans in separate armored battalions as in their armored divisions, Soviet Union with T-34 etc. The idea of a dedicated "infantry tank" was all but dead by the end of the war, the fact that the types you mentioned were designed in 1930s illustrates it quite eloquently.Germany never designed any "infantry tank" like all the other powers did: Matilda I &II in UK, R35 & H35 in France, T-26 in USSR, L3 in Italy
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
Not sure how to take the , except to say it was common for Allied Infantry early in the war to call any gun/track vehicle a "tank".MarkN wrote:The Australian, British and New Zealand defenders of the Florina Gap on the 12 and 13th of April 1941 all tell of being attacked by pantsers. And yet, the LSSAH had not a single one to their name. But they had some StuG and some JagdPz which, I guess, can be easily confused.stg 44 wrote:So it sounds like Zaloga's 'analysis' is high disingenuous in terms of German infantry division armor if you're leaving out StuGs.
Pantsers?
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
They were worse than normal tanks with rotating turret and less flexible tactically, somewhat lower silhouette seems to be the only advantage . On the other hand I can't imagine any thing that a tank with similar gun and armor, Pz.IV for example, would do worse. There are no reasons to expect that a tank unit won't be able to perform the same tasks as assault gun units. The advantage of concentration seems to be more an imaginary one from this point of view. What economy was achieved by producing a vehicle which cost approximately like a tank, consumed fuel, ammo and spare parts like a tank, and required special trained personnel like a tank compared with just using a tank for the same role?ML59 wrote:Dunnigan is correct, StuGs were not tanks and couldn't operate as tanks.
Re: German Tank Support For Infantry
From an industrial point of view, StuG had a few good points compared to tanks:
-could have a bigger gun than the equivalent tank version (7,5 cm L48 versus 7,5 cm L24 of PzIII Ausf N)
-was a bit less expensive and faster to produce than PzIII due to its fixed structure and lack of turret mechanism
-due to its lower weight, it could be unarmored in the front arc without affecting performances too much
However, in no case it could fully replace a turreted tank, it had too many tactical limitations.
-could have a bigger gun than the equivalent tank version (7,5 cm L48 versus 7,5 cm L24 of PzIII Ausf N)
-was a bit less expensive and faster to produce than PzIII due to its fixed structure and lack of turret mechanism
-due to its lower weight, it could be unarmored in the front arc without affecting performances too much
However, in no case it could fully replace a turreted tank, it had too many tactical limitations.