German Anti-Tank tactics 1918

Discussions on all aspects of Imperial Germany not covered in the other sections.
User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

German Anti-Tank tactics 1918

#1

Post by Peter H » 07 Nov 2004, 09:14

From the US Army Survey of German Tactics 1918,an AEF Pamphlet.
Anti-Tank Defense-Tanks are dangerous for the infantry only at very close range, (less than 100 meters), on account of the inaccuracy of their fire. Beyond this distance excellent results can be obtained with anti-tank rifles, machine guns, and concentrated charges.The infantry will withdraw to permit the fire of the artillery and trench mortars and engage in combat against the enemy infantry, which generally follows at a considerable distance.

Anti-Tank Instruction-Courses of 8 days were held in January. A large number took part as spectators. Wooden tanks were used, at which machine guns and trench mortars fired until the tanks had penetrated beyond the second line, when the defense was taken over by the artillery. Instruction in the vulnerable parts of the tank was given.

Anti-Tank Rifle-A single shot Mauser model, very strong and simple in construction. The caliber is I 3.4 mm., the weight 17 kg., and the length I.69 meters. It is mounted on a fixed bipod 29.5 mm. in height. It is sighted up to 500 meters and fires a non-explosive bullet which pierces a 21 mm. steel plate at 200 meters.The allotment is 2 per regiment. They are placed on the main line of resistance or just behind it. Each is served by two men, a rifleman and an ammunition carrier who is the reserve rifleman. Due to an excessive recoil and barrel heating, only 20 shots per minute can be fired. This slow rate of fire, its weight and size prevent its being formidable.

Anti-Tank Ammunition-Each soldier is issued 10 steel cased bullets.The two best bombers out of every nine are designated to attack tanks with bunches of five grenades wired together, which are thrown on top of the tanks.

Anti-Tank Machine Guns-Heavy machine guns are supplied with armor-piercing cartridges. Each must combat tanks which penetrate into its zone. Those which are placed at points especially liable to tank penetration are designated “anti-tank machine guns.”

Tank Vulnerability--“Tanks are best attacked from the rear.”

Tank Barriers-“Tank Sperren”, erected in village streets, consist of a palisade of small iron girders set to a depth of three meters below the ground in concrete. The girders rise to a height of 2 meters and are inclined at an angle of 70 degrees towards the enemy. There is a gap in the middle large enough for a limber to pass.

Anti-Tank Mines-Anti-tank mines complete the action of the other arms in anti-tank defense. They consist of wooden boxes 8 x 10 x 2 inches,painted and camouflaged to suit the ground where they are to be laid. They are best placed in the outpost zone and secondly in strong points of the intermediate zone and in the supporting positions. A heavy weight passing over explodes them.


Anti-Tank Groups--“In the forward battle zone, anti-tank groups, under especially energetic leaders, are to be formed. These will consist of anti-tank guns, machine guns, anti-tank rifles, and trench mortars. The various weapons of these groups need not be close together, but they must be able to render mutual support within their group, except in the case of anti-tank rifles, which must be in groups of four to six. Groups are to be distributed in depth in the battle zone".

Anti-Tank Forts--Localities called “tank forts” have been organized for anti-tank defense. They are equipped with field guns, mortars, antitank rifles, machine guns, and searchlights. All weapons in each are mutually supporting. The area of the forts varies with local conditions up to several hundred square yards. They are located from just behind the main line of resistance to 1000 meters back.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#2

Post by Peter H » 07 Nov 2004, 09:21



User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#3

Post by Peter H » 07 Nov 2004, 09:33

Aircraft designed to counter 'armoured' Allied fighters and tanks as well were considered:
... the AEG DJ.1, was ordered into production. The DJ.1 was a structurally advanced two-bay biplane powered by the new 195-hp Benz Bz III or Maybach Mb IVa V-8 engine. The airframe was fabricated from dural light alloy with fabric covered flying surfaces and a dural-sheet fuselage. To reduce vulnerability to ground fire, there were no bracing wires. The wings were braced to each other and to the fuselage by substantial, I-section struts. Armor protected the pilot, fuel tanks, and engine. Initially, the fighter was to carry two standard 7.92-mm machine guns and light bombs. But it was also designed to incorporate the formidable TuF (Tank und Flieger Gewehr), a heavy antitank machine gun chambered for the 13-mm Mauser cartridge described below. Three prototypes were under test when the war ended in the West. The Benz-engined aircraft attained a maximum speed of 112 mph. They weighed 2606 lbs empy and 3,031 lbs fully loaded. Span was 32 ft 9 in and length was 21 ft 11 in.
http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v2/v2n1/1919.html

From a German publication 1918--behind the lines training on ground/air defense against tanks.More fanciful than reflecting reality.
Attachments
Ground_Air-1918.jpg
Ground_Air-1918.jpg (49.96 KiB) Viewed 4654 times

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#4

Post by Peter H » 07 Nov 2004, 09:40

Tank Sperren,Palisade.
Attachments
AT_Barrier.jpg
AT_Barrier.jpg (62.94 KiB) Viewed 4654 times

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#5

Post by Peter H » 07 Nov 2004, 10:05

In 1918 Rheinmetall was awarded the contract for the first German AT Gun,the 37mm Tankabwehrkanone(TAK).

Only a few reached the front in 1918.

Specifications
3 man crew
Weight in firing position:385 lbs
Weight of shell:1lb
Barrel length:21.5 calibres
Range:2866 yds

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#6

Post by Peter H » 07 Nov 2004, 10:25

The 'theory' of knocking out Allied tanks by Anti-Tank Groups.
Attachments
AT_1.jpg
AT_1.jpg (87.86 KiB) Viewed 4653 times
at_2.jpg
at_2.jpg (67.52 KiB) Viewed 4653 times

bob lembke
In memoriam
Posts: 774
Joined: 31 Oct 2004, 19:53
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Anti-tank Training

#7

Post by bob lembke » 07 Nov 2004, 12:21

Peter;

Interesting stuff. My father told me that he and others were detailed (he was with the Garde-Reserve-Pionier-Regiment (Flammenwerfer)) to train in tanks. For a week they rode in a tank over a typical shell-churned "no-man's-land" firing the MGs at targets. Results would be discussed with officers. One guy would get 2 hits per 1000 rounds, the other guy 3. A moving tank on rough terrain was a poor gun platform. They all assumed that they were in the new tank forces. Then after a week they were called together by the officers, and told: "Men, you are not going to fight in tanks. You are going to fight them!" The training was to weaken the men's fear of tanks. Probably in Mk IV's, which were 2/3s of the German tanks; 6 Ableitungen of Mark IVs to 3 of the German-made AV7s. Incidentally, after being formed, each German tank unit was sent to Sturm-Bataillon Nr. 5 (Rohr) for training, and had Sturm in their unit designation.

He then told me that one guy "in his unit" (not totally sure which company; he served in two) knocked out three Brit tanks in two days. He hid in a shell hole, the tank went past, the guy ran to the rear, and grabbed the tread and let it pull him up to the top of the tank. (I doubted this, but examined a Brit Mark V at the Imperial War Museum last year, and saw that the design of the treads would make this possible w/o losing your fingers.) He then dropped a gebaltne Ladnung (He said six grenade heads taped about the head of a complete stick grenade w/ fuse {not four, that does not work, check the geometry} - sometimes more than six were used, that was stable, but less than six was not stable when tied together) into one of the open hatches; it being sometimes 140 degrees F. inside, they usually had open hatches; one can imagine the blast inside.

I bet the guy got the EK I, and deserved it.

The above probably took place near Reims in the Champagne between July 1918 (when Pop tricked his way back to the front from a post in Berlin; he had been classified "k.v., kein Flammenwerfer" as written in his Pass ("fit for duty, no flamethrower" - after a year in and out of hospitals after his second wound at Verdun) and October 1918, when he was wounded the forth time; blinded temporarily by a short German gas shell during an attack.

He has a three week MG course noted in his Pass about May 1918, but this was probably not this course; it was noted as a course on the "MG 08 and MG 08/15 for Pioniere". Unfortunately his Pass was not complete, he and the sergeants hated each other, the only battles noted in it were when he was wounded. His earlier fighting was at Verdun in 1916, where tanks were not used, certainly not Brit tanks.

Thought this oral history would be interesting. This is the kind of info we have lost with the veterans all gone.

Bob Lembke

monk2002uk
Member
Posts: 508
Joined: 10 Apr 2004, 08:14
Location: England

#8

Post by monk2002uk » 08 Nov 2004, 22:16

Fantastic Bob. Thanks for sharing this information.

Robert

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#9

Post by Peter H » 09 Nov 2004, 01:46

Bob,
Thanks for the great contribution on your father's experiences.

When cluster grenades were not available,as experienced at Cambrai,defending German troops resorted to filling empty sandbags with grenades as a substitute.One fused handle was left sitting out to ignite the package.

Regards,
Peter

bob lembke
In memoriam
Posts: 774
Joined: 31 Oct 2004, 19:53
Location: Philadelphia, PA

[i]Geballte Landung[/i]

#10

Post by bob lembke » 09 Nov 2004, 07:43

Peter;

Sorry, I mis-spelled geballte in my last post. In the bitter fighting to capture Ft. Vaux at Verdun, the German infantry and Pioniere fought to the roof of the fort. Relays of Pioniere came up with sacks of grenades, and, supposedly, occasionally, the guy running up to the fort would explode when his load was hit. Then the Pioniere on the roof did what you mentioned, they lowered a sack of grenades off the roof on a rope, down to the MG casemates say 8' below, exploding say 10-12 grenades against the firing slots. To get away from the limitations of the 6 1/2 second fuse on the standard stick grenade, the Pioniere supposedly had some simple fuze with a longer time, but the source did not state exactly what it was.

Some sources, like a French source citing (and translating) a German journalist, said that the Pioniere on this first day (June 2, 1916?) had flame-throwers to use in the attack, but they did not (the first arrived on June 4th), but they also lowered Braendrohr on ropes down to the casemates below; these devices, literally "fire tubes", were a length of tubing say two feet long that projected an intense flame and smoke out one end based on the ignition of solid chemicals inside, projecting flame about 2 meters, into the firing slits, driving the French from their MGs. Some people mistook these for flamethrowers.

When the fighting got into the tunnels of the fort it went on using, in part, flamethrowers and geballte Ladungen, in the narrow tunnels, fighting foot by foot thru successive sandbag barricades. Really bad business! I have (for my upcoming book, hint, hint) an account of a Pioniere Leutnant sprinting toward a French sandbag barricade with a geballte Ladung (literally "concentrated explosive charge", knowing that it would certainly injure him when it went off, and the account of the French rifleman on the other side of the barricade, who was buried by the sandbags when it exploded, finally being dug out and dragged off to the infirmary. Quotes, names and all. you can almost smell the cordite!

Bob Lembke

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#11

Post by Peter H » 11 Nov 2004, 10:49

37mm Tankabwehrkanone(TAK).

From Herbert Jäger's German Artillery of World War One,page 147,ISBN 1-86126-403-8.An excellent book.
Attachments
tak.jpg
tak.jpg (70.79 KiB) Viewed 4652 times

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#12

Post by Peter H » 11 Nov 2004, 10:54

From Der Krieg in Wort und Bild,1917.

The 7.7cm Kraftwagengeschütz in action.Originally an anti-aircraft self propelled weapon,adopted to the AT role,and using armour-piercing shells as a consequence.

Gunners were said to receive a 500 Reichsmark prize for destroying an enemy tank!
Attachments
at_1917.jpg
at_1917.jpg (102.45 KiB) Viewed 4652 times

Mad Zeppelin
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 08 Sep 2004, 21:05
Location: Germany

#13

Post by Mad Zeppelin » 12 Nov 2004, 19:30

500 Mark were given to the company that had put a tank out of action - effective since December 1916. As far I know, this standing order was never lifted - although at Cambrai and later in 1918 counting certainly became rather difficult.
In contrast - shooting down an enemy aeroplane brought only 150 Mark for the unit.
Typical example of anti-tank action: InfRgt 26 at Juvigny, 29 August, 1918.
Some 6 troops of 5-6 tanks supported an enemy infantry attack.
The infantry men opened fire on the enemy (American) infantry to separate them from the tanks (which worked well), while the heavy weapons of the regiment dealed with the tanks.
The anti-tank gun (das Tank-Abwehrgeschütz, each front line regiment usually had one 7.7 cm field gun from the divisional artillery rgt as anti-tank gun) was credited with several kills. Lt Sauer of IR 26 killed one tank with an anti-tank rifle. Uffz Stockhaus got one tank with the Minenwerfer (light mortar) on flat-trajectory mount. Uffz Dudler finished 4 tanks with his machine gun, and Lt Wuttke used a bundled charge (geballte Ladung) for his kill. In all, 20 Renaults (out of about 35) were put out of action and the enemy infantry did not get near the line of main resistance (HWL).
But as about 15 tanks had broken through the HWL and now threatened the positions from the rear, the rgt had to retreat. Now the enemy infantry followed up and took the old HWL.

Mad Zeppelin
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 08 Sep 2004, 21:05
Location: Germany

#14

Post by Mad Zeppelin » 17 Nov 2004, 21:45

A comment on the illustrations above:
Although they are artists' impressions, they do have a real background, which is the fighting for Fontaine-Notre-Dame (FND) on November 23rd, 1918.
And so the story goes:
FND had not been taken by the British on November 20th the first day of the Cambrai battle because of the unvoluntary delay they suffered at Flesquieres. This was corrected on November 21th when some tanks helped two Scottish battalions into FND.
The scotsmen were driven out by two bn's of IR 46 on November 22, the 46 experiencing painful losses in the process. But I. and II/IR 46 and II./FArt 237 now established themselves in and around the village and prepared its defence.
The British started an attack toward FND and the Bois de Bourlon (north of it) on November 23rd. 152 Brigade of 51st Div advanced together with 36 tanks (another 12 tanks joined the action later on).
IR 46 had already seen tanks in Flanders and had attented anti-tank training. So, they neatly seperated the infantry (which never got into FND) from the tanks and dealed with the tanks with the help of the II./FArt 237 and KFlak 7 (2 vehicles - in the vicinity to help win supremacy in the air but very soon also found capable of killing tanks).
8 tanks were knocked out before they could enter FND, 3 were hunted down inside the village and 3 more just at its eastern exit.
The 3 vehicles inside FND can be credited to IR 46. This is the scene
seen in AT-2, men clinging to the tanks firing their weapons into every opening... (the classic men-against-machines theme, you can almost see the Terminator lurking behind the corner).
Those tanks that got through FND ran into II./RIR 52 which had been tasked to prevent any tanks from advancing beyond FND. This is the scene of AT-1, although the tanks hardly were there 3 at a time but one after the other. It was here that Lt Spremberg from RIR 52 invented the bundled charge (geballte Ladung). Noticing that single hand grenades did hardly any damage to the tanks, he had 4 grenades stuffed into an empty sand bag (the handle of the forth sticking ou).
This rather successful defence boosted German morale and also was used extensively for propaganda purposes. That simple infantry could overcome armoured vehicles was a message that sold well.
But of course, the conditions of this - unique - urban fighting would not be repeated in WW1.

Gwynn Compton
Member
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 23:46
Location: United Kingdom

#15

Post by Gwynn Compton » 17 Nov 2004, 23:05

Peter, do you have anything on the German attempts to combat "Tank fright"? I know Ludendorff and Hindenburg didn't really believe in "Tank Fright" as an excuse for the success of the tank, but aside from the account detailed earlier in this thread, what other measures were taken to prevent panic against tanks.

Gwynn

Post Reply

Return to “Imperial Germany”