At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Latze
Member
Posts: 356
Joined: 08 May 2010 16:55

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Latze » 05 Jan 2020 00:12

ljadw wrote:
04 Jan 2020 22:04
And, if there was no combat, but the tank had to stop for mechanical problems ? Or someone had to urinate against a tree ?
Indeed, it's a curious thing that nobody applied some simple common sense and developed a tank with a lavatory inside. I mean, that should have been so obvious.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 05 Jan 2020 10:35

ljadw wrote:
04 Jan 2020 22:04
Aida1 wrote:
04 Jan 2020 16:23
ljadw wrote:
04 Jan 2020 14:06
What is the benefit of having a vehicle that is immune to small arms fire, if the crew is not immune for small arms fire ? Or maybe you think that the crew of a tank never leaves its vehicle ?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Not in the midst of combat unless the vehicle is disabled.I doubt you even believe yourself the nonsense you write
And, if there was no combat, but the tank had to stop for mechanical problems ? Or someone had to urinate against a tree ?
A posting not to be taken very seriously as usual

gebhk
Member
Posts: 595
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by gebhk » 05 Jan 2020 11:55

Indeed, it's a curious thing that nobody applied some simple common sense and developed a tank with a lavatory inside. I mean, that should have been so obvious.
At least (according to, appropriately, Katie Read's 'Trivia for the Toilet') all British tanks after 1946 were equipped for brewing tea.

I have, on rare occasions, wondered about bladder issues during battle (probably my nursing background) - you know tanks, suits of armour, involuntary loss of bladder control during stress, that sort of thing. Perhaps the world is ready for Micturition in combat. A historical socio-physiological study of bladder management during battle. Or not.

On the wider issue - there is overwhelming evidence that, all things being equal, unsupported WW2 infantry in the open will not be able to stand against unsupported tanks. However, unsupported tanks will not break through infantry that has adequate support of anti-tank guns. Classic example is the second battle of Seroczyn. Two battalions (admittedly sadly depleted) from the elite Polish 5th Legion Infantry Regiment were forced into headlong retreat despite all manner of Hollywood-worthy heroics and, presumably, anti-tank rifles, by a company of German tanks from the 7 Panzer Regiment. However when the tank company ran into the Polish regiment's anti-tank company (following up the infantry), the latter's 9 guns or less easily drove off the German panzers.

In short infantry has to be supported to withstand tanks and, in turn, tanks have to be supported by their own infantry to break through adequately-supported enemy infantry. Can we leave it at that? Please.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 05 Jan 2020 13:22

gebhk wrote:
05 Jan 2020 11:55




On the wider issue - there is overwhelming evidence that, all things being equal, unsupported WW2 infantry in the open will not be able to stand against unsupported tanks. However, unsupported tanks will not break through infantry that has adequate support of anti-tank guns. Classic example is the second battle of Seroczyn. Two battalions (admittedly sadly depleted) from the elite Polish 5th Legion Infantry Regiment were forced into headlong retreat despite all manner of Hollywood-worthy heroics and, presumably, anti-tank rifles, by a company of German tanks from the 7 Panzer Regiment. However when the tank company ran into the Polish regiment's anti-tank company (following up the infantry), the latter's 9 guns or less easily drove off the German panzers.

In short infantry has to be supported to withstand tanks and, in turn, tanks have to be supported by their own infantry to break through adequately-supported enemy infantry. Can we leave it at that? Please.
i would not agree. Depends on the AT guns winning the firefight against the tanks. Self propelled heavy AT would be the only one that would prevail. Towed are more vulnerable, also to artillery fire. Defeating AT is not a question of infantry support. More about sufficient fire support and tactics.

Ulater
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Ulater » 05 Jan 2020 13:56

Aida1 wrote:
04 Jan 2020 16:23
ljadw wrote:
04 Jan 2020 14:06
What is the benefit of having a vehicle that is immune to small arms fire, if the crew is not immune for small arms fire ? Or maybe you think that the crew of a tank never leaves its vehicle ?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Not in the midst of combat unless the vehicle is disabled.I doubt you even believe yourself the nonsense you write
There is statistical evidence to support the fact that a significant portion of tank crews were wounded or killed outside of their vehicles. So I would ease up on emoticons If I were you.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 05 Jan 2020 14:33

Ulater wrote:
05 Jan 2020 13:56
Aida1 wrote:
04 Jan 2020 16:23
ljadw wrote:
04 Jan 2020 14:06
What is the benefit of having a vehicle that is immune to small arms fire, if the crew is not immune for small arms fire ? Or maybe you think that the crew of a tank never leaves its vehicle ?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Not in the midst of combat unless the vehicle is disabled.I doubt you even believe yourself the nonsense you write
There is statistical evidence to support the fact that a significant portion of tank crews were wounded or killed outside of their vehicles. So I would ease up on emoticons If I were you.
After the tank is disabled and they have to evacuate they obviously are very vulnerable but has nothing to do with the vulnerability of tanks without infantry support. When a tank is disabled by enemy tank, AT or artillery fire and the crew has to evacuate,own infantry being present or not will not help the crew against the fire from the enemy. I think they will prefer to get into a tank or another armoured vehicle.And i did mention the vulnerability of the crew when the tank is disabled in the posting you quoted so you make no sense at all.
It is a silly discussion so i do use the emoticon.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Cult Icon » 05 Jan 2020 14:57

Ulater wrote:
05 Jan 2020 13:56
There is statistical evidence to support the fact that a significant portion of tank crews were wounded or killed outside of their vehicles. So I would ease up on emoticons If I were you.
British OR study? For them that was the case.

Ulater
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Ulater » 05 Jan 2020 15:35

Aida1 wrote:
05 Jan 2020 14:33
Ulater wrote:
05 Jan 2020 13:56
Aida1 wrote:
04 Jan 2020 16:23
ljadw wrote:
04 Jan 2020 14:06
What is the benefit of having a vehicle that is immune to small arms fire, if the crew is not immune for small arms fire ? Or maybe you think that the crew of a tank never leaves its vehicle ?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Not in the midst of combat unless the vehicle is disabled.I doubt you even believe yourself the nonsense you write
There is statistical evidence to support the fact that a significant portion of tank crews were wounded or killed outside of their vehicles. So I would ease up on emoticons If I were you.
After the tank is disabled and they have to evacuate they obviously are very vulnerable but has nothing to do with the vulnerability of tanks without infantry support. When a tank is disabled by enemy tank, AT or artillery fire and the crew has to evacuate,own infantry being present or not will not help the crew against the fire from the enemy. I think they will prefer to get into a tank or another armoured vehicle.And i did mention the vulnerability of the crew when the tank is disabled in the posting you quoted so you make no sense at all.
It is a silly discussion so i do use the emoticon.
No, tank does not have to be disabled at all for the crew to be in danger from small arms fire, artillery and so on.
British OR study? For them that was the case.
Not just british, vulnerability of commanders especially is noted by all sides involved.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 05 Jan 2020 15:51

Ulater wrote:
05 Jan 2020 15:35
Aida1 wrote:
05 Jan 2020 14:33
Ulater wrote:
05 Jan 2020 13:56
Aida1 wrote:
04 Jan 2020 16:23
ljadw wrote:
04 Jan 2020 14:06
What is the benefit of having a vehicle that is immune to small arms fire, if the crew is not immune for small arms fire ? Or maybe you think that the crew of a tank never leaves its vehicle ?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Not in the midst of combat unless the vehicle is disabled.I doubt you even believe yourself the nonsense you write
There is statistical evidence to support the fact that a significant portion of tank crews were wounded or killed outside of their vehicles. So I would ease up on emoticons If I were you.
After the tank is disabled and they have to evacuate they obviously are very vulnerable but has nothing to do with the vulnerability of tanks without infantry support. When a tank is disabled by enemy tank, AT or artillery fire and the crew has to evacuate,own infantry being present or not will not help the crew against the fire from the enemy. I think they will prefer to get into a tank or another armoured vehicle.And i did mention the vulnerability of the crew when the tank is disabled in the posting you quoted so you make no sense at all.
It is a silly discussion so i do use the emoticon.
No, tank does not have to be disabled at all for the crew to be in danger from small arms fire, artillery and so on.
British OR study? For them that was the case.
Not just british, vulnerability of commanders especially is noted by all sides involved.
I did not talk about artillery originally as i answered a posting about tank crews bing hit by small arms fire. A crew is certainly safe from small arms fire within the tank.That is the whole purpose of armoured vehicles.From artillery fires it is mostly safe too except in case of a direct hit which can cause splintering within the tank. No studies needed to be aware that a crew is most vulnerable outside the tank. Speaks for itself.
Anyway, that has all nothing to do with tanks not being able to operate without infantry.
A tank commander has to keep his hatch closed when the danger is great of being hit by snipers,etc...

gebhk
Member
Posts: 595
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by gebhk » 05 Jan 2020 16:19

Self propelled heavy AT would be the only one that would prevail.
I have just given you an example of the opposite. I can quote examples of infantry supported by towed anti-tank guns prevailing against unsupported tank attacks till the cows come home on the basis of the Polish campaign alone. This statement, therefore, is patently untrue.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 05 Jan 2020 16:33

gebhk wrote:
05 Jan 2020 16:19
Self propelled heavy AT would be the only one that would prevail.
I have just given you an example of the opposite. I can quote examples of infantry supported by towed anti-tank guns prevailing against unsupported tank attacks till the cows come home on the basis of the Polish campaign alone. This statement, therefore, is patently untrue.
As a general principle, tanks will prevail against towed AT if they use proper tactics. Is the reason why the german army started to use more and more Sfl AT as the war went on. And overpowering towed AT does not require infantry support. It is about maneuver,speed,cover and artillery and/or air support. Towed AT is very vulnerable contrary to Sfl AT which can fire and move.
A quote from a report by Panzerjäger Abteilung 31 of 22.09.1943 :"Concerning the Pak mot Z , with its volume and weight getting bigger, and its towing means its camouflage and getting into position are more and more difficult . Consequence: heavy losses through artillery fire. Nevertheless, the PAK mot Z remains indispensable in the 14.companies.On the contrary, the PAK Sf of the Panzer Jäger Abteilungen can with correct positioning be removed from ennemy sight and enemy fire. In addition, a fast movement in threatened areas is possible, which has special importance in the east where divisional sectors are large."

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 05 Jan 2020 17:34

Translation of an excerpt from a document of which i have a copy

"Panzerartillerie Regt 103 II. Abteilung Abt. Gefechtsstand 20.08.1943
Commander

Tactical and artillery experiences in the offensive and defensive fighting to the south of Orel 05.07.1943 to 18.08.1943

I. General tactical experiences
….
3) The repulse of tank attacks seldomly succeeded with towed AT ; with Panzerjäger on Sf, with Panzer and Sturmgeschütze always, even when the number of attacking tanks was far superior.
The only effective antitankweapon is the Sf , either in the form of a tank, Sturmgeschütze or Panzerjäger on Sf.
The towed PAK is first of all, too much exposed to enemy artillery and air preparation, secondly too immobile to have obtained decisive successes.
When a tank attack was expected, everything clamored for the 3 mentioned Panzer types."

Ulater
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Ulater » 05 Jan 2020 23:42

Aida1 wrote:
05 Jan 2020 15:51
Ulater wrote:
05 Jan 2020 15:35
Aida1 wrote:
05 Jan 2020 14:33
Ulater wrote:
05 Jan 2020 13:56
Aida1 wrote:
04 Jan 2020 16:23


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Not in the midst of combat unless the vehicle is disabled.I doubt you even believe yourself the nonsense you write
There is statistical evidence to support the fact that a significant portion of tank crews were wounded or killed outside of their vehicles. So I would ease up on emoticons If I were you.
After the tank is disabled and they have to evacuate they obviously are very vulnerable but has nothing to do with the vulnerability of tanks without infantry support. When a tank is disabled by enemy tank, AT or artillery fire and the crew has to evacuate,own infantry being present or not will not help the crew against the fire from the enemy. I think they will prefer to get into a tank or another armoured vehicle.And i did mention the vulnerability of the crew when the tank is disabled in the posting you quoted so you make no sense at all.
It is a silly discussion so i do use the emoticon.
No, tank does not have to be disabled at all for the crew to be in danger from small arms fire, artillery and so on.
British OR study? For them that was the case.
Not just british, vulnerability of commanders especially is noted by all sides involved.
I did not talk about artillery originally as i answered a posting about tank crews bing hit by small arms fire. A crew is certainly safe from small arms fire within the tank.That is the whole purpose of armoured vehicles.From artillery fires it is mostly safe too except in case of a direct hit which can cause splintering within the tank. No studies needed to be aware that a crew is most vulnerable outside the tank. Speaks for itself.
Anyway, that has all nothing to do with tanks not being able to operate without infantry.
A tank commander has to keep his hatch closed when the danger is great of being hit by snipers,etc...
Image

And ambushes exist, without infantry you would have very little idea about AT-rifle teams, or infantry waiting for you, which are all threats, and when you generally read and observe the behaviour of tank crews in ww 2, visibility in the combat zone was generally preferred to being buttoned-up, as that frequently lead to getting your tank knocked-out. Which was a justifiable feeling based on experience and statistics.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3044
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Richard Anderson » 06 Jan 2020 02:03

Ulater wrote:
05 Jan 2020 23:42
And ambushes exist, without infantry you would have very little idea about AT-rifle teams, or infantry waiting for you, which are all threats, and when you generally read and observe the behaviour of tank crews in ww 2, visibility in the combat zone was generally preferred to being buttoned-up, as that frequently lead to getting your tank knocked-out. Which was a justifiable feeling based on experience and statistics.
I'm honestly surprised you are still interacting with a sockpuppet of a poster banned so many times I can't even remember all the pseudonyms. I'm also astonished that this clear violation of posting rules hasn't been shut down long ago as all his various other sockpuppets were.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 06 Jan 2020 09:37

Ulater wrote:
05 Jan 2020 23:42
Aida1 wrote:
05 Jan 2020 15:51
Ulater wrote:
05 Jan 2020 15:35
Aida1 wrote:
05 Jan 2020 14:33
Ulater wrote:
05 Jan 2020 13:56


There is statistical evidence to support the fact that a significant portion of tank crews were wounded or killed outside of their vehicles. So I would ease up on emoticons If I were you.
After the tank is disabled and they have to evacuate they obviously are very vulnerable but has nothing to do with the vulnerability of tanks without infantry support. When a tank is disabled by enemy tank, AT or artillery fire and the crew has to evacuate,own infantry being present or not will not help the crew against the fire from the enemy. I think they will prefer to get into a tank or another armoured vehicle.And i did mention the vulnerability of the crew when the tank is disabled in the posting you quoted so you make no sense at all.
It is a silly discussion so i do use the emoticon.
No, tank does not have to be disabled at all for the crew to be in danger from small arms fire, artillery and so on.
British OR study? For them that was the case.
Not just british, vulnerability of commanders especially is noted by all sides involved.
I did not talk about artillery originally as i answered a posting about tank crews bing hit by small arms fire. A crew is certainly safe from small arms fire within the tank.That is the whole purpose of armoured vehicles.From artillery fires it is mostly safe too except in case of a direct hit which can cause splintering within the tank. No studies needed to be aware that a crew is most vulnerable outside the tank. Speaks for itself.
Anyway, that has all nothing to do with tanks not being able to operate without infantry.
A tank commander has to keep his hatch closed when the danger is great of being hit by snipers,etc...
Image

And ambushes exist, without infantry you would have very little idea about AT-rifle teams, or infantry waiting for you, which are all threats, and when you generally read and observe the behaviour of tank crews in ww 2, visibility in the combat zone was generally preferred to being buttoned-up, as that frequently lead to getting your tank knocked-out. Which was a justifiable feeling based on experience and statistics.
Tanks mostly operate in close cooperation with infantry,artillery etc.. so this discussion is completely artificial. It is always a combined arms story. But pretending that tanks can never be without infantry is completely over the top so you overstate. Depends on type of terrain. That tank commanders, when possible, prefer to stick their head out proves that the vulnerability to snipers in not extremely high, all depending also on the type of terrain.,

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”