US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5644
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
C-4 is flammable. We used it to heat K-rations.
-
- Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020, 00:27
- Location: USA
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
The five attached reports were prepared by US armor units and describe the German anti-tank tactics they encountered during the battles in Northwest Europe during 1944 and 1945.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
-
- Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020, 00:27
- Location: USA
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
Attached are another five reports that describe some of the tactics, methods and weapons used by US armor units during the battles in Northwest Europe during 1944 and 1945.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
-
- Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020, 00:27
- Location: USA
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
Attached are another five reports that describe some of the tactics, methods and weapons used by US armor units during the battles in Northwest Europe during 1944 and 1945.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
-
- Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020, 00:27
- Location: USA
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
Attached are another five reports that describe some of the tactics, methods and weapons used by US armor units during the battles in Northwest Europe during 1944 and 1945.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
The text obscured by the ‘Declassified’ stamp can be read by enlarging the attachment.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
The text obscured by the ‘Declassified’ stamp can be read by enlarging the attachment.
-
- Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020, 00:27
- Location: USA
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
Attached are another five reports that describe some of the tactics, methods and weapons used by US armor units during the battles in Northwest Europe during 1944 and 1945.
Four of the reports describe the use of the armored infantry units and their methods for using the halftracks in combat in combination with tanks.
The fifth report discusses methods for attacking pillboxes using combined force tactics with armor, infantry, artillery and combat engineers.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
Four of the reports describe the use of the armored infantry units and their methods for using the halftracks in combat in combination with tanks.
The fifth report discusses methods for attacking pillboxes using combined force tactics with armor, infantry, artillery and combat engineers.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
-
- Member
- Posts: 6350
- Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
- Location: Bremerton, Washington
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
It was Composition C or C-2 in World War II. GIs used itfor heating C-Rats. However, it was the nitrostarch demolition and grenade explosives that my Dad remembered most when we were in Normandy. He said when it went off it smelled like burnt cotton candy and since it was used so much you could smell it everywhere. Along with the smell of rotting corpses, human and animal, unwashed bodies, and urine and feces. It explains why he never wanted us to get cotton candy at the fair when we were little.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
-
- Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020, 00:27
- Location: USA
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
Attached are another five reports that describe some of the tactics, methods and weapons used by US armor units during the battles in Northwest Europe during 1944 and 1945.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
- Location: Coral and brass
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
Thanks. Interesting reading.Richard Stone wrote: ↑19 Jun 2020, 05:33Attached are another five reports that describe some of the tactics, methods and weapons used by US armor units during the battles in Northwest Europe during 1944 and 1945.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
BattExp- US Armor Tactics -16 December 1944 -Pillbox.png
BattExp- US Armor Tactics -14 March 1945.png
BattExp- US Armor Tactics -8 November 1944 -Pillbox.png
BattExp- US Armor Tactics - 1 August 1944 -Infty 1.png
BattExp- US Armor Tactics - 1 August 1944 -Infty 2.png
-
- Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020, 00:27
- Location: USA
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
Attached are another five reports that describe some of the tactics, methods and weapons used by US armor units during the battles in Northwest Europe during 1944 and 1945.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
-
- Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020, 00:27
- Location: USA
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
Attached are another five reports that describe some of the tactics, methods and weapons used by US armor units during the battles in Northwest Europe during 1944 and 1945.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10056
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
There were some remarks about FO & Air Liaison in the docs on the previous post. One was how the FO teams should be in communication, which made me wonder what sort of Call For Fire or tactical circuit the artillery had set up/ Ordinarily we had all the FOs in a battalion on a common frequency. If traffic was expected to be heavy they one or more of the battery FO would be on a seprate battery circuit. When riding along on tanks myself & the other FO were by default in communication as we were usually on the same radio frequency.
The other item that caught my eye was the remark under Tank To Plane about the ASP O and the S3 riding together. Im guessing this was at the CC level. We had the air liaison along side the S3 in a vehicle or shelter, with the S2, artillery liaison & any other fire support liaison. The actual air controllers were down at the company level. They usually rode on the company XO tank & the artillery FO on the company CO tank. I don't think the S3 had a tank assigned in our TO/TE & it would have been kinda weird actually in the context of how we operated.
The other item that caught my eye was the remark under Tank To Plane about the ASP O and the S3 riding together. Im guessing this was at the CC level. We had the air liaison along side the S3 in a vehicle or shelter, with the S2, artillery liaison & any other fire support liaison. The actual air controllers were down at the company level. They usually rode on the company XO tank & the artillery FO on the company CO tank. I don't think the S3 had a tank assigned in our TO/TE & it would have been kinda weird actually in the context of how we operated.
-
- Member
- Posts: 6350
- Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
- Location: Bremerton, Washington
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
Remember Carl, the WW II Signal Corps radios were not just on different freqs...they were completely different radio sets that could not net. There were separate series of infantry, armor, and artillery sets. So an "FO Tank" - three per AFA Bn were standard M4-series with a SCR-608 or -610 crammed into it in addition to the tank's standard SCR-508 or -510...usually wedged in where there was formerly ammunition. The same held true for the Air OP tanks, they usually had an SCR-287 or equivalent crammed into them. Same reason why later some company and battalion command tanks had an SCR-300 fitted in to communicate with the infantry.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 10:47There were some remarks about FO & Air Liaison in the docs on the previous post. One was how the FO teams should be in communication, which made me wonder what sort of Call For Fire or tactical circuit the artillery had set up/ Ordinarily we had all the FOs in a battalion on a common frequency. If traffic was expected to be heavy they one or more of the battery FO would be on a seprate battery circuit. When riding along on tanks myself & the other FO were by default in communication as we were usually on the same radio frequency.
I'll have to look, but IIRC, the Air OP was in a dedicated tank and there were damned few of them available. In the ETOUSA they first show up in COBRA, I think you are right and it was one per CCA and CCB...'R' Command at this time was not doctrinally a "combat command", although 5th AD unofficially augmented its 'R' to CCR in England, trained that way before landing, and worked that way throughout the war. Other armored divisions followed doctrine or the ETOUSA revised doctrine, according to their inclination.The other item that caught my eye was the remark under Tank To Plane about the ASP O and the S3 riding together. Im guessing this was at the CC level. We had the air liaison along side the S3 in a vehicle or shelter, with the S2, artillery liaison & any other fire support liaison. The actual air controllers were down at the company level. They usually rode on the company XO tank & the artillery FO on the company CO tank. I don't think the S3 had a tank assigned in our TO/TE & it would have been kinda weird actually in the context of how we operated.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10056
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
That still leaves the question of how the artillery was organizing its comm. The remark in the report sounds like someone was trying to work with separate battery CoF channels & the problems of stovepiped information were discovered.Richard Anderson wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 19:47...
Remember Carl, the WW II Signal Corps radios were not just on different freqs...they were completely different radio sets that could not net. There were separate series of infantry, armor, and artillery sets. So an "FO Tank" - three per AFA Bn were standard M4-series with a SCR-608 or -610 crammed into it in addition to the tank's standard SCR-508 or -510...usually wedged in where there was formerly ammunition. The same held true for the Air OP tanks, they usually had an SCR-287 or equivalent crammed into them. Same reason why later some company and battalion command tanks had an SCR-300 fitted in to communicate with the infantry. ...
-
- Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020, 00:27
- Location: USA
Re: US Armor Tactics & Weapons In Northwest Europe - 1944 & 1945
Attached are another five reports that describe some of the tactics, methods and weapons used by US armor units during the battles in Northwest Europe during 1944 and 1945. I’ve include several reports that discuss the different communication methods used since this subject has been of interest to several site members.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
All of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.