Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Durbik

Indeed. Without air support every meter gained by Germans was bloody. With proper AT element, polish infantry could handle any "light" division, and with careful planning - the "panzer" division. It's all about combined arms...

I suppose none of you heard about Battle of Mokra... it's a fine example of failure in combining arms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra

You suppose incorrectly, but thanks all the same...

The Type 94 tankette was developed to satisfy an Imperial Japanese Army demand for an armoured vehicle to carry supplies to isolated garrisons or frontline troops during the invasions of Manchuria and China. The army wanted a vehicle small enough to move stealthily across country, with tracks to allow it to cross rough terrain and enough armour protection to defend its crew against light arms fire.

it was effective in its role also it was an armoured vehicle of the 1930s, please dont mistake it for a main battle tank nor assign its value based on its armour thickness or armement. Perhaps think of it more as a 'universal carrier' equivalent. neither useless nore rubish.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Durbik

Indeed. Without air support every meter gained by Germans was bloody. With proper AT element, polish infantry could handle any "light" division, and with careful planning - the "panzer" division. It's all about combined arms...

I suppose none of you heard about Battle of Mokra... it's a fine example of failure in combining arms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra

You suppose incorrectly, but thanks all the same...

I'm happy to be wrong then!

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

They look like, are the size of and about as effective as the little plastic bathtub boats I remember playing with when I was a rugrat.

Against infantry with no anti-tank capability, I'm sure they were adequate to do the job. One of those "in the valley of the blind, the one eyed is king" deals.

Even as late as 1944:

Two Japanese Tanks

On 5-6 August, the 305th Infantry continued to push northeast in its zone on the division right. During the 5th, progress was limited by difficult jungle. The 2d Battalion, using tanks and self-propelled guns to beat a trail, made an estimated 2,000 yards, but was so uncertain of its location near the end of the day that a trail was cut toward the coast in a futile effort to determine position. The 1st Battalion, a half mile to the rear and southwest of the 2d, bivouacked in a more or less isolated position. Here as elsewhere, the troops were expecting possible Banzai attacks, and that night the 1st Battalion was to experience the 77th's nearest approach to such an action. It came in unusual form-no blind rush by shouting hordes in suicidal desperation, but a daring raid by two tanks and a handful of infantry.

The use of tanks had been a feature of enemy operations throughout the battle for Guam. By 5 August, G-2 had estimated remaining enemy armored strength at a maximum of 20 tanks. The 9th Tank Regiment had been identified, with its 1st and 2d Companies, as well as a tank unit of the 29th Division. Of an original force of about 64 enemy tanks, 35 had been destroyed, 6 probably destroyed, and 3 captured. The remainder, of which the enemy could probably muster no more than 14 at one time, were nevertheless regarded as

111

still presenting a threat to the pursuing American forces. The 77th Division had already encountered their use, as single units, for strengthening delaying positions.

About 0200 on the morning of 6 August, men of Company A, 305th Infantry, guarding the northern sector of the battalion's defensive area, heard tanks and infantry approaching slowly from the north. The troops had been warned that friendly tanks were about, and the approaching noise came from the direction of the 2d Battalion's bivouac area; nevertheless, the guards watched carefully and were on full alert. As the moon came out from under a cloud, its light showed two Japanese tanks and a group of enemy soldiers who were setting up machine guns.

Company A immediately opened fire all along the line. A storm of bullets and grenades hit the Japanese. There was no response from the enemy infantry, but the tanks moved off toward the battalion perimeter just to A's right. A Japanese soldier on top of the first tank cried out, "American tank—okay, American tank—okay," but a stream of fire came from its turret. The 1st Battalion's men had not been able to dig deep slit trenches that night because of the hard coral, and many of them broke from their positions in the face of the oncoming tanks. The Japanese threw grenades from the tanks, to add to their destructive fire.

Antitank gunners, as the tanks penetrated the battalion lines, shifted their weapons for better fire. Immediately, the tanks changed direction and cut out of the line of fire. Once inside the perimeter the tanks separated; one stopped and sprayed with fire the area to the left, while the second plunged farther to the right. They seemed to have thoroughly scouted the bivouac area and carefully planned their maneuver.

The tank moving right struck into the men so quickly that they hardly knew what was on them; terrified, they ran off before its blazing guns or sprawled on the ground when caught in its line of fire. Throughout the area excited men turned their rifles and machine guns on the enemy vehicles, but the fire only ricocheted off steel sides into fleeing men. The moving tank collided with a Sherman, backed off and rolled over a jeep, crushing it, and then sprayed other vehicles with machine-gun fire. joining, the two tanks charged north toward the perimeter. The Company A men who had first sighted the attack were still there, in position, having killed off the

112

enemy infantry. They were ready for more attacks from outside, but had no defense from the rear. One man, wounded, staggered to his feet and fell under the onrushing tanks. The rest huddled in their V-shaped shallow trenches and escaped harm, though two soldiers had their rifles smashed as the tanks ground over them. The Japanese soldier who had ridden into the perimeter on top of a tank was still there as the vehicles rolled out; a last rifle shot knocked him off.

A trail of devastation was left behind. The 1st Battalion had lost 16 killed and 32 wounded, many of the casualties resulting from friendly fire as the troops on the perimeter concentrated on the tanks ranging through the bivouac. An artillery forward observation team had been almost wiped out, losing six men. Smashed and bullet-riddled equipment littered the area. And the enemy tanks had escaped, seemingly unscathed. The 1st Battalion spent the rest



113

of the night holding off Japanese efforts to infiltrate behind grenades and sniper fire.

The story of the enemy tanks did not end here. When last seen by the 1st Battalion, they were heading north on a trail that led toward the 2d Battalion's bivouac. En route, one of the tanks broke down, and the Japanese crews stopped to work on it. Meanwhile, the 2d Battalion was about to retrace its course of the previous day and return on that very trail, since ahead of it lay impenetrable jungle, so thick that "a man cannot step off the path without cutting." General Bruce authorized the battalion to work to the west and even go into the 306th's zone, if necessary, to find a better route.

The track was so narrow that in order to make its preliminary move back, the 2d Battalion had to do an "about face." This put Company E in the lead, with mortars and heavy machine guns from H attached. It was difficult to say which was more surprised when, just after moving out, the four-man point encountered a Japanese soldier in the trail. The enemy shouted something to hidden comrades, the Americans passed the word back to their column, and a vicious fire fight opened up. The enemy tanks were in hull defilade, their guns and machine guns covering the trail for 200 yards' distance. The leading men of Company E deployed to right and left of the trail in a hasty skirmish line. Because of a slight rise in the ground, the enemy tanks and riflemen were hard to locate, and Japanese fire raised havoc with the battalion column as it came up the trail in support. Tree bursts from the enemy shells sent shrapnel slashing through the woods and into the troops, causing face, arm, and back wounds. The cry went back for medics and for stretcher bearers.

American medium tanks came slowly up the trail, followed by more troops. As the lead tank came around a slight bend, a shell burst against it, and the tank stopped. The riflemen spread out on each side in the jungle. The heavy machine guns of Company H were brought up and placed in line close to the tanks. They were able to get in only a few bursts before enemy fire swept their position, killing or wounding most of the crews.

Riflemen began leaving positions under the heavy fire. The forward tank, afraid of being deserted, started to back out and thereby caused more panic. Capt. Charles T. Hillman, 2d Battalion executive officer, came up the trail and attempted to rally the men. He

114


was wounded at once by a machine-gun bullet. Together with a wounded sergeant from Company H, Hillman was able to reorganize some of the retreating men a few yards back of their first positions.1

Farther back on the trail conditions were not much safer, as the terrible enemy fire seemed to be able to rake the whole length. One of Company H's mortars was never able to get into sustained operation because of the enemy fire and the jungle overhead. Another, 100 yards back, went into action with good results, lobbing shells steadily at the enemy positions.

1. Capt. Hillman's wound later proved fatal.

115

MAP NO. 24 Plans for Final Phase, III Amphibious Corps

The fight ended as quickly as it had begun; the intense Japanese fire slackened, then abruptly stopped. Infantry squads pushed out through the jungle on each side to reach the enemy's rear, and drew no fire. The troops found two deserted enemy tanks, near them one dead Japanese. Two others, killed by mortar fire, were just off the trail. The rest of the enemy had fled, after inflicting a comparatively heavy toll on the 2d Battalion: 15 killed and 31 wounded seriously enough to be evacuated. Since vehicles had not been able to accompany the advance into the jungle, evacuation was a laborious job. Some wounded had to walk. Others were carried out in four hours on improvised stretchers, with eight men alternating on the job.

116

77th Division on Guam

Its a Zombie thread!

Brady has given the answer.....but it won't lie down......something about Stukas sucking.......or was it Panzer I's........

Don't forget that Danes are cowards...

they're not cowards....but some of them are pudgy. [:'(]

Nono, Castor said we're cowards, so it must be true...

you show your ugly toe.

Thats brave.

[:)]

[:'(]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Nono, Castor said we're cowards, so it must be true...

lol

the meaning of the word "said" must mean something different in your English than in mine... perhaps you should reread my question. Or did you have machineguns to take out the Nazi tank garbage? It was only a question. No assumption, no statement of mine. I just don´t know...

But, of course, to his point that Denmark "didn't resist" (it did, from 4AM to 8AM, losing 16 dead and 21 wounded, and destroying 15 German armoured vehicles), I could point out that Austria didn't exactly "resist" either when the Germans rolled across that particular border.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

But, of course, to his point that Denmark "didn't resist" (it did, from 4AM to 8AM, losing 16 dead and 21 wounded, and destroying 15 German armoured vehicles), I could point out that Austria didn't exactly "resist" either when the Germans rolled across that particular border.

we sure didn´t resist. Something like 80% in Austria were happy to join the Nazis. This number has even gone up during the first year of the war when "we" overrun half of Europe. Of course noone wanted to have been pro Nazi or pro German as soon as the war was lost.

While I know that we (the Austrian) had machineguns, I´m quite sure we wouldn´t even have been able to stop the Nazi "tankettes" in 38.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

But, of course, to his point that Denmark "didn't resist" (it did, from 4AM to 8AM, losing 16 dead and 21 wounded, and destroying 15 German armoured vehicles), I could point out that Austria didn't exactly "resist" either when the Germans rolled across that particular border.

Do you have reletives still alive who experienced the occupation and/or fought in the war?

I do. Plenty, in fact.

For "fought in the war", read "my late father's older brother was a resistance fighter", and "I have an older friend who sailed on the Atlantic convoys as a merchant seaman".

cool. I'll bet you've heard some interesting stories then. Me......closest I get is through my GF unit, who's maternal grandmother lived through the BoB. Sadly, she's slipping ever deeper into Alzheimer's, but some of her long term memories are still intact and on one lucid evening I was able to sit with her while she recounted her experiences as a nurse during the Blitz. Interesting stuff. (she said the captured German pilots were very cordial and polite). She also spent some time during the war living in Malta. There was included a funny story about her having insisted on making a full English Xmas dinner for the holiday......despite the fact that the temp was in the mid 90's.

GF also had a paternal grandfather who was in the RN during the war....sadly passed. She frequently mentions that its regrettable that i never had a chance to talk with him about his experiences. He had more than a few i heard.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

you show your ugly toe.

Thats brave.

[:)]

Or signs of a mental disorder... [:)]

Bill

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Terminus

But, of course, to his point that Denmark "didn't resist" (it did, from 4AM to 8AM, losing 16 dead and 21 wounded, and destroying 15 German armoured vehicles), I could point out that Austria didn't exactly "resist" either when the Germans rolled across that particular border.

we sure didn´t resist. Something like 80% in Austria were happy to join the Nazis. This number has even gone up during the first year of the war when "we" overrun half of Europe. Of course noone wanted to have been pro Nazi or pro German as soon as the war was lost.

While I know that we (the Austrian) had machineguns, I´m quite sure we wouldn´t even have been able to stop the Nazi "tankettes" in 38.

You were even better than the Danish.
You were cheering when the Wehrmacht marched in - just to declare yourself to be the "first victim" of Hitler. I just remember the funny speech the first Bundeskanzler of the FRG stated: "If the Austrians should ever demand reparations, we'll send them the remains of Hitler"

Moreover, the Danes rescued most of their Jews while the Austrians had a relatively higher precentage of war criminals and Waffen-SS members then Germany itself.

You had AT-guns, the 47mm Panzerabwehrkanone Böhler sometimes also called Modell 35. That's the gun the Italy built under licence as Cannone da 47/32 M35.
It had a penetration of 43mm on 500m.

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Terminus

But, of course, to his point that Denmark "didn't resist" (it did, from 4AM to 8AM, losing 16 dead and 21 wounded, and destroying 15 German armoured vehicles), I could point out that Austria didn't exactly "resist" either when the Germans rolled across that particular border.

we sure didn´t resist. Something like 80% in Austria were happy to join the Nazis. This number has even gone up during the first year of the war when "we" overrun half of Europe. Of course noone wanted to have been pro Nazi or pro German as soon as the war was lost.

While I know that we (the Austrian) had machineguns, I´m quite sure we wouldn´t even have been able to stop the Nazi "tankettes" in 38.

You were even better than the Danish.
You were cheering when the Wehrmacht marched in - just to declare yourself to be the "first victim" of Hitler. I just remember the funny speech the first Bundeskanzler of the FRG stated: "If the Austrians should ever demand reparations, we'll send them the remains of Hitler"

Moreover, the Danes rescued most of their Jews while the Austrians had a relatively higher precentage of war criminals and Waffen-SS members then Germany itself.

You had AT-guns, the 47mm Panzerabwehrkanone Böhler sometimes also called Modell 35. That's the gun the Italy built under licence as Cannone da 47/32 M35.
It had a penetration of 43mm on 500m.

and we still would not have been able to stop them when they would have shown up with their PzI and PzII... not with machineguns, not with the 47mm AT. Not because the 47mm wouldn´t be enough for a PzI or II but because those "crappy" tanks or how they are called all the time (like the posted pic of the Japanese tankettes) did just fine at that time. Compared to a Leopard II, I would also call a Panther or a KingTiger a crappy German tank. But it´s the same as calling those Japanese or German tanks of the time around 40 crap. At that time, they did just fine.

A Tiger can do quite fine even today! It depends on who is commading it, how the crew is trained, which doctrine is base of their commands and - of course - who's the enemy. (and at least ammunition that's up to date for its 8,8cm or then maybe 90mm or 105mm gun)

The Russians had superior tanks throughout the war but still lost many battles against oviously inferior german tanks. The reason was that the russians acted incompetent while the german forces really knowed what to do. And in the case of an KW 1 blocking the road without a chance to flank - a group of Ju 87 appeared or a 8,8cm Flak was used...

The PzKpfw I was never intended to be used in combat at all! It was a purely training tank to get as many "tanks" as possible in a short time to
a) show "we already have a lot of tanks" to the other nations
b) allow the companys to gain experience in production and designing
c) have more than a car with paper-mâché to train tank crews and infantry
That it was used at all was the need for something with tracks, some sort of armour and at least a MG at the beginning of a war that came at least three years too early for germany. But as Hitler got impatient and the Reich was almoust bankrupt, he started the war with an only half trained and equipped army.

The PzKpfw II also was no combat tank. It was something in between as it was intended to be used for recce and not to serve in the "battle line".

The only somehow capable tanks where the PzKpfw 35 (t), PzKpfw 38 (t), Pzkpfw III and PzKpfw IV. While they were able to do the job against the poles who themselves didn't have a tank force worht the name, they were already outclassed in summer 1940 by the french and british tanks. Matilda II and Char B1-bis were superior, R35 and H39 were at least as good.

So Terminus IS RIGHT! They were crap! The only reason they did their job was, that they were used superior and the superior tanks were used totally incompetent.


While it's influence somewhen ends against technology 50 years ahead, the crew and the tactics is the most important thing in tank warfare. Of course, a Renault FT-17 can't do anything against an Abrams even when crewd by experienced US or Israeli tank soldiers. But how superior crews can be the decisive was prooved often enough by the Israelis in 1956, 1967 and 1973.


So of course: Enough and competent employment of the 47mm Pak by the Austrian army would have stopped the german Panzers!
The only tanks in use then where PzKpfw I and II. The 30 available PzKpfw III where pre-production models with 15mm armour all around, so just enough to stop a MG bullet with no chance against an AT shell!
No 35 (t), 38 (t) in use yet as not yet captuered and the few existing PzKpfw IV where thinly armoured as well!
The austrian army itself was obviously way too small to defend the country without assistance from Italy for long. But as we all know, the vast majority of the Austria couldn't hail "their" Führer early enough.