Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 5, 2017 15:13:45 GMT -5
With the early, shocking success of Blitzkrieg every Army in the world looked to the German Army for tactical guidance with regard to processes, strategies, organizational make up and weaponry. The recognition of tanks functioning as an independent branch of land conflict rather than Infantry support or mobile artillery and the concept of fast moving, combined army teams and rapid exploitation in depth was considered but not really applied by anyone on a grand scale.
As a result the US Army more or less decided Germany had the answers so attempted to copy them. Armored Divisions were created around Medium Tank Battalions and the US Army even copied the tables of organization for these units as laid out by the Weremacht. (Platoons of five tanks, 3 platoons to a company and a two tank HQ sections.). 3 companies of medium tanks to a battalion with one light tank company and attached artillery and mechanized infantry in half-tracks. While the US Army consistently fielded such units (at least as battles were initiated) Germany seldom came close to their designed numbers with many compromises to intended strengths. Breakdowns further compromised unit strengths so while a British or US Armored group showed up pretty close to what it should look like the Germans almost never were even close.
A great example of the Allies misinterpreting German intent was the development of Assault guns like the Wespe, Strumgschutz IIIs and IVs, Hetzer and other SP guns. The Germans created them as a compromise to minimize production costs and use up existing obsolete chassis's and captured vehicles. Eliminating a turret saved a lot of time and money. These vehicles were designed to augment the Infantry units in much the same way an independent tank battalion was attached to each US Infantry Division. Germany simply didn't have enough tanks to go around. These assault guns were supposed to be used in the manner most militaries saw the tanks role prior to WW2 as a parceled out weapon assigned and rotated between units as missions and circumstances dictated. The Allies thought these vehicles were developed as unique "tank killers" and created their own tank destroyers to copy the concept. Allied tank destroyers were designed to create a faster, lightly armored vehicle that mounted a more potent, tank lethal gun which together with armored piercing rounds could be brought into action when the need to attack enemy tanks was needed. Instead of recognizing that the best weapon against a tank was another tank and keeping them upgunned and more thickly armored they thought the tank destroyers would fill this gap.
Events revealed all the flaws in this logic. Unlike the early days of the war and conflict in the desert and Eastern front, masses of German tanks were seldom encountered. Germanies tactics were increasingly defensive rather than offensive and the designed roles of each armies specialized armor became almost entirely reversed. The Strumgschutz became for the most part a tank killer and the allied tank destroyers became increasingly Infantry assault weapons. With its thick armor, low silouette and increasingly more potent main gun the German assault guns adapted quite effectively to this unplanned role. The US Tank Destroyers (not so much). With less armor than the under armored Sherman's, open turret tops and lack of a bow machine guns or coaxial MGs the TDS were far less potent as Infantry assault support than the tanks from the attached armored battalion. (Most US Infantry divisions had a TD battalion attached as well as an Independent tank battalion). Infantry commanders were frequently unaware or fully appreciative of the TDS limitations relative to a tank and used them exactly as they would use a tank. To them it was full tracked had a turret a big gun, menacing name and looked scary so as far as they were concerned it was a tank. Used in this way many were lost and not nearly as eneffective as an M14 would be. The clear hindsight is that instead of a tank destroyer battalion a second tank battalion assigned to each Infantry Division would have made more sense. (Especially if like the British each Armored platoon had one tank with a potent tank killer gun like their 17 pounder Firefly).
Ironic that the German Assault guns became what the US believed their intent to be and the Tank Destroyers became what the Germans intended their assault guns to be. Complete reversal of roles.
Flawed execution. Confirmed in brilliance, executed in discrace. The fact that the Tank Destroyer Branch was dropped following WW2 says it all.
There is an excellent little museum dedicated to the Tank Destroyer Branch in Connecticut. One of the founders of this web sites is curator there. (Gordak) stop in and say hello sometime.
As a result the US Army more or less decided Germany had the answers so attempted to copy them. Armored Divisions were created around Medium Tank Battalions and the US Army even copied the tables of organization for these units as laid out by the Weremacht. (Platoons of five tanks, 3 platoons to a company and a two tank HQ sections.). 3 companies of medium tanks to a battalion with one light tank company and attached artillery and mechanized infantry in half-tracks. While the US Army consistently fielded such units (at least as battles were initiated) Germany seldom came close to their designed numbers with many compromises to intended strengths. Breakdowns further compromised unit strengths so while a British or US Armored group showed up pretty close to what it should look like the Germans almost never were even close.
A great example of the Allies misinterpreting German intent was the development of Assault guns like the Wespe, Strumgschutz IIIs and IVs, Hetzer and other SP guns. The Germans created them as a compromise to minimize production costs and use up existing obsolete chassis's and captured vehicles. Eliminating a turret saved a lot of time and money. These vehicles were designed to augment the Infantry units in much the same way an independent tank battalion was attached to each US Infantry Division. Germany simply didn't have enough tanks to go around. These assault guns were supposed to be used in the manner most militaries saw the tanks role prior to WW2 as a parceled out weapon assigned and rotated between units as missions and circumstances dictated. The Allies thought these vehicles were developed as unique "tank killers" and created their own tank destroyers to copy the concept. Allied tank destroyers were designed to create a faster, lightly armored vehicle that mounted a more potent, tank lethal gun which together with armored piercing rounds could be brought into action when the need to attack enemy tanks was needed. Instead of recognizing that the best weapon against a tank was another tank and keeping them upgunned and more thickly armored they thought the tank destroyers would fill this gap.
Events revealed all the flaws in this logic. Unlike the early days of the war and conflict in the desert and Eastern front, masses of German tanks were seldom encountered. Germanies tactics were increasingly defensive rather than offensive and the designed roles of each armies specialized armor became almost entirely reversed. The Strumgschutz became for the most part a tank killer and the allied tank destroyers became increasingly Infantry assault weapons. With its thick armor, low silouette and increasingly more potent main gun the German assault guns adapted quite effectively to this unplanned role. The US Tank Destroyers (not so much). With less armor than the under armored Sherman's, open turret tops and lack of a bow machine guns or coaxial MGs the TDS were far less potent as Infantry assault support than the tanks from the attached armored battalion. (Most US Infantry divisions had a TD battalion attached as well as an Independent tank battalion). Infantry commanders were frequently unaware or fully appreciative of the TDS limitations relative to a tank and used them exactly as they would use a tank. To them it was full tracked had a turret a big gun, menacing name and looked scary so as far as they were concerned it was a tank. Used in this way many were lost and not nearly as eneffective as an M14 would be. The clear hindsight is that instead of a tank destroyer battalion a second tank battalion assigned to each Infantry Division would have made more sense. (Especially if like the British each Armored platoon had one tank with a potent tank killer gun like their 17 pounder Firefly).
Ironic that the German Assault guns became what the US believed their intent to be and the Tank Destroyers became what the Germans intended their assault guns to be. Complete reversal of roles.
Flawed execution. Confirmed in brilliance, executed in discrace. The fact that the Tank Destroyer Branch was dropped following WW2 says it all.
There is an excellent little museum dedicated to the Tank Destroyer Branch in Connecticut. One of the founders of this web sites is curator there. (Gordak) stop in and say hello sometime.