2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 2, 2010 2:36:32 GMT -5
In world war two the commonly held belief with regard to defense against tanks was to change road signs, hide, and call in artillery. Fortunately the Germans armored capabilities were extremely limited and with very few exceptions in Europe after 1944 German armor played a primarily defensive, reactive role.
The Battle of Bulge was one of the few exceptions where Germany employed large concentrated armored units. Though the best defense against tanks even then was another tank our tanks were believed to be an offensive, mobile weapon used to support Infantry thrusts and exploit breakthroughs. (That was the German doctrine as well) Our Anti tank units (The Tank Destroyer Branch) were supposed to be the tasked forces used against armor. Each Infantry Regiment was typically assigned a Company of Tank Destroyers (12 SP Guns typically) and every Infantry Battalion had an attached AT element. By 1944 we were still using towed anti tank guns (57mm and 76mm) although many Anti tank elements consisted of SP Tank Destroyers. Most commonly the M10, M36 and small and agile M18. These tracked vehicles were more lightly armored than our tanks (also woefully inadequate) and often open turreted which made them vulnerable to indirect fire and Infantry assault. The tank destroyers had ammunition better suited to penetrate armor and in the case of the M36 a very capable main gun (90mm)
Most German tanks during the Battle of the Bulge didn't in fact have to be knocked out. The lack of fuel prevented many from finishing the operation. Another 1 in 3 broke down and were abandoned or destroyed due to mechanical failure. 200 miles in a German tank stretched it durability where many of our tanks at the Battle of the Bulge had soldiered through Europe for over 2000 miles!
Those German AFVs knocked out by US forces were most often enagaged and destroyed by bazookas, mines and AT weapons or artillery. Tank on Tank engagements did occure and inspite of the publicity and all that is written the US tanks and their dedicated crews accounted for themsleves extremely well. Their equipment from a tactical perspective fell short of many many German tanks with regard to firepower, armor and to some degree optics. However the general state of crew training for US forces was higher than the Germans who were heavily depleted in Russia and Normandy and lacked fuel to adequately train in preperation for the Ardennes offensive. The US forces knew their limitations and realized that with rare exception they would fail to penetrate a German tank from the front. Side and rear shots were their only means to knock out a tank at ranges beyond 250 yards. Surprisingly even with the vaunted Panther a side shot could be devastating if it hit even at 2000 yards. (Thinner armor and ammunition stowage)
US crews by that stage knew the importance of locating their shots. The most significant tactic was to do all you could to spot the enemy before they spotted you and get off the first shot. The weapon that engaged first won in 70% of the documented cases. Defense was vastly advantages even with Shermans vs Panthers or Tigers. Tanks in that time could not accurately fire while moving and moving tanks seldom acquired sight of the enemy before the stationary tanks saw them.
Infanty recognized that close in, the blind spot and areas that could not be covered by a tanks defensive firepower was significant. Far enough away from the treads and too close for the machine guns was the sweet spot for Infantry provided a tank could be isolated. Built up areas and dense foliage was extremely advantages to Infantry and very bad for armor. Mines or the threat of mines was a huge deterrent.
Forcing the Armor crew inside their tanks with direct fire significantly affected their capability. If the Infantry has no weapons to engage a tank, hiding and allowing them to pass was the best technique. If a tank was supported by Infantry the Infantry had to be seperated from the tank by direct fire or by luring the armor to pursue quickly and leave their Infantry behind. Artillery was a great seperator of supporting Infantry
Bridges and natural barriers to travel were to be exploited and used to advantage. The Germans credit US army engineers and their prudent destruction of bridges and mining operations as the most significant deterrent to their success in the Bulge. Eventually as the sky cleared the Airforce and ground attack aircraft were their biggest fear although by this point all was lost anyway and the surviving German armor by this point consisted of marauding, aimless groups wih few viable objectives or possibilities for success.
The Americans and British had learned a great deal since North Africa and though still incredibly intimidating enemy armor could be defeated even when employed en masse and aggressively.
|
|
|
Post by hairy apple on Feb 2, 2010 16:24:47 GMT -5
I can't imagine attacking a tank with an A/T gun, let alone a bazooka. My guess is you have to get pretty freakin' close to a tank to kill it with a bazooka.... I have to imagine it would have been a very scary thing to do.
Thanks for the info! Very interesting as always.
|
|
Adler69
Master sergeant
Legio Patria Nostra
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by Adler69 on Feb 2, 2010 18:45:07 GMT -5
An anti tank gun or bazooka , Panzerschreck , Panzerfaust , Tellermine , Magnetic mine or even a Molotov cocktail takes a calm person and guts.
I took out a Tank with a Panzerschreck at Camp Roberts on CA a few years back.
And a real T-72 in Iraq back in 1991 during Desert Storm with a Dragon missile.
|
|
|
Post by hairy apple on Feb 2, 2010 22:16:24 GMT -5
An anti tank gun or bazooka , Panzerschreck , Panzerfaust , Tellermine , Magnetic mine or even a Molotov cocktail takes a calm person and guts. I took out a Tank with a Panzerschreck at Camp Roberts on CA a few years back. And a real T-72 in Iraq back in 1991 during Desert Storm with a Dragon missile. I like how you mentioned you killed a real tank after you said you got a tank in a reenactment.
|
|
Adler69
Master sergeant
Legio Patria Nostra
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by Adler69 on Feb 2, 2010 22:29:08 GMT -5
Well the fake kill on a re enactment felt a lot better than the real world kill . The crew of the tank on the re enactment was ok at the end of the weekend , the T-72's crew wasn't that lucky.
|
|
|
Post by hairy apple on Feb 2, 2010 22:37:02 GMT -5
Well the fake kill on a re enactment felt a lot better than the real world kill . The crew of the tank on the re enactment was ok at the end of the weekend , the T-72's crew wasn't that lucky. Understandable.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 3, 2010 1:21:27 GMT -5
I fired a Dragon and a couple of TOWs while in the army but luckily, never at an occupied, functional enemy tank. The TOW was incredible compared to everything prior in the way of Infantry AT weapons.
The LAW was the most common AT weapon in the 60s and 70s outside the AT element. We fired sub caliber marking rounds from LAWs at Sheridans and that was initially quite challenging With practice guys got pretty darn good at it. The sub caliber device exactly mimics the flight trajectory of the LAW. The tankers were really pissed as the small rockets did manage to mess up their tanks on occassion, busting periscopes, brackets trim items and doing serious damage to paint jobs. Once teams of Infantry engaged in pairs and called out their ranges they started getting almost too good and far too relaxed during the training.
Training aids at my request outfitted the Sheritans with air powered BB guns (Mclashin devices) and we had the students wear fencing masks and shoot the tanks while being shot at. Tanks in pairs and especially three tanks working together are very tricky and the accuracy of the Infantry rocketeers went way, way down.
It was some of the most enjoyable training we ever did. Even the tankers liked it (once they got to shoot back.) These were steel .177 Cal BBs and they hurt like crazy when you were hit. The ROF on the flow air BB guns was incredible. They sounded like impact wrenches and you could hear them over the sounds of the tanks.
In addition to being fun in my opinion it was excellent training. The LAW supposedly could penetrate 17 inch of steel but in reality was not especially effective against armored vehicles. At least by the 70s they worked most every time. In Vietnam two out three missfired.
|
|
Adler69
Master sergeant
Legio Patria Nostra
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by Adler69 on Feb 3, 2010 1:54:23 GMT -5
The T-72 was amongst many we took out that day , we where scouting ahead of the main French force on the assault of As-Salman Air Base , the French commander wanted us ahead of the main force because we could get out of trouble in our FAVs faster than his AMX 30s could , when we came into view of the base a pair of T-72s where moving from their fighting positions for some reason , that's why we saw them , i guess we both saw each other at thesame time because the lead T-72 opened up on us with his main gun , his range was off just a little and missed us , we spread out and dismounted , set up the Dragon as fast as we ever had , i aimed acquired the tank as he was firing his second round and pressed the "trigger" the missile shot out of the tube and i guided it towards the tank , the missile hit right under the rear area of the turret , my A.G. took the sight and we jumped into the FAV , last thing i remember seeing was the turret of the T-72 flying through the air , as we where engaging the tanks our driver got on the radio and sent back the message that we had engaged heavy enemy armor and we could see a lot more both on the base and on the road leading away from it , the main force commander gave the order to get the hell out of there and let his heavy armor engage them , the battle was a huge long battle and we secured the base hours later .
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 3, 2010 3:44:30 GMT -5
Wow a T-72. Was that base where ultimately the surrender was signed?
|
|
Adler69
Master sergeant
Legio Patria Nostra
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by Adler69 on Feb 3, 2010 4:08:50 GMT -5
Wow a T-72. Was that base where ultimately the surrender was signed? The surrender was signed at Safwan Airfield just North of the border with Kuwait. As-Salman was a decent sized base , after the battle when we went into the base we where about to drive on the runway when we spotted this funny looking "flowers" on the runway and close to some bomb craters , a closer look at them made us realize we better get the hell off that runway. One of the oddest things i saw on a bunker on the perimeter of the base was a large amount of 9x19mm parabellum ammo in crates , the ammo wasn't the odd thing , it was the fact that all the crates came from ISRAEL
|
|
|
Post by Garrick Udet on Feb 3, 2010 12:08:31 GMT -5
So to put this thread back on topic for WWII airsoft... We in the 3rd PZGr are lucky to have a fairly regular armored foe in Natasha (ba64's BA64). To defeat her we employ 3 different weapons, often in concert, a PAK, Panzerfausts and Anti-tank mines. We haven't yet hit her with my mortar, but I'm sure that will come into play sooner or later. What I've generally found to be an effective tactic is to place the PAK in a position where is has a long field of fire down a primary road, the PAK can put a nerf rocket over 200 yards down range at maximum elevation, although realistically all of the PAK kills have come at less than 100 yards. If there are any kinks or bends in the road that where your target can be outside of your field of fire (behind trees, hills etc). That's where you should be placing mines or putting an anti-tank trooper with a panzerfaust or both. Also you have to know your enemy. Boris who drives the BA-64 for the Soviets is a crafty Bolshevik who will detour onto side paths, even if they are barely wide enough for him to navigate. The only real counter to this is to make sure that you survey the terrain before the battle to identify all possible routes used by armor or vehicles. The advantage of airsoft is that none of the armor I've seen thus far (including the 1/2 scale Tiger that played in our game a year ago) has true off road and all terrain ability. So they can't go off the road and start running over trees and such. This makes defending against armor a relatively straight forward task of covering all the likely roads and junctions around the objective area. Anyway, just a few observations of how to defeat armor in a WW2 Airsoft game.
|
|
|
Post by CharleyNovember on Feb 3, 2010 12:21:03 GMT -5
I have found like you that you absolutely have to have infantry support to protect your tank from the enemy. It's a wonderful rolling pillbox but your vision is limited and you can't jump behind a tree to hide if the other side has 1 or 2 anti-tank weapons. How do you employ mines in game play? airsoft claymores with trip wires?
|
|
ersatzjack2
Private 1st Class
"We can still win this thing, once the secret weapons arrive."
Posts: 612
|
Post by ersatzjack2 on Feb 3, 2010 12:28:25 GMT -5
It's a fairly exhilarating thing to take Natasha out with a panzerfaust. That is, when you get the chance. I have been that anti-tank guy during several of the skirmishes. I usually lay down my primary weapon and tote just a pistol and the faust. Oh, yeah, and a satchel bag of CO2 cartridges and some nerfs. As well as the nerf panzerfausts shoot they simply don't outrange airsoft pb's. You have to use stealth when trying to get off a shot. This sometimes works and sometimes not. If the Russians support their armor with infantry it is all the harder because if they see me, I'm usually a goner. It makes for a different kind of skirmish, that's for sure. Very nervewracking. When everyone else is running, spraying, firefighting, I'm listening to the sound of her engine and hiding and crawling. Hopping from location to location just to stay close to her. If I'm lucky she comes close enough and I get to blow my cover and try to put one into her. Even when I shoot her I usually draw fire from supporting infantry. If I'm not lucky the turret gunner or the supporting infantry has a heyday with my hide. Most of my kills against Natasha have come when her defending infantry gets embroiled in battle and they neglect to protect her. The only thing that makes this even halfway fair is that our terrain is usually friendly to defending infantry. At Big Lake where there are more grassy open areas forget the Panzerfausts. At that field only the Pak keeps Natasha at bay. While we have grenades, mines, an anti-tank gun and panzerfausts, we could really use our own armor. That's why Troy (Ba-64) sometimes uses his armored car as a German vehicle. He's giving us a break. Not all of our skirmishes have an armored element but plenty do. It adds another element to the battle and allows other weapons types to take part. Lot's of fun. To answer CN, we have used a couple of different styles. We use mock wooden mines that are clearly visible. They simply deny a road or trail to the enemy until they are removed. The assaulting engineers usually have to face fire to remove them but if they're determined they can usually clear them away. We limit the number of mines for the defense so they can't just put them all over. We also have a baking soda mine that actually does get planted. When you apply pressure it will spit up white powder. They haven't worked well, yet, but we haven't used them too long. We also don't have enough of them.
|
|
|
Post by hairy apple on Feb 3, 2010 12:38:08 GMT -5
We actually have an "ammored" game coming up here on the 13th. Although our "tank" is a toyota pickup, it should be an interesting game trying to battle it. In the past we have left the windows open and made the driver the primary way to knock it out. Shoot the driver, then the truck is disabled until the driver respawns (1-2 minutes). To actually "kill" the tank you had to disable it and then run up and open a door. We didn't have any A/T weapons at those games however, now that I have a few to use we are going to allow it to be a "tank" with the windows up and only be able to be killed or disabled by A/T weapons. I'm looking forward to a challanging and interesting game.
|
|
|
Post by Rekkon on Feb 3, 2010 16:21:48 GMT -5
The MOA has about six ways to knock out armor. The PAK (AT gun), panzerfausts, teller mines, magnetic mine, panzerwurfmines and regular grenades. Garrick already covered the PAK pretty well. The panzerfausts are your typical ball valve, CO2 12-gram powered tube with a NERF rocket. They can be reloaded in a minute or so, but typically we keep the reloading supplies back at base, making them single use for the guy carrying it in the field. And usually we do not allow the single use AT weapons to “reload” until Natasha has been killed. This simulates a limited AT arsenal. Incidentally, Mauser pouches are an ideal place to store spare CO2 cartridges. The magnetic mine and panzerwurfmines were props I created. The latter is basically a hand thrown panzerfaust. It looks like a faust head on a shaft with canvas fins. All of my armor kills (in WW II games) thus far have been with the wurfmines, though one of our guys has 2-3 kills with the magnetic mine. The magnetic mine must be stuck to the target, and our rules only allow you to get that close to a vehicle if the engine is off. The wurfmines are allowed contact kills, so all I need to do is hit the side of Natasha. It does not throw very far though, so you need to get darn close. It balances out nicely with the longer ranged PAK and panzerfausts. Most of the time I do not survive the attack. If I can get within range, I can usually get the kill, but supporting infantry light me up about a half second later. And if you miss, chances are someone in the armored car saw you run up to about 15 feet away… My teller mines are just wooden props. We have a few other slightly more elaborate props, but they all function (or lack function) the same way. They are placed on the ground to deny the vehicle movement over that area. In effect they represent a larger, unknown minefield. If the driver goes over the area without seeing them, it counts as a kill. Typically the mines are placed in plain sight. To clear them an infantry man must grab it with both hands and move it away. Oversimplified to be sure, but it works. And for the most desperate situations, you can try to lob a grenade into Natasha, which is quite difficult. Imagine trying to throw a stick grenade through a basketball hoop. Except the hoop is moving, your starting position is prone in the brush and things are shooting back. Every small hole in Natasha’s armor is covered by a screen. The only two sizable openings are the turret top and the top of the back door. The latter is usually covered by a net, and one or both usually contains an obstructing Russian body. I end up going panzerjager at MOA events a lot. Armor can be very intimidating, especially the first few times you face it. I was up against Natasha (the BA-64) at my second event ever. We had no AT weapons, so there was a lot of running away. Once I started playing against it regularly, I got used to it and worked out ways to deal with it. Troy can tell you how many times I have knocked it out now. In a defensive scenario, the best way to deal with armor is to combine AT options and play defense in depth. We try to give the PAK the longest line of fire possible, but its effective range is about the same as an AEG, so you absolutely need to protect it with small arms further up or the gunners get suppressed and picked off. All the obvious trails are mined, but these too need to be within friendly AEG range or the enemy will clear them in no time. How we play, the mines almost never kill things, but they prevent Natasha from blitzing your position (which Troy will absolutely do if he senses weakness). If one AT system is knocked out (say the PAK), you frequently need time to shift the backups (panzerfausts, wurfmines) into position. The Russians do a good job of combined arms, so the longer you can hold them in place, the more attrition will work in the defender’s favor. Clear out enough supporting infantry and the handheld AT can move in. Do not let the attackers deal with your defensive options piecemeal. The handheld stuff often ends up being pretty static because the operators go to ground and try for an ambush. The requires patience and guessing which route the armor will take. People, especially turret gunners, treat panzerjagers as priority targets. If they see you with a bazooka, they will not give you a moment’s rest. Here too you want a layered defense. If enemy infantry are in small arms range, they are going to be distracted and less likely to notice a guy hiding under a nearby bush. When the infantry push past his position, the armor will assume the area is secure and move up within striking range. In something more open, like a meeting engagement, tank hunters need to be stealthy, mobile and observant. Listen for engine sounds to discern intent. Is it moving left? Better get to that flank first. You generally cannot outrun a vehicle, so you need to move preemptively or take short cuts to get into position ahead of it. You cannot move freely, or often at all, while in view of the tank. If it sees you it may change its course, put fire on your position, or worse, call in infantry. When you cannot let the armor come to you, work with the terrain to get as close as possible without being seen. If necessary move away or parallel to the target to find a better avenue of approach. Putting a building or large tree between you will let you move in quickly. People in armored vehicles often have poor visibility and reduced hearing, particularly if the engine is running. Use this to your advantage and approach whenever possible from blind zones. Wait for the gunner to be looking a different way, ideally while he is engaging another target. Ignore supporting troops as much as possible to avoid drawing attention to yourself. Often you will need to play the long odds of not being noticed by infantry to get a shot at the tank.
|
|
|
Post by Garrick Udet on Feb 4, 2010 10:56:12 GMT -5
Wolfgang, as always you add about 3 miles of depth to what I thought was a pretty well thought out post on my part. As you can see, I'm the lazy PAK gunner and he's our intrepid panzerjager.
|
|
Ersatzjack
Corporal
"That silly Franz... he thinks we are winning."
Posts: 1,093
|
Post by Ersatzjack on Feb 4, 2010 11:35:12 GMT -5
Wolfgang, as always you add about 3 miles of depth to what I thought was a pretty well thought out post on my part. As you can see, I'm the lazy PAK gunner and he's our intrepid panzerjager. You're all OPSEC (Operational Security) nightmares. I don't see the Soviets giving away all their tactics on these pages. They're too crafty.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 4, 2010 14:35:42 GMT -5
"Armor" adds so much to airsoft events. It's great to see groups figuring out practical and safe ways to incorporate them.
|
|
|
Post by sarge12 on Feb 4, 2010 23:58:52 GMT -5
hey, 2nd bat, did you fight in Vietnam?
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 6, 2010 0:25:30 GMT -5
Yes. I had no choice the guy from the other outfit insulted my unit.
|
|
Seff
Private
.30-06 - Turning Cover into Concealment since 1906
Posts: 344
|
Post by Seff on Feb 9, 2010 14:52:05 GMT -5
I can't determine if that's an inside joke about the Vietnam Conflict or not.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Feb 9, 2010 16:37:50 GMT -5
Not exactly applicable to airsoft, but one of the expedient tactics American tankers armed with the 75mm gun came up with to deal with Tigers and Panthers was to shoot white phosphorus rounds at them. The willie peter rounds wouldn't damage the tank, unless by sheer luck they started a fire, but it would produce a smoke cloud which would blind the crew and sometimes make the crew think the tank was on fire and cause them to abandon the vehicle. Bits of burning WP flying around would also seriously distract any accompanying infantry. It's nasty stuff.
And while the Germans were blinded or panicked, the Shermans could maneuver for a flank or rear shot, or just hammer away with solid shot until they broke something.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 9, 2010 21:55:16 GMT -5
The only "fighting" I might have done were bar fights. I was in the Infantry but never fired a round in anger The only bad guys I saw close up, were long dead. None of this of course has anything to do with anti-armor. The NVA had some tanks and armored vehicles and used them on rare occassion but I never saw any (Thankfully!) I have friend who knocked a couple out with LAWs at Lang Vei and received the Silver Star for it (among other things) He should have gotten "The Metal!"
|
|
|
Post by Garrick Udet on Feb 10, 2010 13:25:01 GMT -5
You're all OPSEC (Operational Security) nightmares. I don't see the Soviets giving away all their tactics on these pages. They're too crafty. I was only listing tactics we've already used. If the Soviets haven't picked up on them yet they're (what's the term de jour that will conjure phony outrage)... F'in Guy on a short buss! Out at big lake I've also built a giant net trap to catch Natasha. The plan is to lure Boris out of the driver's seat with a bottle of Vodka hanging from a tree. When he grabs the bottle, the trap will be sprung and Natasha will be hanging from a giant tree in a net, totally unusable for the remainder of the game. Don't tell anybody in the 198th... THIS IS BIG SECRET!
|
|
Lev
Private 1st Class
Posts: 454
|
Post by Lev on Feb 10, 2010 13:28:10 GMT -5
Not exactly applicable to airsoft, but one of the expedient tactics American tankers armed with the 75mm gun came up with to deal with Tigers and Panthers was to shoot white phosphorus rounds at them. The willie peter rounds wouldn't damage the tank, unless by sheer luck they started a fire, but it would produce a smoke cloud which would blind the crew and sometimes make the crew think the tank was on fire and cause them to abandon the vehicle. Bits of burning WP flying around would also seriously distract any accompanying infantry. It's nasty stuff. And while the Germans were blinded or panicked, the Shermans could maneuver for a flank or rear shot, or just hammer away with solid shot until they broke something. It's essentially improvised chemical warfare. Breathing that stuff isn't just a distraction. It's highly painful and life threatening. The crews would bail because their lungs were on fire.
|
|