>Germany showed people how to use tanks in ww2 It's the

You don't know what you're talking about lmao

The Germans also had huge numbers of armored vehicles designed specifically for infantry support. The Stug being the most produced German AFV of the war.

Are you trying to imply that tanks are better used in the infantry support role? Having a armored spearhead of massed tanks proved in the war to be quite useful and really the only way to accomplish large offensive maneuvers (with some degree of speed atleast). The Germans being the first to use tanks in this way.

>>1466722
Have you read Rommel's book "Attention Tanks!'? Deals with this, and minimizes the importance of radios. He did not want to publicize the importance he placed on radios.

File: leketchupman.jpg (17KB, 250x296px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x296px

>>1468231
Achtung Panzer wasn't written by Rommel anon

pic related is the author

>>1468244
Is that Guderian? Am I thinking of 'Panzer Leader'?

>>1468244
>>1468275

Achtung panzer was first written by guderian before the war.

Panzer leader was written by guiderian after the war as his sort of memoirs.

rommel wrote infantry attacks mostly focusing on ww1, and then some of his papers were condensed after he was killed in The Rommel Papers.

The French deployed their armor piecemeal, which was a bad strategy. It was deploying armor to support infantry but rather just allocating a tank per group of men, which in practice just leads to singular tanks being overwhelmed when they encounter significant enemy armor.

The French did also amass armor, and two armored counter attacks attempted to, and failed to, stop the German advance, but ultimately the French armor doctrine was inferior. Still, the thing that most hindered the French was their wealth of 2 or 3 man tanks, while the Germans enjoyed 3-4 man tanks, all of which had radios, and significantly better training.

>>1468345
Yes, people really fail to understand how much more effective the Three man turret was. Even if German tanks were outclassed in terms of armor or armament having a 3man turret and radios made the difference.

File: 1406333883374.jpg (816KB, 1427x1365px) Image search: [Google]

816KB, 1427x1365px

bumping a tank thread because I want to talk about tanks

T-34 > Panzer IV

is there anything more autistic than people who care about tanks?

>>1468345
The French had several armored divisions in 1940.

>>1468816
People who care about people who care about tanks!

>>1468212
>Are you trying to imply that tanks are better used in the infantry support role?
No, I am very clearly stating that tanks should also be used in the infantry support role, as every major country also concluded.

>Having a armored spearhead of massed tanks proved in the war to be quite useful and really the only way to accomplish large offensive maneuvers
Yes, and every major country in 1939 had armored formations that massed tanks.

>The Germans being the first to use tanks in this way.
No, they weren't. Brits had a tank regiment as early as 1917.

File: 630px-Falaise_Pocket_map.svg.png (233KB, 630x944px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 630x944px

>>1468940
The Germans were the first to use large numbers of tanks in deep penetrating attacks aimed at encirclement. This is what gave them the decisive edge in the beginning of the war. The allies later emulated them with encirclement battles of their own. It's not comparable at all to how tanks were used in the great war.

>>1468835
Most of which ended up trapped at Dunkirk.
The remaining armor was mostly unequally distributed, and rarely used to meet German armored advances head on as a massive armored group.

>>1468982
>The Germans were the first to use large numbers of tanks in deep penetrating attacks aimed at encirclement.
The reason Brits and French had formations with hundreds of tanks and truck-mobile infantry was because they wanted units that could perform deep penetrating attacks. How can you not realize this?

>>1468985
>Most of which ended up trapped at Dunkirk.
What is your point, exactly? Because they were defeated, they did not exist?

>meet German armored advances head on as a massive armored group
No one held armored divisions in reserve for the purpose of defending against enemy armored divisions. That's such a retarded strategic idea that it hurts even to think about it.

>>1469003
>No one held armored divisions in reserve for the purpose of defending against enemy armored divisions. That's such a retarded strategic idea that it hurts even to think about it.
>kursk.jpg
>battle of the bulge.png
>fulda gap.exe

Armored spearheads are excellent at countering other armored spearheads. Assuming you have the better spearhead.
The French attempted to fight the Germans pound for pound with their depleted tank forces and failed.

>>1469011
>he thinks allies kept a bunch of armored divisions in case germany attacked with tanks
The armored divisions that fought there had been committed for the purposes of exploitation. You know, the actual purpose of armored divisions.

File: battleofthecrimea.jpg (611KB, 2203x1616px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 2203x1616px

>>1469003
Whether they wanted too or not they apparently were not capable. Where they failed the Germans succeeded so they did school them in how to preform armored warfare. I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make. That tanks are better of used as infantry support? When literally every battle the Germans won in the war they won because of long range tank maneuvers.

>>1469018
Armor was deployed to fight armor.
On a front thousands of miles long you can spread your tanks out equally and have 1 tank per square mile or you can concentrate them.

Everyone figured out concentrating your armor was a good idea, and also that the easiest way to deal with enemy tank concentrations was to meet them with your own tank concentrations, or barring that, to have your tanks go behind their tanks and cut off their supply lines.
Tanks were absolutely held in reserve to deal with enemy tanks. Kursk was the most massive tank battle in the world, because after Operation Citadel failed the Russians commuted tens of thousand of their armored reserves in two separate offensives that ultimately broke the German war machine.
Patton expected the Germans to attack at winter and so he organized his armor prior and launched the largest singular armored counterattack within 24 hours in history by committing his armored reserves to hit the flank of the advancing German armored spearhead.

>>1469021
>Whether they wanted too or not they apparently were not capable. Where they failed the Germans succeeded so they did school them in how to preform armored warfare. I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make. That tanks are better of used as infantry support?
Are you daft? Or just such a wehraboo that you can't see a point even if it's staring at your face?
The point is the French and the Brits also had mobile armored formations that were obviously purposed for fast exploitation. Germans did not invent that obvious concept. They did not show people that tanks should be used in mobile armored formations, as everyone also had tank formations for that exact purpose. The difference is every other country concluded that tanks should be used ALSO in infantry support.

>>1469032
>Armor was deployed to fight armor.
Armor was deployed to fight armor at Bulge because armor happened to be there and there was not enough antitank means. Armored divisions were not committed to an operation for defensive purposes. No one wasted armored divisions by just having them tag along just in case. In every example of "defensive" use of armor you provide, armor was used offensively.

>>1469033
Then that conclusion was obviously wrong. As can be seen by the outcome of the Battle of France.

>>1469043
Who the duck said anything about defensive use of armor.
Meeting armored concentrations with armor concentrations is an aggressive thing.
I mean, they were counterattacks. Attacks. Offensive things in reaction to a hostile offensive. I have never once said tanks were used defensively, I think you're creating arguments in your head and not actually reading what I'm saying.

its about letting armor and its support infantry (transported via trucks or AFVs) to work independantly

it was a new thing to break through in a relatively tight gap then advance deep behind enemy lines, risking encirclement/cut off from supplies

i dont get it what you mean by massing tanks
even the panzerdivisions were based on infantry and they rarely massed more than 2 of these on a single line point of attack

example
one of the oldest panzerdivisions in my next post

>>1468816
People who care about SPGs.

>>1469107
3rd SS-panzerdivision, organisation in 1945 jan. 1.

>stab general
mapping group, guard company, military police platoon
>3rd SS panzer regiment
-3/I. panzer battalion: 1-4 panzer companies with Panthers, trail company
-3/II. SS panzer battalion: 5-7 panzer companies with Pz IV H., 8. company with assault guns
-3/9. SS heavy panzer battalion with Tiger E
-maintance company

>5th SS panzergrenadier regiment
I-III. SS panzergrenadier battalion 1-4, 5-8, 9-12. companies 4th 8th and 12th were heavy weaponry companies, I. pz bat. mechanized II-III. motorized

13. SS self propelled infantry gun company
14. SS self propelled anti aircraft gun company
16. SS pioneer company

>6th SS panzergrenadier regiment
I-III. panzergrenadier battalions 1-4, 5-8, 9-12. companies 4, 8, 12, heavy weaponry companies
13. SS self propelled infantry gun company
14. SS self propelled anti aircraft gun company
16. SS pioneer company

>3rd SS artillery regiment
I-IV. artilery companies 3/I. self propelled SPGs, rest motorized

>3rd SS recon battalion
staff company with armored cars
1. armored car company (halftracks)
2-3. light panzer companies
4. heavy weaponry company
trail company

>3rd SS anti tank battalion
1. company with Jagdpanzer IVs
2-3. company with StuGs Marders and towed anti tank guns

>3rd SS pioneer battalion
1-3. companies 3/1. company mechanized, light bridge column

>3rd SS relay battalion
1. telephone 2. radio company

>3rd SS anti aircraft artillery battalion
1. 3,7cm 2-4. 8,8cm battery

>3rd SS reserves
1-5 training companies
>3rd SS trail companies
>3rd SS maintance battalion
>3rd SS finance battalion
>3rd SS hospital battalion