jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,294
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Main Battle Tanks, everybody love tanks, it is the empowerment of any Army, people look at tanks and they see armour and firepower. People are fascinated by the design, the technology and the weapon system.
This article, I will try to cover the doctrine, tactic and the history of Armour Warfare and how it advance against time.
Definition of Armour Warfare?
Armoured Warfare is a war conduct by Armoured vehicle, the board definition is not just limited to Tanks, but also APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier), IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) and CFV (Cavalry Fighting Vehicle)
The traditional role of this is that, the use of any of those vehicle or a mixture of all those in a combat operation, the use of Speed, Firepower and Mobility. It should also be noted that Armoured Warfare are almost all Combine Arms warfare. That mean it would be used with other element of the armed force too.
The corner stone of Armoured Warfare is a triangle between Infantry, Artillery and Air Power, all those 3 things started and compensate each other.
How Armoured Warfare Works?
The core design for Armoured warfare is to exploit gap, which is a thing that have been done a long time before the coming of the tanks. The uses of horse cavalry to charge an enemy line, to break up the formation and swing around attack the formation from behind. While the infantry, in this case, have to be close enough to exploit the gap and envelope the enemy formation.
It is the same principle for Modern Armoured Warfare, you concentrate your armoured vehicle to punch though the enemy line, then uses the mechanized infantry to closely follow the Armoured and exploit the gap get thru the gap.
By using superior firepower and mobility, tank could essentially said to be the work horse of the Army.
History of Modern Armoured Warfare
WW1 Era (1916-1918): Era of Tanks
The very first tank was designed by the British Army, from the need to escort the infantry across the Trenches thru the no man's land. The Tank was slow, so that they can be followed and accompanied by the Infantry, they are poorly armoured, even a direct hit from an light artillery can take out a tank and also, they somehow lack firepower. Tank back then was not the same as tanks now.
That's basically because the British did not properly develop a doctrine to goes with the tank, and they only see tanks as a supporting platform to support the infantry advance, that means the tanks was created out of necessity, and nobody even know about the true quality yet.
Hence during WW1, tank performance is dismal, mostly because those country who have them don't know what they should do with them, and push them together with the infantry, basically to safely transport the infantry from A to B. The real development of tank doctrine started in the interwar period.
Inter War period (1918 - 1930) Era of Doctrine
School was out during WW1. Now different country have a different approach to salvage what they know and where they should go with their tank development.
British Thought - British follow their original planning for Infantry Support tank, and also creating a light tank that designed for scouting. Where the infantry tank focus on firepower and protection, where they maintain pace with infantry, cavalry tank focus on speed, with little firepower and little armoured.
This thought reflect that the general direction for war have not change with the British, they foresee the future battlefield still with infantry fighting trench in a large formation. Hence the need to keep both tank in their service.
American Thought - While the late comer for WW1, tank was not much used with US campaign during WW1. US does not have their own design in WW1, tanks used by United States Armed Force were purchase straight from the French, and just too little and too late in the game.
American approach is that Artillery, not tank, would be the weapon of choice against Armoured and tank was only used in the capacity for infantry support.
German Thought - The German Approach, however, started out the same line of throughs with the Britain, but German would probably the only country in the world during the interwar period to continue update their Armoured Fighting Doctrine and is probably the only one to try to spice thing up.
What it does was, Germany, have only a limited resource after losing WW1 along with a great deal of their land, they cannot afford to return to the "grand fight" style battle that they have been doing in WW1, instead they need edge, to overcome the number of the other country. Hence the first MBT is born.
What the German did was really simple, they simply combining the Infantry Tank concept and Cavalry Tank concept together, by doing so, they are effectively combining the two equipment into one and dual use it, but by luck, the way they combine the tanks, they actually build the whole system around the tank.
WW2 : (1938-1945) Era of Light, Medium and Heavy Tank
So, world war, round 2, now, the school is in when the world first face Blitzkrieg form the German Army. While the world have no answer of the German Blitzkrieg. But the Blitzkrieg does not start until at least French campaign (Depend on how you see the operation).
Prior to 1940, Germany have not enough Armoured to launch any kind of armoured thrust, thus the first 2 years of the operation, Germany make do with infantry assault while using the Tank as a support weapon..
British Approach - The British maintain their Infantry Support Doctrine at the on set of the war, even after Nazi demonstrate ability to cut thru the infantry formation with tank support with ease with their panzer III. In 1940, when they were dealing with the aftermath of the French Campaign. They started to realise, they were wrong about the Armoured Doctrine.
The call for a medium tank to counter German's own medium tank was urgently needed, in come the M3 Grant and M3 Lee.
The M3, from the On set, is the American answer to the need of Medium Tank, no where it would become the solution to the German Panzer, but since thee actual answer, the M4 Sherman, was put into design, something need to be done to fill as a Stop Gap, in come M3.
M3 is a tank that easy to design, and easy to make too. Not a too shabby as a tank as they pack 2 main armament, a 75 mm low velocity gun for Anti-Tank purpose, and a 37 mm gun for infantry loaded with HE round.
However, performance is not good, they are slow, tall and crumble when you drive. A direct hit from even a small Cal anti-tank gun would spill out the rivet from the inside of the tank and killing their crew like a giant shot gun. That's even when the armour bounce off the round. But nonetheless, something better than nothing.
At this point, it was critical for British to come up with something to answer the German Offensive in North Africa, and the M3 was rush into action. While still retain matildas as an infantry fighting tank. Until the M4 fall into full production somewhere in 1944.
American Approach - American approach is a bit different than the Brits, yet some how similar to them, while they still see tank's function is not knocking out other tanks, but rather a support between infantry and their objective. But since North Africa, they also abandoned the belief that Artillery can do the job of anti-Armour.
Mid way thru the war, after North Africa and France, American realise that the current situation is not enough to counter the German Panzer, but instead of integrating the M3 alone into their rank as a direct stop gap, but they also had tried a few other thing, that's Gun carriage, assault gun and tank destroyer.
While they still don't see tank vs. tank happening, or may be rather not want to depend upon it, they also don't want to totally dependence on tube artillery. This unclear of ideology into their doctrine have given rise to an array of armoured scout and gun platform. Which dominate the whole WW2. Simply because they can afford to look elsewhere.
Russia Approach - Russia, in my opinion, is the only country that follow German Panzer Philosophy, which a tank against tank war would be developing, however, there are also one special advantage to look over, that's man power.
So, in a way, Russian Tank approach is a bit similar than German, but they also built with Infantry support in their mind, it should also be noted that Russia is the second country in the top 4 Domain to have field Heavy Tank, but their fielding is not to design for a pure Tank vs. Tank engagement (i.e. the purpose of Tiger) but rather the need to defend and attack better tank that Germany have during infantry operation. So the Russian Approach is, even tho they see the need to counter armoured threat with tank, their uses is still, primary infantry support, which more align to the Allies Doctrine at that time.
German Approach - German have basically write and define their own armoured doctrine before and during the first part of WW2. Seeing how speed and manoeuvre wins a war, however, the need to complete the circle (in armoured doctrine case, the triangle) is still missing, partially because they have been winning all along, and partially because they have invested immensely about that already, and do not want to see them change.
El Alamein was the typical situation of what if things gone wrong. The facts remain, the German should have seen the type of Blitz warfare they conduct is not suitable at a long logistic line (Hence hardest to resupply) and with increase man power as resistance. That would be prone to enemy counter attack and if the armoured thrust has already been made, there are not much German can use to defend the counter blow. Hence losing a strike.
This should serve as a awakening for the German, but one thing led to another, nobody really get too much into the El Alamein situation. And yet, the doctrine remain unchanged. By the time they realise this flaw, it was already in late 1943 in the eastern front, once again a mechanised army have issue refuelling and repairing their tank and without proper air support against an infantry centric defence that require extensive punctuation power.
But then It would be too late.
Case Studies 1 : German Blitzkrieg
The reason behind why Germany can swiftly attack and engage Forces based on the speed of their war machine. Instead of using the Triangle principle, the German opted for an Air/Armoured combined assault.
The problem the Germans facing was, their artillery force was not exist at the beginning of the war. The most famous of German artillery was the 88mm gun, which was designed as a flak gun instead of a traditional artillery. The 88 was a heavy gun, which mean they are slow to move (They were design for static defence) and the towed artillery the German have does not give the edge over the British Gun or Later, the American artillery.
However, in continental Europe, which is closer to Germany, the German can effectively replace the need for artillery to fill it with Air Power, the Ju-88 and Stuka Ju-87 as a high low swept. It can replace the artillery as first, they are closer to Germany, which mean they can cover the support with return sortie, and also, the climate is more comfortable to operate Fighter/Bomber.
However, this ability to fill the gap means the German high Command would overlook the importance of tube and SP artillery, the importance is immense when they up to a point cannot replace tradition artillery support with Dive Bomber support.
That Point is during Russia Eastern Front.Problem with Russia is, they are mighty cold, and they got a lot of man power at their disposal. Which is the two main reason the Blitzkrieg failed to replicate success in Eastern Front.
The first thing being, geographical distance to Germany have increased significantly, as the war does not fought in central Europe anymore, the war now get closer to eastern Europe, the Distance the airpower to cover relatively increase as well. That mean a longer return time, and that mean less sorties.
Then man power the Soviet Russia have could also be translate into a lot of thing. in a more traditional way, while Tank operate alongside infantry, they mutually supported each other, but there would be an upset to the equation if the German Wehrmacht have too deal with excessive man powered defence, that mean the progress of the infantry would be slow down, that also would mean bogging down the Tanks progress as well, being Blitzkrieg, speed is the key of success, if the progress is being bogged down, this jeopardise the whole mission.
Then come the weather. The one reason why battle of the bulge cause havoc to the allies is because of the bad weather prohibit fighter support in the air, the same thing happen during the harsh Russian Winter, when the fighter was grounded due to bad weather, and lacking tube artillery for support, then what else can support the Tank Blitzkrieg?
Only then, the German realise they have made a mistake, and they only begin to focus on towed and SP Artillery production after 1943, which is simply too late, as most of the resource and man power had already been taken away, the German cannot no longer match the Allies combine wartime production, hence losing the war.
This article, I will try to cover the doctrine, tactic and the history of Armour Warfare and how it advance against time.
Definition of Armour Warfare?
Armoured Warfare is a war conduct by Armoured vehicle, the board definition is not just limited to Tanks, but also APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier), IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) and CFV (Cavalry Fighting Vehicle)
The traditional role of this is that, the use of any of those vehicle or a mixture of all those in a combat operation, the use of Speed, Firepower and Mobility. It should also be noted that Armoured Warfare are almost all Combine Arms warfare. That mean it would be used with other element of the armed force too.
The corner stone of Armoured Warfare is a triangle between Infantry, Artillery and Air Power, all those 3 things started and compensate each other.
How Armoured Warfare Works?
The core design for Armoured warfare is to exploit gap, which is a thing that have been done a long time before the coming of the tanks. The uses of horse cavalry to charge an enemy line, to break up the formation and swing around attack the formation from behind. While the infantry, in this case, have to be close enough to exploit the gap and envelope the enemy formation.
It is the same principle for Modern Armoured Warfare, you concentrate your armoured vehicle to punch though the enemy line, then uses the mechanized infantry to closely follow the Armoured and exploit the gap get thru the gap.
By using superior firepower and mobility, tank could essentially said to be the work horse of the Army.
History of Modern Armoured Warfare
WW1 Era (1916-1918): Era of Tanks
The very first tank was designed by the British Army, from the need to escort the infantry across the Trenches thru the no man's land. The Tank was slow, so that they can be followed and accompanied by the Infantry, they are poorly armoured, even a direct hit from an light artillery can take out a tank and also, they somehow lack firepower. Tank back then was not the same as tanks now.
That's basically because the British did not properly develop a doctrine to goes with the tank, and they only see tanks as a supporting platform to support the infantry advance, that means the tanks was created out of necessity, and nobody even know about the true quality yet.
Hence during WW1, tank performance is dismal, mostly because those country who have them don't know what they should do with them, and push them together with the infantry, basically to safely transport the infantry from A to B. The real development of tank doctrine started in the interwar period.
Inter War period (1918 - 1930) Era of Doctrine
School was out during WW1. Now different country have a different approach to salvage what they know and where they should go with their tank development.
British Thought - British follow their original planning for Infantry Support tank, and also creating a light tank that designed for scouting. Where the infantry tank focus on firepower and protection, where they maintain pace with infantry, cavalry tank focus on speed, with little firepower and little armoured.
This thought reflect that the general direction for war have not change with the British, they foresee the future battlefield still with infantry fighting trench in a large formation. Hence the need to keep both tank in their service.
American Thought - While the late comer for WW1, tank was not much used with US campaign during WW1. US does not have their own design in WW1, tanks used by United States Armed Force were purchase straight from the French, and just too little and too late in the game.
American approach is that Artillery, not tank, would be the weapon of choice against Armoured and tank was only used in the capacity for infantry support.
German Thought - The German Approach, however, started out the same line of throughs with the Britain, but German would probably the only country in the world during the interwar period to continue update their Armoured Fighting Doctrine and is probably the only one to try to spice thing up.
What it does was, Germany, have only a limited resource after losing WW1 along with a great deal of their land, they cannot afford to return to the "grand fight" style battle that they have been doing in WW1, instead they need edge, to overcome the number of the other country. Hence the first MBT is born.
What the German did was really simple, they simply combining the Infantry Tank concept and Cavalry Tank concept together, by doing so, they are effectively combining the two equipment into one and dual use it, but by luck, the way they combine the tanks, they actually build the whole system around the tank.
WW2 : (1938-1945) Era of Light, Medium and Heavy Tank
So, world war, round 2, now, the school is in when the world first face Blitzkrieg form the German Army. While the world have no answer of the German Blitzkrieg. But the Blitzkrieg does not start until at least French campaign (Depend on how you see the operation).
Prior to 1940, Germany have not enough Armoured to launch any kind of armoured thrust, thus the first 2 years of the operation, Germany make do with infantry assault while using the Tank as a support weapon..
British Approach - The British maintain their Infantry Support Doctrine at the on set of the war, even after Nazi demonstrate ability to cut thru the infantry formation with tank support with ease with their panzer III. In 1940, when they were dealing with the aftermath of the French Campaign. They started to realise, they were wrong about the Armoured Doctrine.
The call for a medium tank to counter German's own medium tank was urgently needed, in come the M3 Grant and M3 Lee.
The M3, from the On set, is the American answer to the need of Medium Tank, no where it would become the solution to the German Panzer, but since thee actual answer, the M4 Sherman, was put into design, something need to be done to fill as a Stop Gap, in come M3.
M3 is a tank that easy to design, and easy to make too. Not a too shabby as a tank as they pack 2 main armament, a 75 mm low velocity gun for Anti-Tank purpose, and a 37 mm gun for infantry loaded with HE round.
However, performance is not good, they are slow, tall and crumble when you drive. A direct hit from even a small Cal anti-tank gun would spill out the rivet from the inside of the tank and killing their crew like a giant shot gun. That's even when the armour bounce off the round. But nonetheless, something better than nothing.
At this point, it was critical for British to come up with something to answer the German Offensive in North Africa, and the M3 was rush into action. While still retain matildas as an infantry fighting tank. Until the M4 fall into full production somewhere in 1944.
American Approach - American approach is a bit different than the Brits, yet some how similar to them, while they still see tank's function is not knocking out other tanks, but rather a support between infantry and their objective. But since North Africa, they also abandoned the belief that Artillery can do the job of anti-Armour.
Mid way thru the war, after North Africa and France, American realise that the current situation is not enough to counter the German Panzer, but instead of integrating the M3 alone into their rank as a direct stop gap, but they also had tried a few other thing, that's Gun carriage, assault gun and tank destroyer.
While they still don't see tank vs. tank happening, or may be rather not want to depend upon it, they also don't want to totally dependence on tube artillery. This unclear of ideology into their doctrine have given rise to an array of armoured scout and gun platform. Which dominate the whole WW2. Simply because they can afford to look elsewhere.
Russia Approach - Russia, in my opinion, is the only country that follow German Panzer Philosophy, which a tank against tank war would be developing, however, there are also one special advantage to look over, that's man power.
So, in a way, Russian Tank approach is a bit similar than German, but they also built with Infantry support in their mind, it should also be noted that Russia is the second country in the top 4 Domain to have field Heavy Tank, but their fielding is not to design for a pure Tank vs. Tank engagement (i.e. the purpose of Tiger) but rather the need to defend and attack better tank that Germany have during infantry operation. So the Russian Approach is, even tho they see the need to counter armoured threat with tank, their uses is still, primary infantry support, which more align to the Allies Doctrine at that time.
German Approach - German have basically write and define their own armoured doctrine before and during the first part of WW2. Seeing how speed and manoeuvre wins a war, however, the need to complete the circle (in armoured doctrine case, the triangle) is still missing, partially because they have been winning all along, and partially because they have invested immensely about that already, and do not want to see them change.
El Alamein was the typical situation of what if things gone wrong. The facts remain, the German should have seen the type of Blitz warfare they conduct is not suitable at a long logistic line (Hence hardest to resupply) and with increase man power as resistance. That would be prone to enemy counter attack and if the armoured thrust has already been made, there are not much German can use to defend the counter blow. Hence losing a strike.
This should serve as a awakening for the German, but one thing led to another, nobody really get too much into the El Alamein situation. And yet, the doctrine remain unchanged. By the time they realise this flaw, it was already in late 1943 in the eastern front, once again a mechanised army have issue refuelling and repairing their tank and without proper air support against an infantry centric defence that require extensive punctuation power.
But then It would be too late.
Case Studies 1 : German Blitzkrieg
The reason behind why Germany can swiftly attack and engage Forces based on the speed of their war machine. Instead of using the Triangle principle, the German opted for an Air/Armoured combined assault.
The problem the Germans facing was, their artillery force was not exist at the beginning of the war. The most famous of German artillery was the 88mm gun, which was designed as a flak gun instead of a traditional artillery. The 88 was a heavy gun, which mean they are slow to move (They were design for static defence) and the towed artillery the German have does not give the edge over the British Gun or Later, the American artillery.
However, in continental Europe, which is closer to Germany, the German can effectively replace the need for artillery to fill it with Air Power, the Ju-88 and Stuka Ju-87 as a high low swept. It can replace the artillery as first, they are closer to Germany, which mean they can cover the support with return sortie, and also, the climate is more comfortable to operate Fighter/Bomber.
However, this ability to fill the gap means the German high Command would overlook the importance of tube and SP artillery, the importance is immense when they up to a point cannot replace tradition artillery support with Dive Bomber support.
That Point is during Russia Eastern Front.Problem with Russia is, they are mighty cold, and they got a lot of man power at their disposal. Which is the two main reason the Blitzkrieg failed to replicate success in Eastern Front.
The first thing being, geographical distance to Germany have increased significantly, as the war does not fought in central Europe anymore, the war now get closer to eastern Europe, the Distance the airpower to cover relatively increase as well. That mean a longer return time, and that mean less sorties.
Then man power the Soviet Russia have could also be translate into a lot of thing. in a more traditional way, while Tank operate alongside infantry, they mutually supported each other, but there would be an upset to the equation if the German Wehrmacht have too deal with excessive man powered defence, that mean the progress of the infantry would be slow down, that also would mean bogging down the Tanks progress as well, being Blitzkrieg, speed is the key of success, if the progress is being bogged down, this jeopardise the whole mission.
Then come the weather. The one reason why battle of the bulge cause havoc to the allies is because of the bad weather prohibit fighter support in the air, the same thing happen during the harsh Russian Winter, when the fighter was grounded due to bad weather, and lacking tube artillery for support, then what else can support the Tank Blitzkrieg?
Only then, the German realise they have made a mistake, and they only begin to focus on towed and SP Artillery production after 1943, which is simply too late, as most of the resource and man power had already been taken away, the German cannot no longer match the Allies combine wartime production, hence losing the war.
- I did a feature on armored warfare doctrine during 
I read your article before writing mine ^_^
