Infantry antitank capability 1939-1940

[Cubs]

In the end the only really effective anti-tank weapon that appears to have been available, early war, was the simple defensive barrier method of the English Channel.

Well the 2pdr could carve up German armour nicely for the first years of the war and the Matilda (second incarnation) had a field day, being more or less impervious to anything the Germans had ... until Rommel had the bright idea to convert the 88mm into an anti-tank role! But there just weren't enough of them and as already stated, Germany played the all-arms game a lot better. They made sure they had the right match-ups when playing the old 'rock, scissors, paper' game against the bewildered allies and were just too quick to react to the changing circumstances of the battlefield. They had the initiative and kept it until 1941 (at least on the ground, at sea and in the air it was a different matter).

[Tactalvanic]

Well the 2pdr could carve up German armour nicely for the first years of the war and the Matilda (second incarnation) had a field day, being more or less impervious to anything the Germans had ... until Rommel had the bright idea to convert the 88mm into an anti-tank role! But there just weren't enough of them and as already stated, Germany played the all-arms game a lot better. They made sure they had the right match-ups when playing the old 'rock, scissors, paper' game against the bewildered allies and were just too quick to react to the changing circumstances of the battlefield. They had the initiative and kept it until 1941 (at least on the ground, at sea and in the air it was a different matter).

Thats a better answer 

[cuprum]

Supplement - Soviet incendiary bottle, due to chemical additives into the liquid, gave a dense white smoke.

I found some interesting statistics on the use of flamethrowers and incendiary bottles in the Red Army:

According to official data, during the Great Patriotic War, with the help of Molotov cocktails Soviet soldiers destroyed 2429 tanks, self-propelled guns and armored vehicles, 1189 - pillboxes and bunkers, other 2547 fortified constructions, 738 cars and 65 military warehouses.

Enemy losses from fire backpack flamethrowers in the Great Patriotic War were as follows: in manpower - 33 547 people; tanks, self-propelled guns and armored personnel carriers - 120; pillboxes, bunkers and other firing points - 2971; various fortified buildings - 2286; military warehouses - 41; motor vehicles - 145.

And still - in the Soviet Army were used high explosive flamethrowers.
This balloon with 20 liters of incendiary mixture, which is ejected from the balloon simultaneously with the help of undermining a TNT charge. Distance shot more than 100 m. The shot is fired or when in contact with a stretched cord-trap or a signal operator. This flamethrower quite effectively destroy tanks.





In 1942 the Germans copied this flamethrower and used for their needs.

[dadlamassu]

The only nation that had prepared fully for the War That Germany had planned prior to and up to 1939 sadly was Germany.

The Germans were not ready (militarily) for war in 1939.  Hitler's 4-year plan to prepare Germany for war started in 1936.  Only 4% of the defence budget was allocated to AFV purchase and development.  While the Panzer Grenadiers were motorised the infantry were not and relied on trains, boots and horses for mobility.  Fine for a short (victorious) war over short distances.  

The Panzer Regiments invading Poland relied on 973 PzI, 1220 PzII, 177 Czech tanks, 198 PzIVs and about 87 PzIII.  By the Invasion of France there were more German tanks than Czech ones.  However in France a significant number were still the PzI (500) armed with 2 machine guns and  the PzII (1,000) with a 20mm cannon and MGs, Pz38(t) (300).  The PzIII's 3.7cm was inferior to the British 2pdr and the French 47mm.  The PzIVs 7.5cm was roughly equivalent to the Char B1bis 75mm.  

It was not a "bright idea" that the 8.8cm FlaK were used it was an emergency crisis response that happened to work.  The reason they had to be used was that the German weapons were ineffective.

So it was not the effectiveness of the weaponry that gave the Germans victory but their superior training and tactical competence.  Incidentally much of this was due to the restrictions placed on the Germans by Versailles.  The army was small and so the troops in it were rigorously selected and trained and so the quality was high.  

It is not the size of the dog in the fight that counts but the size of the fight in the dog.  

[MartinR]

Anti tank guns were (a few notable exceptions apart) extremely effective indeed in the early war period. Small, mobile, easy to conceal, available in very large numbers for some armies (70 or more guns in a German infantry division), and able to knock out at battle ranges the vast majority of tanks which in 1940 were barely bullet proof.

Pakfronts of whatever nationality were slaughtering tanks well into 1943, it just took the Allies some time to learn how to organise them, and then everyone figured out how to defeat them at roughly the same time.

Cheers
Martin
 

[Etranger]

Well the 2pdr could carve up German armour nicely for the first years of the war and the Matilda (second incarnation) had a field day, being more or less impervious to anything the Germans had ... until Rommel had the bright idea to convert the 88mm into an anti-tank role! ....

Rommel had almost nothing to do with it. The 88mm gun was long intended to be used as a dual purpose weapon. AA sights and ammunition would be pretty useless against ground targets. As far back as the SCW the FlaK 18/36/37 series was used in just such a role. Thomas Jentz, PANZER TRACTS SPECIAL - DREADED THREAT - The 8.8 cm Flak 18 / 36 / 37 in the Anti-Tank Role.
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=14229322479&searchurl=tn%3Ddreaded+threat+the+8+8+cm+flak+18+36+37+in+the+anti+tank+role

And at Arras in 1940, the bulk of the gun line that Rommel used to turn back the British armour was actually the 105mm gun howitzer, rather than the 88.

[Cubs]

Well, what can I say, my understanding is different from my own past reading, but I'm happy to be proved misinformed. It's not like I have an emotional attachment to this opinion. I know it's only Wiki, but here's a wee snippet from the 'Battle of Arras' entry.

The defending forces—elements of SS-Division Totenkopf—were overrun, their standard 37 mm (1.46 in) PaK 36/37 anti-tank guns proving ineffective against the heavily armoured British Matilda tank. The British then encountered Rommel's division. Rommel committed some of his armour to local counterattacks, only to find the guns of the Panzer II and Panzer 38(t) tanks could not penetrate the Matildas' armour. Desperate to prevent a British breakthrough, Rommel ordered the division's 88 mm (3.46 in) FlaK 18 anti-aircraft guns and 105 mm (4.1 in) field guns be formed into a defensive line and fire anti-tank and HE rounds in a last-ditch effort to stop the Matildas. The BEF's advance was halted with heavy losses.

This is from the AchtungPanzer site, under the entry for Rommel.

After inflicting heavy losses among German infantry and anti-tank gun crews, British tanks advanced and were stopped by few 88mm Flak (anti-aircraft) guns deployed in the rear. It was the first time ever, that 88mm Flak guns were used against ground targets and soon became well known and feared "tank killers".

I reckon it's a pretty decent viewpoint given the information, but suffice to say, it would be nice if this small point of interpretation didn't balloon into a thread torpedo ... in true 'internet cliche' fashion.

[MartinR]

As noted above, the AchtungPanzer site is simply wrong.

e.g. Guderians Corps orders (as reproduced in Panzer Leader) for the Meuse crossings, specifically allocated individual 88mm guns - for use against ground targets.

Now, it is of course entirely possible that Rommel claimed he was the first ever person in history to have thought of shooting them at ground targets. He'd have looked a  bit silly if someone hadn't had the foresight to provide them both with sights suitable for engaging ground targets, as well as armour piercing shells

Anyway, as you say, not worth derailing the thread for.

The comments re the US soldier shoving TNT down the gun barrel of an M41 are entirely sensible - how to render your own disabled tank useless seems a more reasonable approach than a suicidal AT tactic!

wrt the general approach to infantry AT close assault, all these methods are theoretically feasible, and some brave individuals actually did them, but they require balls of steel. Which is why you get medals for doing stuff like this. It didn't stop tank crews being terrified of close assault though.

Cheers
Martin
 

[Arlequín]

I have to pitch-in with the mythbusters. The FlaK 36 88mm was designed from the start as a dual-purpose weapon and was provided with a ZF.20 sight for ground targets and the usual 'dial' type ones for anti-aircraft use. Anti-aircraft shells are also time-fused HE, while the weapon was also provided with an AP shell. The gun shield is also an obvious indicator of ground use and was retro-actively fitted to the FlaK 18 too following the Spanish Civil War. A lot of the mythos about Rommel is being re-examined and is being found to be erroneous.

The German Army being small and highly professional needs to be taken with a pinch of salt too. The Nazis reduced the basic training period so as to rotate more men through the forces, giving them a large reserve of partly-trained troops for when the army was mobilised. Their rapid expansion was also at the cost of existing units, which provided the cadre for the new units, thus leaving many understrength. Obviously calling up partly-trained troops is much better than relying totally on raw recruits however. 
 
Apparently Nazi propaganda is still very effective.  

[Cubs]

Thank you gentlemen - a day when you learn nothing new is a day wasted, and you have certainly made sure my day hasn't been wasted! I poked about and found this on the Wiki site for the 88mm.

The German Condor Legion made extensive use of the 8.8 cm Flak 18 in the Spanish Civil War, where its usefulness as an anti-tank weapon and a general artillery piece exceeded its role as an anti-aircraft gun.

There we go, a myth put to bed and me thoroughly chastised. I apologise for my ignorance and thank you for your enlightenment!

[dadlamassu]

Don't worry about it.  There are many myths perpetrated by Generals in their memoirs, propaganda, publicity and historians with a dissertation to write or a book to publish or a point to make.

If you read the war diaries of the British units concerned they mention the frequent attention of Stukas which slowed or prevented the supporting arms from keeping pace with the tanks.  This, they say, was far more significant in calling the counter-attack off than the losses in tanks.

[Arlequín]

There we go, a myth put to bed and me thoroughly chastised. I apologise for my ignorance and thank you for your enlightenment!

We've all been there ourselves and no doubt will go there again many times in the future... and hopefully with as good grace. 

The simple truth is that things were exaggerated on both sides; so you could appear stronger than you were (the notion of the 'tank' and 'bomber' gap), be taken on board to excuse failure ("we couldn't stop them"), to promote a 'personality cult', or to alter a perception (the 'Good German' of the '50s... which had the side effect of promoting Rommel as the exemplar of that).

I went from wondering how the Allies lost in 1940, to how the Germans managed to win.     

[MartinR]

I went from wondering how the Allies lost in 1940, to how the Germans managed to win.     

I think they were a bit surprised themselves!

And that is one of the things I like about WW2, and endlessly rich source of discussion. The role of fear in the effectiveness of weapons systems (88s, Tigers, armoured flamethrowers, KVs, air attack) which may be out of all proportion to their material capability, particularly air attack, is also very interesting but probably a different thread.

Cheers
Martin

[pocoloco]

Which side or who made the claim that Rommel took the credit for 88s in the AT role in the first place? Rommel himself, or the Allies as one of the reasons trying to explain how the AK succeeded to operate so effectively?

[Etranger]

We're getting a bit of topic creep now!

Which side or who made the claim that Rommel took the credit for 88s in the AT role in the first place? Rommel himself, or the Allies as one of the reasons trying to explain how the AK succeeded to operate so effectively?

The British certainly attributed their heavy tank losses in the desert to the '88, although in reality the 50mm PaK 38 and the Russian 76.2 gun were the major ATG that the DAK relied on. http://www.lonesentry.com/tacticalstudy/  I'll try to find a more accurate breakdown of losses.



http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/26/on-allied-tank-casualties-in-the-eto/

And probably all you need to know about British AT doctrine http://nigelef.tripod.com/anti-tank.htm