WW2 Desert Tank Tactics? I Wouldn't Want to be Rommel

[OB Kenobi]

What's the best way of keeping your tanks from getting slaughtered out in the open desert when they are attacking an entrenched position?

I'm interested in how it was done in WW2 Africa, back when we didn't have today's technological capabilities which have pretty much turned tank warfare into missile/bomb vs. tank warfare. Was the use of smoke standard procedure during every attack? What about when smoke and artillery support wasn't available and the only choice was an improvised head-on assault?

Do you rush in at full speed hoping to break past the anti-tank defences? Or use your tanks more methodically and hope to wear the defenders down? What formations and tactics should be used?

Or is the answer there's no way and you just have to deal with the losses?

[hist2004]

What's the best way of keeping your tanks from getting slaughtered out in the open desert when they are attacking an entrenched position?

I'm interested in how it was done in WW2 Africa, back when we didn't have today's technological capabilities which have pretty much turned tank warfare into missile/bomb vs. tank warfare. Was the use of smoke standard procedure during every attack? What about when smoke and artillery support wasn't available and the only choice was an improvised head-on assault?

Do you rush in at full speed hoping to break past the anti-tank defences? Or use your tanks more methodically and hope to wear the defenders down? What formations and tactics should be used?

Or is the answer there's no way and you just have to deal with the losses?

I hope this link answers your question:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...oppe/toppe.asp

Regards,
Hist2004

[Javehn]

Baa... You are jumping way over your head on this one , kid . Tactics is not something you can learn and understand reading internet forum , and sertainly you will not recieve any normal answer .

The warfare of Rommel (the one who fought in desert during WW2 against Montgommery , and the one you are interested) and Guaderian was made out of ideas from a man called Basil Lidle Heart , ironicaly English writter . Sence this kind of warfare going on from big frames up to small ones , this envolses strategy and tactics both .
On tactical level (let's forget the strategic one ) , there are mostly those 3 acts you can perform : Attack , defence , delay and retreat for manouvre purposes , or delay and retreat for time earning purposes . Each one of them is very complex issue , regarding integrity of the units performing the drill or manouvre , the way reserves will be thrown to battle (another complex issue) , the support each unit will recieve in every drill , and possible dinamic support to shape the enemy forces , and relieve them from manouvre abillity .

Ok - in short , this list goes on and on . One of the things different in the desert is , that the next saying takes new meaning : You fight the terrain , not the enemy . The lack of natural battle positions , controlling territories , problematic terrain for vehicles makes very good tactical exerisize . One nead to recongise good points of consealed travelling like Vadies , desert ridges and so on , on which you can also establish battle positions . When during the manouvre the lack of protective terrain for manouvre is clear , one should and would use dinamic support of artyllery and plaines (where another important issue comes to order , the radio connection , C2 and C3) . From the other hand , the lack of protective terrain don't restrict the manouvre , and one of the things desert warfare is characterised is giant flankings - you got the space for manouvre . Also other way to avoid cassualties during the assault is fire consentration plus mobility . It requieres mobile units drive fast and meanwhile land consentrated fire punches on enemy position , while there is a passibility for static forces on battle position who will support with more effective fire the advancing unit .

Well , anyway . Go to west point , and study 4 years . And next time don't ask those questions on internet forum (and on militaryphotos , not less ) .

[Kitsune]

@Javehn:

The name is Basil Liddell Hart. And while he is one of the bigshot theorists of a kind of warfare you could term "Blitzkrieg", he wasn't the only one.(Actually there are some differences in what the Germans did compared to his ideas...but his importance is beyond doubt).

But I agree with you in so far as tactics is something that cannot be learned by memorizing some rules. That may be a start however. Who knows...Kenobi may be a master tactician without knowing it. To start ones way on military-photos may be kind of a modest beginning...but all things start out small.




PS: It is Bernhard's family name is "Montgomery", written with two m's, not with three...

Ok, enough nit-picking for one day.





I'll be back...*perfect Schwarzenegger-imitation*

[OB Kenobi]

I hope this link answers your question:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...oppe/toppe.asp

Regards,
Hist2004

I skimmed through it, it wasn't quite what I was looking for, it was more oriented toward desert operations in general, not tank tactics specifically.

Specific battle details would be more helpful. If you don't know of any good sources for this info off-hand I'll look around for myself. It's just something I was wondering about.

[OB Kenobi]

Baa... You are jumping way over your head on this one , kid . Tactics is not something you can learn and understand reading internet forum , and sertainly you will not recieve any normal answer .

Come on, I wasn't asking for a home study master's degree course in military history, and I am aware of at least basic tactical and strategic concepts. And no, I am not trying to join the military, this is for game design if you really must know why. I am not interested in the history in this particular case, I am interested in the tactics used.

On tactical level (let's forget the strategic one ) , there are mostly those 3 acts you can perform : Attack , defence , delay and retreat for manouvre purposes , or delay and retreat for time earning purposes . Each one of them is very complex issue , regarding integrity of the units performing the drill or manouvre , the way reserves will be thrown to battle (another complex issue) , the support each unit will recieve in every drill , and possible dinamic support to shape the enemy forces , and relieve them from manouvre abillity .

Yes, I know all that. But I was asking about how when the attack is under way would the tanks maneauver. I will summarize the situation for you:

You have a reasonable tank force, some infantry tagging along, and reinforcements that will arrive later. Total you outnumber the enemy AT guns approximately 10:1. The enemy isn't holding any particularly vital territory, they're just remnants trying to delay you, but they're well dug in and have the approach you're going to use well sighted (registered?) and set up in a typical AT gun ambush. Time is running out and you have no choice but to begin your attack with what you have, no artillery support available, you have been ordered to do it regardless of casualties.

You have the option to shoot it out with the enemy emplacements (37mm, 75mm AT guns, and two 88mm AA guns on a second hill on the right flank) from a distance (you have British 40mm guns on your tanks, let's say Crusaders and a couple of Matilda support tanks, and a couple of upgraded Crusaders with 57mm guns) from a nearby ridge where the enemy's 75 and 88m guns will have a major advantage while the reinforcements arrive, or you can charge immediately with your main force and not wait for reinforcements, or you can wait for reinforcements and then charge together, or you can try a slow, methodical approach, or any combination of these.

There is nowhere to hide, if you're going to approach the enemy emplacements, you are going to be completely out in the open and they have overwatch on you. They are deployed in depth so that even when you reach the edges of the hills, some of the guns will still have you in LOS. Basically, it's a no win situation, but you've got no choice.

So what would be the best way to commit suicide in this case?

Would you try to take out the 88s first, would you attack at full speed or a leapfrog movement, maybe with some tanks left on the ridge to provide a bit of cover fire, etc., etc, etc.

Finally, when you did attack, what formations would you keep the tanks in? How would they move towards the hills, the shortest possible route, or zig-zag patterns, etc.

I have to warn you that I tried this scenario out multiple ways and got massacred using every approach I have thought of. Historically (I can't remember the battle name at this point), the British did manage to take the hills, even though they suffered heavy losses. The most I got was up on the hills, until my force was so shot up I didn't have enough tanks to hold the territory.

From the other hand , the lack of protective terrain don't restrict the manouvre , and one of the things desert warfare is characterised is giant flankings - you got the space for manouvre . Also other way to avoid cassualties during the assault is fire consentration plus mobility . It requieres mobile units drive fast and meanwhile land consentrated fire punches on enemy position , while there is a passibility for static forces on battle position who will support with more effective fire the advancing unit .

Now THAT is what I was asking about. What formations are used to concentrate fire when you're out in the open approaching the enemy (tanks vs. entrenched AT guns)... and at what speeds?

Well , anyway . Go to west point , and study 4 years . And next time don't ask those questions on internet forum (and on militaryphotos , not less ) .

Only four years? That's not enough.

Yeah, you're right about militaryphotos, dunno what I was thinking!

[OB Kenobi]

Kenobi may be a master tactician without knowing it.

I am *almost* a master, the concept of advancing without cover is one thing I haven't concentrated on yet. Certainly I have some theories from the start, but I wanted to get a historical perspective and compare.

Anyway, obsolete now really, since this kind of combat has been rendered useless by modern technology. You can have your tanks, give me some planes and ATGMs.

[GrimReaper]

Baa... You are jumping way over your head on this one , kid . Tactics is not something you can learn and understand reading internet forum , and sertainly you will not recieve any normal answer .

Come on, I wasn't asking for a home study master's degree course in military history, and I am aware of at least basic tactical and strategic concepts. And no, I am not trying to join the military, this is for game design if you really must know why. I am not interested in the history in this particular case, I am interested in the tactics used.

On tactical level (let's forget the strategic one ) , there are mostly those 3 acts you can perform : Attack , defence , delay and retreat for manouvre purposes , or delay and retreat for time earning purposes . Each one of them is very complex issue , regarding integrity of the units performing the drill or manouvre , the way reserves will be thrown to battle (another complex issue) , the support each unit will recieve in every drill , and possible dinamic support to shape the enemy forces , and relieve them from manouvre abillity .

Yes, I know all that. But I was asking about how when the attack is under way would the tanks maneauver. I will summarize the situation for you:

You have a reasonable tank force, some infantry tagging along, and reinforcements that will arrive later. Total you outnumber the enemy AT guns approximately 10:1. The enemy isn't holding any particularly vital territory, they're just remnants trying to delay you, but they're well dug in and have the approach you're going to use well sighted (registered?) and set up in a typical AT gun ambush. Time is running out and you have no choice but to begin your attack with what you have, no artillery support available, you have been ordered to do it regardless of casualties.

You have the option to shoot it out with the enemy emplacements (37mm, 75mm AT guns, and two 88mm AA guns on a second hill on the right flank) from a distance (you have British 40mm guns on your tanks, let's say Crusaders and a couple of Matilda support tanks, and a couple of upgraded Crusaders with 57mm guns) from a nearby ridge where the enemy's 75 and 88m guns will have a major advantage while the reinforcements arrive, or you can charge immediately with your main force and not wait for reinforcements, or you can wait for reinforcements and then charge together, or you can try a slow, methodical approach, or any combination of these.

There is nowhere to hide, if you're going to approach the enemy emplacements, you are going to be completely out in the open and they have overwatch on you. They are deployed in depth so that even when you reach the edges of the hills, some of the guns will still have you in LOS. Basically, it's a no win situation, but you've got no choice.

So what would be the best way to commit suicide in this case?

Would you try to take out the 88s first, would you attack at full speed or a leapfrog movement, maybe with some tanks left on the ridge to provide a bit of cover fire, etc., etc, etc.

Finally, when you did attack, what formations would you keep the tanks in? How would they move towards the hills, the shortest possible route, or zig-zag patterns, etc.

I have to warn you that I tried this scenario out multiple ways and got massacred using every approach I have thought of. Historically (I can't remember the battle name at this point), the British did manage to take the hills, even though they suffered heavy losses. The most I got was up on the hills, until my force was so shot up I didn't have enough tanks to hold the territory.

From the other hand , the lack of protective terrain don't restrict the manouvre , and one of the things desert warfare is characterised is giant flankings - you got the space for manouvre . Also other way to avoid cassualties during the assault is fire consentration plus mobility . It requieres mobile units drive fast and meanwhile land consentrated fire punches on enemy position , while there is a passibility for static forces on battle position who will support with more effective fire the advancing unit .

Now THAT is what I was asking about. What formations are used to concentrate fire when you're out in the open approaching the enemy (tanks vs. entrenched AT guns)... and at what speeds?

Well , anyway . Go to west point , and study 4 years . And next time don't ask those questions on internet forum (and on militaryphotos , not less ) .

Only four years? That's not enough.

Yeah, you're right about militaryphotos, dunno what I was thinking!

I'm intrested at what game are you playing? something like combat mission? steel panthers? Anyway even if you have 10:1 to one odds,an attack like this shouldn't be even tried without using artillery to supress the AT guns or smoke to obscure line of sight and do a massive fontal assault.
If no artillery then use a ****ged attack using two or three thrusts from different enough directions so to spread the defending fire and make it less efficent.While lack of artillery may be logical, it's not logical you won't have either CS tanks or infanry/SP mortars Use any smoke shells avaiable on your CS tanks and mortars. Lastly tanks need infantry, especially in assaults, use infantry to try and close in and lay suppresing fire on the guns though that means they should be under 1 kilometer from them, so you need to advance well before your tanks become targets for the AT guns.
I'm really intrested and what engine are you using? sound lack CM afrika corps.

[Javehn]

What do you think ? No , I don't have any PC games at my house , and with all do respect , and there is a lot of it for you , i think that about this subject I know more then you .
Didn't I wrote what you are talking about between my lines ?

שמע , יש לי המון כבוד בשבילך , אבל בתור אחד שהיה שריונר כמו שאתה יודע , ועוד טקטיקה זה אחד תחומי התעניינות שלי , חשבתי שתתן לי יותר קרדיט . למרות שאני כן אוהב לכתוב קצת שטויות , אני לא כותב בולשיט .

This subject is very complexand no one can write about it 10 lines or more , so if you gonna judge me on what I have not written Yes , offcorse the smoke should be deployed to make the manouvre or deployement or retreat , but did you wrote during the assault as well ? Because that would be very big mistake - enemy can't see you , but you can't see enemy as well . Even more , the enemy can recognise the main effort behind the smoke screen by using recon screen , can concentrate it's reserves to correct point , can fire blindly , can perform manouvre behind smoke screen . You are the one who has to know the exact location of red positions .

זה בגלל שכתבתי דברים רעים על הרומנים ?

[GrimReaper]

What do you think ? No , I don't have any PC games at my house , and with all do respect , and there is a lot of it for you , i think that about this subject I know more then you .
Didn't I wrote what you are talking about between my lines ?

שמע , יש לי המון כבוד בשבילך , אבל בתור אחד שהיה שריונר כמו שאתה יודע , ועוד טקטיקה זה אחד תחומי התעניינות שלי , חשבתי שתתן לי יותר קרדיט . למרות שאני כן אוהב לכתוב קצת שטויות , אני לא כותב בולשיט .

This subject is very complexand no one can write about it 10 lines or more , so if you gonna judge me on what I have not written Yes , offcorse the smoke should be deployed to make the manouvre or deployement or retreat , but did you wrote during the assault as well ? Because that would be very big mistake - enemy can't see you , but you can't see enemy as well . Even more , the enemy can recognise the main effort behind the smoke screen by using recon screen , can concentrate it's reserves to correct point , can fire blindly , can perform manouvre behind smoke screen . You are the one who has to know the exact location of red positions .

זה בגלל שכתבתי דברים רעים על הרומנים ?

Hello!! reply was to OB not you javhen, he's the one who mentioned wargames.
You use smoke to cover the distance needed to travel because the enemy guns he mentioned outshoot your own weapons by a large margine. When your enemy consisit only of one strongpoint and your are largly outgunned you want to be hidden until you are close enough to do damage.Anyway my reccomendation was only for his scenarion, that is against a fixed enemy position, with no manouvering forces.
A
אני לא נעלב בקלות מהערות על רומנים , אבל זה לא היה מכוון לך ,הוא הזכיר את הנושא עקב שאלה ספציפית שהייתה לו על משחק. ומבלי להכנס יותר מידי, גם אם אני מבלבל את המוח על טקטיקה במשחק, עדיין הייתי בכמה תרג"דים ותרח"טים כולל השתתפות הכתיבת פקמ"צים, חוץ לימודי תו"ל בהכשרה.

[Javehn]

**** !!!
Pardon

הרכב שלי עושה בעיות ואני קצת עצבני בגלל זה

[hist2004]

I hope this link answers your question:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...oppe/toppe.asp

Regards,
Hist2004

I skimmed through it, it wasn't quite what I was looking for, it was more oriented toward desert operations in general, not tank tactics specifically.

Specific battle details would be more helpful. If you don't know of any good sources for this info off-hand I'll look around for myself. It's just something I was wondering about.

I hope this is a little closer to what your looking for:

http://www.pattonhq.com/textfiles/desert.html

Regards,
Hist2004

[OldRecon]

Baa... You are jumping way over your head on this one , kid . Tactics is not something you can learn and understand reading internet forum , and sertainly you will not recieve any normal answer .

Come on, I wasn't asking for a home study master's degree course in military history, and I am aware of at least basic tactical and strategic concepts. And no, I am not trying to join the military, this is for game design if you really must know why. I am not interested in the history in this particular case, I am interested in the tactics used.

On tactical level (let's forget the strategic one ) , there are mostly those 3 acts you can perform : Attack , defence , delay and retreat for manouvre purposes , or delay and retreat for time earning purposes . Each one of them is very complex issue , regarding integrity of the units performing the drill or manouvre , the way reserves will be thrown to battle (another complex issue) , the support each unit will recieve in every drill , and possible dinamic support to shape the enemy forces , and relieve them from manouvre abillity .

Yes, I know all that. But I was asking about how when the attack is under way would the tanks maneauver. I will summarize the situation for you:

You have a reasonable tank force, some infantry tagging along, and reinforcements that will arrive later. Total you outnumber the enemy AT guns approximately 10:1. The enemy isn't holding any particularly vital territory, they're just remnants trying to delay you, but they're well dug in and have the approach you're going to use well sighted (registered?) and set up in a typical AT gun ambush. Time is running out and you have no choice but to begin your attack with what you have, no artillery support available, you have been ordered to do it regardless of casualties.

You have the option to shoot it out with the enemy emplacements (37mm, 75mm AT guns, and two 88mm AA guns on a second hill on the right flank) from a distance (you have British 40mm guns on your tanks, let's say Crusaders and a couple of Matilda support tanks, and a couple of upgraded Crusaders with 57mm guns) from a nearby ridge where the enemy's 75 and 88m guns will have a major advantage while the reinforcements arrive, or you can charge immediately with your main force and not wait for reinforcements, or you can wait for reinforcements and then charge together, or you can try a slow, methodical approach, or any combination of these.

There is nowhere to hide, if you're going to approach the enemy emplacements, you are going to be completely out in the open and they have overwatch on you. They are deployed in depth so that even when you reach the edges of the hills, some of the guns will still have you in LOS. Basically, it's a no win situation, but you've got no choice.

So what would be the best way to commit suicide in this case?

Would you try to take out the 88s first, would you attack at full speed or a leapfrog movement, maybe with some tanks left on the ridge to provide a bit of cover fire, etc., etc, etc.

Finally, when you did attack, what formations would you keep the tanks in? How would they move towards the hills, the shortest possible route, or zig-zag patterns, etc.

I have to warn you that I tried this scenario out multiple ways and got massacred using every approach I have thought of. Historically (I can't remember the battle name at this point), the British did manage to take the hills, even though they suffered heavy losses. The most I got was up on the hills, until my force was so shot up I didn't have enough tanks to hold the territory.

From the other hand , the lack of protective terrain don't restrict the manouvre , and one of the things desert warfare is characterised is giant flankings - you got the space for manouvre . Also other way to avoid cassualties during the assault is fire consentration plus mobility . It requieres mobile units drive fast and meanwhile land consentrated fire punches on enemy position , while there is a passibility for static forces on battle position who will support with more effective fire the advancing unit .

Now THAT is what I was asking about. What formations are used to concentrate fire when you're out in the open approaching the enemy (tanks vs. entrenched AT guns)... and at what speeds?

Well , anyway . Go to west point , and study 4 years . And next time don't ask those questions on internet forum (and on militaryphotos , not less ) .

Only four years? That's not enough.

Yeah, you're right about militaryphotos, dunno what I was thinking!

I think from Alamein on the Brits (and the Americans too) tended to attempt to counter German tanks and anti-tank positions with lavish use of concentrated artillery fire and close air support.
The biggest improvement of the allied forces was in handling of artillery.
At least after the disastrous "battles of the boxes" during the first part of 1942 the artillery organisation of the 8th army was tidied up a great deal.
The action refered to with the British infantry tanks armed with 2 pounders taking a ridge, probably is probably the attack by infantry formations with support from 9th armoured brigade against the Rahman track and Aqqaqir ridge. Approach was made under cover of darkness with artillery support, and before sunrise did great execution to the Axiss forces there. But when the tanks were silouethed against the morning sun as they crested the aqqaqir ridge, they in turn suffered heavily at the hands of german 88, 75 and 50 mm anti-tank fire. Losing 75 of 90 tanks. The Aqqaqir ridge was held however by the remaining british tanks and infantry I think.

[OB Kenobi]

I'm intrested at what game are you playing? something like combat mission? steel panthers?

Yes, it's Combat Mission: Afrika Korps. I've played Steel Panthers for years before that, and a bunch of others. I have no problem in the CMAK Italian and French missions; using cover and combined arms is usually self-explanatory, fighting with just tanks, no artillery and no cover, that takes some expertise.

Anyway even if you have 10:1 to one odds,an attack like this shouldn't be even tried without using artillery to supress the AT guns or smoke to obscure line of sight and do a massive fontal assault.

I don't remember which scenario it was anymore, but it came with CMAK, and it says it's based on a historical battle. It was a bunch of Crusader tanks in two groups, and some CS tanks with smoke rounds vs. 37mm, 75mm, and two 88mm AT guns.

There's a similar one with Germans attacking called "A Series of Misfortunes" which comes with the CM:AK companion book, but it's a bit easier because you can see the AT gun emplacements before they "know" you're there and suppress them before they have a chance to do much damage. In the one I'm talking about you don't see them until they already have started shooting at you, and even worse you have those underpowered 40mm guns against much more powerful AT guns.

If no artillery then use a ****ged attack using two or three thrusts from different enough directions so to spread the defending fire and make it less efficent.While lack of artillery may be logical, it's not logical you won't have either CS tanks or infanry/SP mortars Use any smoke shells avaiable on your CS tanks and mortars.

Yep, I did that. I concentrated most of the smoke on the 88s, did a two ****g attack, but still lost most of my tanks.

What formations would you use? Spread out wide, or in tight groups? I tried to spread my tanks out so that the AT guns would have to keep traversing to aim at each one. I figured if they were in tight formation they would be easier to hit? But then I couldn't concentrate fire that much.

Lastly tanks need infantry, especially in assaults, use infantry to try and close in and lay suppresing fire on the guns though that means they should be under 1 kilometer from them, so you need to advance well before your tanks become targets for the AT guns.

Didn't have a significant amount of infantry in this scenario.

I'm really intrested and what engine are you using? sound lack CM afrika corps.

This is just for future reference. I'm not ready to start developing anything right now. I'm still trying to decide what engine to work with and whether to do something on my own or work on a mod. I was going to do something for Operation Flashpoint, but hardly anyone's playing that anymore and the sequel has been pushed back two years.

[OB Kenobi]

This subject is very complexand no one can write about it 10 lines or more , so if you gonna judge me on what I have not written Yes , offcorse the smoke should be deployed to make the manouvre or deployement or retreat , but did you wrote during the assault as well ? Because that would be very big mistake - enemy can't see you , but you can't see enemy as well . Even more , the enemy can recognise the main effort behind the smoke screen by using recon screen , can concentrate it's reserves to correct point , can fire blindly , can perform manouvre behind smoke screen . You are the one who has to know the exact location of red positions .

What "recon screen"? Did you read what I wrote the situation was? It's tanks vs. AT guns. It was the remnants of a German force entrenched on some hills trying to delay the British. If you have NO CHOICE but to attack at that moment as the British, how would you use your tanks? Have them all charge at top speed and hope for the best? Split them up into groups (some providing cover fire off a nearby ridge, and yes, a few CS tanks with smoke to possibly blind a few of the guns at best), in wide formation or narrow, fast speed, or leapfrogging, etc, etc.??

Historically, the British attacked somehow and managed to break through, even though it seems like a death trap.