CMBB v CMAK

[Mad Russian]

I'm afraid it is not exactly the right message board to discuss history, but:

Per p. 3: I think you did not understand my point correctly: Russian pre-war methodology of employment of tanks, both in offensive and defensive engagements was limited to tactical attacks, not fire from ambushes, etc. In addition, their tanks poorly echeloned tanks in attack formation and did not care much of fire support from rear echelon during the attack.

p.4 Do not mix the early war (1939-1940) OOB of panzer division and OOB of divisions, that invaded Russia: there was a reform with significantly lowering the amount of tanks per division. Russian OOB was more similar to early war panzer division OOB with all faults and drawbacks, which Germans had already refused and eliminated by June 1941.

As for Raseiniai, we could speak about it in different message board, but I am afraid your vision of the situation is not correct. Russians did not overcome position of divisional arty there (at least that is what I remember), since they attacked without proper fire support and had no arty FO in their tanks.

As for tank battles and German tank losses: majority of tank losses usually are attributed to Russian AT and divisional guns of infantry and poor repairs after unprecedentally lengthy marches.

And, finally, about radios: German tanks, captured at Kursk in 1943, were not 100% equipped with radios. I do not know the real situation in 1941.

This message board should do fine for a history discussion.

p3. Again, it doesn't make any difference what their methodology was. If the end result was a T-34 or KV-1 actually engaging a German tank in the early months of the war, which happened very frequently, the results would have been dramatically different if the Soviet tanks had been carrying AP rounds instead of most HE rounds.

p4. The Germans didn't learn anything in 1939-1940 except that they wanted twice as many Panzer Divisions so they split the Panzer Regiments in half to achieve that. There were plenty of German Generals that opposed this move. It was a call that Hitler enforced.

Russian OOB was still early war because they still had the tanks to make that OOB work. Only tank losses forced the Russians to change their minds about the numbers of tanks in a formation. Once they had been reduced by losses they found the smaller formations easier to use. As did the Germans for EXACTLY the same reasons.

As for Raseiniai we could speak about it here too. My opinion is not the only one that believes it was a close run thing. The Soviets fought with German armor for three days here. The 6th Panzer Division was in such trouble that the 1st Panzer had to come to their rescue. You talk about the German artillery stopping the attack. That doesn't sound to me like the German armor was doing a stellar job now does it? There were in fact times when the German armor retreated alongside the Russian armor as it advanced because there was nothing they could do to stop the T-34's and KV's. It was in fact the artillery in many places that stopped it and the 1st Panzer Division fighting through it's own battles and coming to the rescue of 6th Panzer Division. What a great tactical advantage the Germans brought to this battle. Pz35(t)'s!! Tiny tanks with 37mm guns. Barely fit to fight French tanks let alone real Russian ones.

Why do you suppose that the majority of German tank losses were attributed to Soviet AT guns if their main tank force didn't have AP rounds????????????????????????? Don't you think that there might have been more tank to tank losses if the T-34's and KV-1's had been equipped with AP rounds? Might that not have made a very big difference in the outcome of the 1941 tank battles?

Most German tanks in the war were equipped with radios. In 1941 almost no Soviet ones were.

Good Hunting.

MR