this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
27 points (100.0% liked)

History

4277 readers
182 users here now

Welcome to History!

This community is dedicated to sharing and discussing fascinating historical facts from all periods and regions.

Rules:

FOLLOW THE CODE OF CONDUCT

NOTE WELL: Personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated. Stick to talking about the historical topic at hand in your comments. Insults and personal attacks will get you an immediate ban for a period of time determined by the moderator who bans you.

  1. Post about history. Ask a question about the past, share a link to an article about something historical, or talk about something related to history that interests you. Please encourage discussion whenever possible.

  2. No memes. No ads. No promos. No spam.

  3. No porn.

  4. We like facts and reliable sources here. Don't spread misinformation or try to change the historical record.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It seems to me that in the interwar period there were a lot of tanks designed with the idea that they would stay with groups of infantry, providing direct fire support while being a lot more durable than a field gun. My understanding is that this was generally abandoned in favour of faster tanks which operated somewhat independently of infantry. But to my very limited knowledge, the infantry tank seems to make sense. What were the theory's disadvantages? (Or is my understanding flawed?)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Death_Equity 27 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Tanks were originally just for busting through lines and then the tankers would dismount and fight.

That tactic was begrudgingly abandoned due to the efforts of the originator of the blitzkrieg, a British tanker named John Frederick Charles "Boney" Fuller. He fought hard to abandon the cavalry esque tank warfare doctrine in favor of tanks pushing with infantry following to secure land in their wake behind other mounted forces. The German Blitz was a direct product of the war theory writings of Fuller that was religiously studied by Heinz Guderian and actually implemented to devastating effect.

Following a tank to protect against an entrenched enemy was slow and left too many troops open to fire from off axis angles of attack. A single machine gun entrenchment, it was effective in preserving forces but, if there were adjacent emplacements, the troops were easy targets. It was better to pound emplacements with artillery and planes, then follow up with tanks, and finally troops to mop up what remained.

Modern doctrine is to bomb, send in armor, then armored vehicles with troops to clear and hold with air support to deal with harder targets. That is variable based on the exact enemy and terrain, but that is the basic formula.

So the tank leading troops was a relic of earlier doctrine and invalidated by advancements in war theory made possible by technological advancements in both aviation and artillery.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Begrudgingly is the word you're looking for :)

[–] Death_Equity 4 points 7 months ago

That's what I get for drunk posting.