Дата: 29.01.2015 01:00:36
blackfalconjc, on Jan 28 2015 - 22:47, said: And I agree with all that!

US tanks did/were used to destroy enemy tanks,
but I fear it's a bit of a misnomer to say their primary role was
to seek and engage enemy armor. US TD forces were a bit of an odd
duck to say the least. Most accounts I've seen suggest that US
military leadership was obsessed with finding a counter to German
Blitzkrieg tactics and studied the battles in '41 France and
'43 Africa to help inform the best response to this threat...
As such, US TD forces were designed to be held at the
battalion or division level as support (to be committed
to the fight as need arose) while yet being fast and
mobile to support the doctrine of "defense in depth" with this was
supposed to counter Blitzkrieg if it ever was used
against US forces. This doctrine blanketed US forces equipment in
many ways, Bazooka's providing basic anti-armor support at a squad
level, battalions being assigned AT guns and/or TD forces, fighter
bomber wings running anti-armor patrols. The best example I can
find of this would be what occurred during the Battle of the Bulge.
When the initial wave of German assaults hit the line, the US
practice of defense was tested. They used their superior mobility
to reposition forces and draw up reserves for defense of key
locations, defenders were expected to hold as long as they could
against the attack, and available TD units were used to "nip" along
the flanks of the assault until it quite literally stalled out
because of stiffening US defense and lack of fuel. To your point,
Patton's 3rd army (and heavy armor) was then used to force the
salient back and eventually press the attack forward to Germany,
but the TD forces went with them to help engage and destroy tanks
as they they popped up on the battlefield. Heck, I seen this
used in game. A turtle strategy almost always fails because you
surrender 3/4 of the map and most of the maneuvering to the enemy.
If you want to play defense, then great, post out 1/3 of the way in
a fairly defensible position with good cover and visibility, see
where the push is developing and then use local numerical
superiority to quickly destroy/blunt the main assault. Don't
overextend or they might draw you back into a trap...
The_Chieftain: OK, we are on points in agreement. The problem is that in
general discussion there is a focus on the use of assets on a type
basis. "Tanks fight infantry, tanks fight tanks, TDs fight tanks,
TDs act as artillery", when, as we all know on the battlefield,
such a nice division of combat does not exist. Tanks were to be
primarily used offensively, to break through enemy lines consisting
of whatever defensive forces were present, be they tank, armor, AT
guns, infantry, in conjunction with other friendly forces such as
infantry, air, artillery. Nothing in the Armored Force manual talks
about engagement exclusivity, but does mention target priority.
(Priority #1: Tanks). The reality is that tanks were
supposed to be able to engage and defeat other tanks that they met,
as evidenced both by doctrine, and by the equipment that they
tried to give the tanks. (i.e.. High velocity cannon, before there
was any evidence that the 75mm was insufficient)