US Army Anti-Tank Company - Tactics & Organization - World War 2
This video explores anti-tank tactics of the US Army in the Second World War. Like setting up the correct position for proper firing lines, setting up alternate and secondary positions and many other aspects. Additionally, the organization is also explored.
» HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT MILITARY HISTORY VISUALIZED «
(A) You can support my channel on Patreon: / mhv
(B) You can also buy "Spoils of War" (merchandise) in the online shop: www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
» SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS «
facebook: / milhistoryvisualized
twitter: / milhivisualized
tumblr: / militaryhistoryvisualized
US Army Anti-Tank Company tactics and organization in World War 2. Firing positions, camo, principles, tactics, example positions, mines and organization.
Script & Further Information: militaryhistoryvisualized.com/...
--Sources--
-Books & Articles-
FM 7-35 Antitank Company, Infantry Regiment and Antitank Platoon, Infantry Battalion
www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...
www.niehorster.org/013_usa/44_...
web.archive.org/save/_embed/ht...
--Credits & Special Thanks--
The Counter-Design is heavily inspired by Black ICE Mod for the game Hearts of Iron 3 by Paradox Interactive
forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...
--Song---
Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone (the Irony :D)
Interesting. For those that don't know, the USA infantry divisions had huge numbers of AT guns in their TO&E. Something like 70 guns +/- organic to each division. Even the division maintenance battalion had 2 guns assigned. Sounds great until you understand that until early 1944, they were almost exclusively 37mm guns. In the early stages of the war, the French M1897 75mm gun was employed as an anti-tank gun also, but as far as I can tell, these were only employed in this role from vehicle mounts and only issued to independent tank destroyer battalions. No matter, because it was not an effective weapon. The picture gets a bit brighter because the Army developed the 76mm M5 towed AT gun. Hurray!! Unfortunately, it was only in production for 1 year and 10 months - between December 1942 to September 1944 - with only 2500 being produced. It saw service only in Italy and Northwestern Europe. It was assigned to independent TD battalions. Then, in 1944, the 37mm guns were replaced by the 57mm gun - a direct copy of the British 6-pounder (57mm) gun. So why did the USA have such inadequate AT guns? Why no urgency to replace them? Well, because the US produced staggering numbers of tanks and self-propelled AT guns. In fact, it was almost universal for an infantry division to have a tank battalion and a TD battalion attached to them from their Corps HQ on a near permanent basis. Another reason was the abundance of bazookas. In addition to the bazookas being assigned to infantry units directly, they were also assigned to vehicles. For example every single half-track in the USA had one. Many trucks and jeeps would have an MG mounted and carry a bazooka. So, US infantry ALWAYS had an effective, if short-ranged, defense against German armor. This combination of tanks and tank destroyers available in huge numbers and finding a bazooka every time you opened a can of SPAM meant that replacing these AT guns was low on the list of priorities. Thus, most AT guns in the infantry divisions ended up being used as light infantry support guns. In the Pacific, the 37mm remained in service til the end of the war and was very effective in it's primary role, but that is only because Japanese tanks were made by origami.
The 37mm also had a very effective cannister round.
The first Tiger knocked out by the Western Allies was by a British 6pdr in Tunisia...
Dr. Fresh_2k because the video on the AT company doesn’t include information about a TD company
+Terry Turner Is that the one that got it’s turret jammed by a luckiy shot from a Chuchill?
@@samiamrg7probably
I wish you had added some historic examples of succesful anti-tank defenses and failed ones. When mentioning the American anti-tank company tactics, Bastogne comes to mind. The 57 mm anti-tank guns used by the Americans weren't particularly effective when firing at an enemy heavy tank's frontal armour. Since a sideshot had much more chance of knocking out an enemy heavy tank, a perfect anti-tank set up of guns would use two batteries of 57 mm AT cannon positioned on the left and on the right of the target zone. When an enemy tank appeared in the target zone, either the left or right flank would fire first. The enemy tank commander's natural reaction would be to turn his tank with its frontal armour facing the enemy fire. This gave the other flank an excellent opportunity for a succesful flank shot.
AudieHolland there's also the mobile AT guns but idk if they had any. A Hellcat or Jackson could penetrate the frontal armor I believe.
"Mines are often misunderstood." No, that's mimes. But joke aside good vid.
in German it is better there was an ad about sanitary pads that they were often misunderstood or their history or some stuff... "the history of ... is often misunderstood". And yeah, was thinking about mimes too, when I did that part :D maybe I will make a mines vs. mimes video for the shit & gigles doctrine.
i dont think you get dank mines
I'm in favor of using mimes to clear mines.
I feel there's a Military History Visualized drinking game to be made: "furthermore..." = 1 shot Annotated correction to original video = Chug a beer. Any others?
A subtle joke in the illustrations. (x2 if it's at the expense of another KZheadr). Quotations in angry German. The letter "wee".
I'll have this in mind next time I set up my house defense from tanks
yeah, I found it quite disturbing to none of the regular survival guides out there include any information on anti-tank defenses...
survivalists tend to think 'neighbor' is coming to get my stuff, not organized military with tanks is coming to dig me out and get my stuff...but its a glaring oversight
Bob H maybe im a tank commander while the apocalypse happens, what's gonna stop me then?
the cheapest and easiest way to stop a tank is to toss flaming alcohol/oil into their engines, molotovs; you can go high tech and import missiles or mines but thats awfully conspicuous. other than that, use terrain to make the tanks worthless approaching your little storehouse. but tanks normally have infantry with them so get ready to die anyway... unless you have an army. oh and youll eventually run out of fuel, its the apocalypse
Given the mobility and sheer horsepower of modern Main Battle Tanks using terrain to make a tank approach impossible or even impractical will not be as easy as digging a ditch, it would require some serous equipment and time to make the needed fortifications. considering an apocalypse the best way to stop a M1A1 Abrams for example is deny it fuel it wont get far without a few fuel trucks behind it.
it's interesting to learn about all the stuff that's been learned about by prior experience. would never have thought about the shadow of a camouflage tent being so easily spotted from the air, bit once told it's like that's so obvious. same for removing the blast marks. another great video 👍
What's more about camo nets, you can't just make them shaped like a box - you'll still create shadows. A properly set camo net should be shaped more like a mound.
yeah, forget that part. The basic shapes should no be visible.
Could you do a video on Finnish organization and deployment during WWII?
yes please
Didn’t they popularize the Molotov cocktail? Wasn’t Molotov a Russian-Finnish diplomat
@@matts5247 Made special bottles !
Basically:ski around and clap commies in various ways
As a pioneer, it's really nice to see some attention being brought to AT-mines as well, as well as their proper use.
Pioneer or engineer?
@@hansgruber3397 The term used for us was "Pioneeri". I'm not sure which the correct term would be in english.
@@Oliolli3 The American Army uses Engineer; some are Combat Engineers: all the risk of being Infantry, plus you might blow yourself up. We also have Engineer units for construction, etc., behind the lines. We have a third group: Explosive Ordinance Disposal (E.O.D.) Their peace-time job might include burning off unused charges from a mortar unit live-fire. All shells come with max charge on them; some are discarded depending on the range and flight-path needed. For safety reasons, the Civilians who run the ammunition storage facility will not take back that stuff.
You can really tell that the American infantry were better equipped to handle almost any situation, more so than any other military of the time. That's a thing worth being proud about if your a general, especially when the infantry are equipped well enough to be good at their jobs.
5:46 Road to Hell, Bridge of Death :)))))) Made my day
Avadhut Kasinadhuni Bridge to death: distance 666
Massive kudos to sneaking in the Running Wild reference on the range card!
been camping for a week just got back to two new vids from you thanks man :P
I love your presentation of these topics. Keep on the good work!
thank you!
Just to let you know, when you see "0.5 Ton Trucks," we often call them, "Half Ton Trucks," or a more modern example, our "2.5 Ton Trucks," we call, "Deuce and a Half Trucks." Feel free to act on this information in the future, or don't. I'll enjoy these excellent videos either way, just thought you should know.
thank you!
the .75 would in the American vernacular be referred to as 3/4 ton
I like your organisation-of-formations videos best when, like this one, they are fleshed out with a discussion of how they fitted within the nation's doctrine of war-fighting and the context of greater units of which they might be a part (e.g. company in the context of battalion, battalion in the context of regiment or division), or other formations alongside which they might be fighting. It's one thing to know about what an infantry or tank division was supposed to do, but it's entirely another and broader concept to ask how are infantry and tank divisions supposed to behave when in each other's vicinity/presence and assigned to work together?
Great video. I am currently reading and listening to audio books on WWII. This is useful, thank you.
awesome video !
really liked the tactical aspect and visualisation of this unit! Keep up the good work! grüße aus Österreich ^^
thank you! Grüße aus Linz :)
I'm so glad I stumbled across your channel, you give clear and concise information as well as citing your sources and that makes me as happy as a proverbial pig into some equally proverbial shit haha! Thank you a great deal for your hard work. I would like to offer you my help if you'd be willing, I'm a native English speaker with a neutral accent (at least I'd like to think so, examples can be given upon request) and I would also be more than happy to assist in the research of the topics. If it's something you would be interested in reply to my comment here and I can forward you some contact information so we may converse with greater privacy. Once again thank you for your excellent content, you're quickly becoming one of my favourite history themed channels. All the best, Bill
That moment when there are mines in front of you, behind you, on your left, and on your right, *and* you're under small arms fire... I hope you wrote your will already
DyingIsMyLatestFashion lol , imagining a seargent yelling run men ! these are anti tank mines they wont do shit to us! you first bob! *bob explodes* well fuck
Fuck it, it was just Bob. At least Carl's still ali- *Explosion* fuck...
For reference on firing on command starting at roughly 5:00, most modern infantry platoons, when in a harbour, will also not allow the section machine gunners to fire on immediate contact, where they must first wait for authorisation from the platoon commander so as not to give away these positions. Firing without orders is only authorised in the event of the position being overrun, which seldom happens unless the enemy is assaulting with a 3:1 advantage. A defender will almost always be capable of holding their position against odds less than 3:1 from a prepared position unless other factors are included, such as huge intelligence miscalculations in the defensive side's planning and other non direct factors like that. Great video detailing this very interesting and difficult to grasp topic!
thank you! Wait, "in a harbour", you mean a real harbour or is this like a short version of "safe harbour/area"?
Yes. A harbour, usually described as a platoon harbour is a commonwealth military term to describe a platoon defensive formation. Mostly used in jungle/dense forest operations.
lol you really name everything after naval terms... tank squadron (at least in 1943)
Troop = Platoon; Squadron = Company; After that it becomes Batallion etc again. I think it was meant to come from old cavalry terminology? For instance a tanky is a Trooper, not a Private. I think somewhere on the books they also outrank Privates technically because Troopers used to be of noble birth, and provided their own horses, hence their desire to no be associated with "peasants" lol.
Yes, after they got the RPG2 the Viet Cong would attack and wait for the bunker with the machine-gun to open up...
Really interesting video. I will take this information away to use in my Combat Mission games. Thanks.
In many of your videos, you note the TO&E had a single .50-caliber (12.7mm) machine-gun. These were not supposed to be used in the front line; they were an anti-aircraft weapon. This is why the M2 on a tank is behind the commander's hatch. One of the trucks would have a circular mount above the assistant driver's seat with the M2 up there. They were to be dismounted for defense in a battalion assembly area, but only if there was a threat of infantry attack. "FM 18-5 Tactical Employment, Tank Destroyer Unit 1944" page 25 has a drawing.
Great Video!!! Realy liked the explanations on how the division would function in combat. I am looking forward to future videos. I will make the necessary modifications to my anti-tank gun in front of my flat :):):):)LOL
thank you! yeah, those blast marks are a bitch :D
Love the videos!
lol, this made so much more sense to me than the German military organization videos, but that just might be because I'm American who knows
Really? They are almost identical x)
You should try reaching out to surviving soldier's who had on ground experience for a deeper understanding. Granted not a lot left and may be troubles with finding, getting them to talk etc etc. but it would be cool if you said SGT so and so said we did it this way instead of just the field manuals. Keep up the good vids!
Great video.
Hey sir, I love your videos! I was hoping I could maybe get you to want to do one on the typical organization and equipment of a US Army artillery battery in World War II; or atleast point me in the right direction to get the info myself. It’s for a project of mine.
This information will prove useful in wargame red dragon
33°52'56"N 114°59'52"W · 1,070 ft this is a still visible mine field located in Patton’s desert training area. Practice mines still litter the valley floor
good video thanks
Great video as always! Will you ever post a video about the spanish civil war? Thanks!
yeah, definitely planned. Have some copies on it too, so very likely for 2016.
Great, thanks! A very interesting topic, imho
The viedo is great! I do find it odd, however, that each company has the same number of Bazookas as 57mm AT guns. Bazooka's were much cheaper, lighter, and easier to construct, so one would think that such differences would be reflected in the proportion of weapons allocated. Also, have you ever read Armored Thunderbolt, by Stephen Zaloga? Although it is specifically about the development of the M4 Sherman, it seems to be a fantastic book in regards to U.S. Army tank doctrine and procurement as well.
Would assume Bazookas were last ditch defence against tanks. The range of bazookas wasn't that great, especially when compared to 57mm AT shell. They served much better with infantry that got in close and personal. If the AT gun platoon would have to resort to using bazookas, something had gone horribly wrong.
@@Unknown1355 Armored Infantry (trained at Fort Knox with the tankers) might be spread out so thin (4th Armored east of Nancy, France) they were down to one 57mm and one platoon of infantry per road block. Every vehicle had a bazooka for a reason. A regular infantry unit might only have one bazooka per platoon.
I really like these vids, really easy to digest what otherwise is essentially spreadsheet data. I have one question, how strictly was this all policed? For example if a bazooka was left behind say for example when a squad was ambushed, would it be quickly replaced if yes, by who?
thanky you, well, that is a very detailed question. I would say somebody reports it and in one way or another it will land at the quartermaster, who probably has reserves or something. Each regiment had a service company with a Major for Supply, S-4... it even had an "entertainment director" :D but no guarantees.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized The fun of the U.S. Army is that the company commander - even during Vietnam - is personally, financially responsible for all gear; from a shovel up to a tank (massive inspection and cooking of the books before a Change of Command). During the Tet Offensive, every single thing that had been broken or stolen was suddenly written off as a Combat Loss to clear up the books. In peace-time, a lieutenant is assigned to investigate and make a recommendation as to who pays. If it is REALLY expensive, the joke is you get life-time employment because the Army won't let you go until it is paid off a little each month out of your salary. In Ranger School, I dropped a flotation device that did not float - it came out of my paycheck. In "Blood Red Snow", a German lieutenant barely made it out of a town alive, but left his binoculars; they demoted him to squad leader.
Love ur vds good job help me see how bad war was in ww1 and 2
Plz make a video about multiple rocket launchers (Nebelwerfer, Katjusha, Cantilope) and how they were used by the different sides.
what editing software do you use
Very awesome and interesting video on AT tactics. Any chance on an Anti-Air division video?
probably, found some stuff about setting up defense and also reports on enemy defenses, but I guess it will take a while.
+Military History Visualized Hey man, no rush. I'm sure as the war progressed and some countries found themselves with little to no Air Force, it become more prominent as a form of still fighting the enemy air attacks with no air power of their own. But anyways, big fan of your channel. Love trying to apply what I learn here to Hoi4. Best wishes.
Sehr interessantes Video! Freu mich schon auf das HoI4 video Die Infanterie funktioniert :) Lg aus Österreich
danke. Update zu den Infanterie Divisionen ist in Arbeit. schöne Grüße aus Linz ;)
Awesome!!! Tips for some new videos. Do some about the german air bridges. Example the Stalingrad airbridge and the africa airbridge! :)
No word about air defense for those units? Is uppose that was the job for units a little further behind the front line?
Fun videos like always! I've been reading book series like Men-at-arms, Elite and Campaign from Osprey publishing, don't know if you are familiar with these. They cover everything from strategic war considerations to tactics at the Company and Battalion level (some even on Squads, sections and platoons). The reason I'm saying this is that it seems that you have the same interests. You see I have this dream of making the individual battles in games like HOI3 or HOI4 more realistic and fun to watch, perhaps a little bit like the football games in the Championship Manager game, i.e. to make the battles realistic simulations of real battles on the scale of companies against companies and in such a way that one could zoom in and watch the battle play out in detail if one would desire... I know its a far fetched dream and all that, but wouldn't it be cool to have the simulation so realistic that one could actually learn from it, i.e. test one tactic against another and see how they play out?
Initially I took a look at the Osprey anti-tank tactics book, but I have a certain distrust for them or they often lack some bit of information, in this case I thus went directly to the original source. For the US Army Infantry Battalion I took the initial tactics part from an Osprey book and then looked at the Field Manual, there were quite many details missing. yeah, that is certainly interesting. Do you know Men of War Assault Squad? Right now, in terms of games I would be happy with a modernized version of Steel Panthers I. It didn't age well and the dosbox version keeps dying.
Is it possible you could make a vid about Russian division composition in 1939 sometime in the future? I know that a Russian division before the post-Winter War Red Army reforms was almost 20,000 men, but detailed online sources on this seem scarce. Most online sources only speak of this post-reform composition which IIRC was 8-12k men. A quick search yielded this site, which may be of some interest to you: www.winterwar.com/forces/SUvsFIN/SuDiv-FinDiv.htm
Nice video, this might even provide me with a few ideas for Company of Heroes 2, thanks.
let me know how it works out, someone used the US Infantry Battalion tactics in Red Dragon (I think) with success.
Military History Visualized Will do, thanks again.
Do you know if they made a video of it?
don't think so. +Robert Sturm did you make a video?
graphics are great
Do you have any plans on something about the German Kriegsmarine? Bismarck, U-boats, Battle of the Atlantic or something close? Amazing video btw, keep it up!
ofc, planned, but I need to quite some reading on it. thank you!
I'd love to see your style of explanations on medieval battles like on the Mongols
FYI - in most English dialects, ton isn't usually referred to by using a decimal. "0.75 ton" is usually said 3/4 ton. "1.5 ton" is "ton and a half." If you look at American pickup trucks, the same lingo is used. In fact, a good amount of measurements are "supposed" to use fractions rather than decimals in America because things like miles, tons, pounds, etc., aren't based on units of 10 (10 = deci, decimal). However, this varies when it comes to weight and large distances and the person.
Also, when dealing with things like gun ranges (or sights on small arms), the normal unit of measurement is the yard. 3 feet = 1 yard and 1 yard = 0.9144 meters. When you go to a shooting range in the US, it's usually in yards or meters.
Self propelled tank destroyers were also part of the anti-tank org. The doctrine of USArmy in WW2 was that the tanks SHOULD NOT engage enemy tanks and bypass them/wait for anti-tank corps to help out. Hence why all the fanbois comparing Shermans to (always broken down) Panthers or Tigers are wrong.
Incorrect. Tanks were expected to engage enemy tanks if encountered. It juts was not their primary role per doctrine
Did tank destroyer battalions just replace the AT companies when they hit the field or did they work with each other? Another cool video, for sure!
not entirely sure, but I think they were added. As far as I know - but my knowledge is very limited here - the US attached quite a look of different units to the divisions, e.g., tanks, aa, etc.
almost half of US combat Strength were non-divisional forces, these included Tank Destroyer Battalions, independent Tank battalions, Independent Artillery Battalions, Cavalry Groups, Ranger Battalions, a few independent Paratrooper Regiments, Engineer Combat Battalions, just to name a few. the US Military had a total of 98 Divisions that were fielded, of them 95 entered combat, 89 Army Divisions,+ 6 Marine Divisions. 3 divisions did not enter combat, 2nd Calvary Division was a colored Unit that was broken up prior to entering combat, 13th Airborne was supposed to conduct airdrops into Germany but there were not enough Transport planes, 98th Infantry Division was ear marked for the Invasion of Japan But the war ended before it was sent into combat. The US Sent into combat: 16 Armored Divisions 67 Infantry Divisions 4 Airborne Divisions (11th, 17th, 82nd, 101st) 6 Marine Divisions (1-6) 1 Cavalry Division (1st) 1 Mountain Division (10th) US Airborne Divisions (and the Mountain Division) were numbered with Infantry Divisions, some like the 82nd had fought in WW1 as infantry divisions. US Infantry Divisions were numbered into 3 categories, Divisions 1-25 were raised from the Regular Army , Divisions 26-45 were Raised From the National Guard and Divisions 63-106th Were raised from the US reserves (mainly draftees). National Guard were Raised from the following states initially: 26th Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine 27th New York 28th Pennsylvania 29th Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina 30th North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee 31st Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi 32nd Wisconsin and Michigan 33rd Illinois 34th North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota 35th Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska 36th Texas 37th Ohio 38th Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia 40th California, Nevada, and Utah 41st Idaho, Montana, Oregon, North Dakota and Washington 42nd raised from soldiers from every state.+ Draftees 43rd Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 44th New Jersey and New York. 45th Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma this is what I have gathered so far based on what i can piece together but its hard to find information on the National Guard Divisions in World War Two, i also am only counting Divisions that went over seas not Divisions that were formed but never sent over seas
"Tank Hunters" is a great book on American TD doctrine and action review.
Are you Italian, sir or madam Paz?
Respectfully, I would point out that no North Carolina National Guard units were part of the decorated 29th ID. Also National Guard units from southern and south eastern Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia were part of the 29th during WW2.
Another great video of yours sir, I love all of your videos and I still learn history from your videos!! One thing I would like to mention is that the US Army should have replaced the 2.36 inch Bazooka during World War 2 and developed the 3.5 inch Bazooka prior to the Korean War!! My Dad fought in the Korean War and he was there in July 1950 and the North Koreans used the T34/85 and initially the US Army had nothing to stop the North Koreans in the beginning days of the Korean War!!
When WWII ended abruptly the U.S. Congress immediately stopped almost all armament production and development. It was felt that with the atomic bomb no one would dare to confront us. In Korea, Task Force Smith, armed with 1943 bazookas and 1945 Sherman tanks, paid for that false economy with blood. In contrast, when the Germans captured American bazookas, the first thing they did was up-grade it to 88mm from the U.S. 66mm. As I say, Congress can pay for victory with money in peace-time, or soldiers can pay for victory with blood in war-time.
@@twostep1953 I agree!!
Great video! Will you do something about today's military.
thank you, yeah, at some point definitely.
I love your videos; gave you credit in a war-game I am creating (which will not be published for profit, just club fun). Some 'Merican for you ( which is not the same as English). The Jeep is a quarter-ton truck, civilians might drive a half-ton pick-up truck, the Humvee and Weapons Carrier are a three-quarter-ton truck. Then we have the ton-and-a-half, and the deuce-and-a-half (2, as in M2, .50-cal, Ma Deuce machine-gun). The rest of the world thinks in centimeters (much nicer system), but for God only knows what reason we think in millimeters (5cm versus 50mm).
Thank you! How is it called?
I think you've put the AT symbol upside down, that ro they switched it around at some point in history because I have always seen AT represented by an isosceles triangle with the point going upwards toward the echelon marker. Not with the point facing down like a V as shown here....might just be a change from a long time ago.
It's been a while, but an upside down "T" to us was a indirect fire weapon. A "Y" with the straight part pointed at the enemy represented the split-trail of an A.T. gun (Russians still use those). A "U" around the straight part of the "Y" meant an A.T. missile.
A video about artillery targeting and control of different armies during WW2 would be nice! Artillery is often forgotten compared to tanks, small arms and aircraft in the war but just as or even more vital. This is an area that America really excels in.
Literally no one ever forgets it. In games, for example, it's often over-modeled to the point of being the primary means of destroying the enemy force.
Oddball Differences in artillery between countries are often forgotten however. Americans for example were able to quickly concentrate the guns of a corps on critical locations during landings in italy, something other combatants had trouble doing. Many German tank attacks were smashed by rapid US artillery support.
kvnrthr 1 When you say 'many,' can you give some examples? Case studies of any given period of time for panzer loss against the Americans almost always shows that the biggest killers of German tanks are American tanks and tank destroyers.
@@revolrz22 I can give three; Anzio, Normandy, and Bastogne. German forces quickly learned that no attack against an Allied beachhead could survive once it came within range of the supporting ships. At Bastogne, the Germans attacked with a different unit, from a different direction, over several days. They were met with the combined artillery strength of the division plus all supporting guns which made it in before the town was surrounded. ("The Liberation Trilogy Boxed Set: An Army at Dawn, The Day of Battle, The Guns at Last Light") Americans also have a little something called Time On Target. It involves extra math beyond traverse, elevation, and charge to include time of flight. An entire regiment of guns can fire within seconds and all the shells land at the same time. This is especially effective if you can catch the enemy marshaling its forces for an attack.
@@twostep1953 Two of those are not examples of German tank attacks being turned away by massed artillery fire. That's what was in question.
Check out the series of books by Steven Zaloga. They are excellent and dispell many myths. One goes into the TD doctrine in US forces, but I forget which one. I believe that they phased out towed ATG's in US units as much as possible as the campaign went on in 1944/1945.
Would you be able to do Canadian Infantry Division structure 1944?
Canada is definitely on the list. I am a bit conflicted, because well, I don't want to make too many organization videos in a row, but there are still so many to cover and the demand for German ones due to Hearts of Iron is very high. Also my sources for Germany are way better.
+1 For Canada! They had a pretty unique organizational structure. A 1917-1918 might be cool as well! With Canadian "Storm troopers"!
Could you also do a comparison of the divisions of different nations to compare effectiveness in battle, if it's not too much?
you mentioned that 57mm AT guns were used in these companies. But the 3 inch AT gun was also present, were these guns also used in the AT companies or were those attached to other units?
Thanks mate. Do you also happen to know why these units got diffirent AT guns? Did the tank destroyer units also get the 57mm or did they only have 3inch guns?
Tank destroyer battalions (towed early war, later on to be re-equipped with SPGs), only had towed 3 inch guns and also a mix of SPGs (M10s, M18s etc). As for the reason why the infantry AT companies did not get the 3 inch guns is probably some logistics reason and that the 3 inch gun was very heavy for an AT gun. I don't think a motorized company like the company shown in the video would be very mobile if they were restricted with the heavy guns, thus why they probably had the 57mm M1, which was the primary AT gun and also being a much lighter gun than the 3 inch M5
Infantry elements had the 37mm and bazooka, both generally ineffective unless camo'd and fired at point blank range. The M-3 tank destroyer (a half track) had a vintage WW-1 75mm field piece, not really an AT weapon and the M-6 tank destroyer (a jeep) had a 37mm gun mounted (both were standard equipment until 1942). The 57mm was towed. M10 (an expedient TD) didn't come online until mid Tunisia campaign in 1943 ish and the M18 in Italy, both had the 3 inch gun.
+Bob H I do know that the infantry were reluctant to adopt the 57mm at the time. because they wanted an at gun which they could tow without a prime mover. which indeed resulted in insufficient anti tank capacity.
***** The towed guns were prone to being overrun (very heavy) in the war in Europe compared to the self-propelled guns, units with many towed guns vs SP guns took correspondingly heavier casualties in many battles after being overrun. The M10 and M18 could actually tow the towed guns (and some did), as was done in Italy, freeing up the prime movers to carry ammunition and supplies...
will you ever do a video about Napoleonic regiments?
of course, the thing with non-ww2 stuff is that I have to do more reading, because I know far less about these times. Also due the release of HOI 4 I set a stronger focus on WW2 than before. I almost did an Order of Battle for the Battle of Waterloo, but wasn't too happy with the data available and also not how to do it in a way that I would deem good enough.
Military History Visualized An OOB for Waterloo would be awesome. Hopefully you have better luck with the research.
Why did american platoon (and higher) has jeeps? Was it for officers use? So did german officers use tanks?
usually every military unit/sub-unit should be mostly self-sufficient, this means that it needs its own organic transport capabilities. Germans had in general a lack of motorized and mechanized equipment, whereas US units had plenty, so basically usually any US unit was better motorized / mechanized than their German counter-part. Ofc there might be some exceptions.
the vehicle an officer used was not determined by nationality of the officer. at the platoon and company level Armored officers generally rode in a tank so they could retain the same protection as their troops. An infantry officer was either on foot with the rest of the soldiers but would have jeeps (or equivalent) standing by to carry them where they were needed. A jeep is a multipurpose vehicle, as a light transport for personnel or cargo, recon, and message carrying. Most staff officers (generals and the like) had jeeps assigned to them as personal vehicle. in generally speaking an officer is using a similar method of getting around as the rest of his troops, only at higher levels where an officer was not near the front line would this differ and would usually be a jeep or an armored car.
This video says that they were assigned the 57mm Anti Tank gun. The US had 76mm guns aswell. When did the US get the 76mm? Who were the 76mm's assigned to?
(I'm an American Infantry veteran.) Americans are so spoiled! (And a little stupid.) The U.S. developed a towed 3” (76.2mm) A.T. gun (originally a naval gun, turned into a WWI A.A. gun) two years before everyone else. It was based on the 105mm howitzer chassis. But they couldn’t get any Infantry units to take them! At the time, the 37mm could take out the main German tank, the Mark III. It could be pulled by a jeep, and easily man-handled into position. The Infantry branch expected the 37mm to be good enough until all A.T. guns were vehicle mounted. The Armor branch didn’t want them. The Army had to create towed 3” units and forced the Tank Destroyer branch to accept them. Over time, the unit organization went from a full battalion of towed, down to 1 company plus two companies of S.P. guns. Towed guns were the opposite of T.D. branch's training, which was to hold all guns in reserve and then rush to get in front of an enemy breakthrough. The Tank Destroyer branch (eliminated after the war) claimed a 4 tanks to 3 towed guns ratio, but a 6 tanks to 1 S.P. gun ratio. Being able to immediately move after the enemy located your position was the difference. Note: terrain can change all that. In North Africa or the Russian steppes, being able to dig and place a towed gun below ground level gave them a big advantage over the Marder, etc. After the war, all towed A.T. guns were retired. All self-propelled A.T. guns (M-10 and M-36) were soon replaced by tanks. As mentioned elsewhere, during the Korean War the 7th Infantry division had three Infantry regiments and one tank regiment.
I never heard of the engineer platoon as part of the Anti-Tank Co. I wonder how long they lasted down at the regiment before the Division EN BN CDR scarfed them up as replacements. Seems a waste of engineers who are never kept in the reserve.
I can't find the book, but a man who was in an A.T. company said they put down (and picked up) mines, and also provided infantry protection for the guns. I doubt the commander would let them go. He was a good soldier, but a small man and had problems keeping up on the long marches; so he was transferred - with no training - to ride with the guns.
So how effective were these anti-tank companies ?
Great video! But how could an anti tank company armed mainly with 57mm canons and bazookas hope to face a heavy tank assault (tigers, King tigers, Russian KV-1's or KV-2's or even well armored mediums like the panthers) when those guns cannot penetrate their armor? Would they simply fall back or hold them off until air or artillery support was available?
You use your mortars, machine guns, artillery to suppress their infantry, this makes the tanks very vulnerable to your infantry. For you to defeat the tanks it is not necessary to kill them only disable them or force them to withdraw.
(Former Mech Infantry platoon leader) Infantry can go where tanks can't go. They can hide and be passed by, or they can infiltrate behind the tanks. You use direct and indirect fire to force his accompanying infantry to ground. You make the tank commander button up. Then you put a bazooka rocket up his tail. Desperate times call for desperate measures. A satchel charge (American) or grenade cluster (German) thrown on top of his engine compartment. In Italy, the Rangers used a Bangalore torpedo, with the safety extension, from the second floor and blew it up over the engine compartment. P.S. the 6# / 57mm was better against the Panther's side or the Tiger's rear than people realize. The trick is to be disciplined enough to get such a shot.
Say, if the main use of mines is area denial, just signs saying "danger mines" would also be effective right? Basically a fake minefield, with no actual mines, but the enemy has to stop and check or go around.
And maybe place a real minefield after that for extra nastiness?
as far as I know there were fake minefields. Not entirely sure on the the following, but I think I read an intelligence bulletin that explained how Germans marked a real and a fake minefield differently.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized They were viciously excellent at war. The sign facing the enemy was always the same. The sign at the back and facing friendlies was different. And there are 'paths' through both, some not real! Recon units, supported by Combat Engineers, are supposed to test that before the attack. (Another fun night patrol.) There are different patterns to minefields. When units advance, other units are supposed to get the map and pull up the mines for disarming and re-use. More fun!
1:20 "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, wiggle"
Can you make a video on German tactics how their manual describes defensive formations against the flank and direct assaults by Muslim foot troops, using their mass wave tactics. Thank you
You go outside and try to have a meaningful relationship with other people.
Hmm.. Shouldn't this also cover tank destroyers as well since they were attached to infantry divisions as anti-tank battalions?
well, they weren't part of the organic setup of the division, also the weren't covered in the 200-300+ page field manual. I will certainly cover tank destroyers at some point, but it takes quite some time.
Tell me, how do you think this all would have worked with under strength company’s, no supply’s and no fuel? Hmmm....
Seems like the US infantry regiment was the equivalent of a British Infantry Brigade, or have I misunderstood?
probably, since the Germans, Soviets and US troops pretty much used the same terminology or in other words: the nazis, communists and capitalists agreed on something, I basically stop looking into British / Commonwealth terminology for organization.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Well a British Infantry Brigade consisted of three infantry battalions with supporting elements, such as recce, AT arty, engineers etc, so it sounds like we're talking about the same thing.
@@brianmacgabhann5630 yeah, that is called a regiment.
also note this is for WW2, it seems somewhere post-war, brigade with battalions seems to used also by the Bundeswehr.
@@brianmacgabhann5630 (answer is very simplified) Goes back to Napoleonic times. The 1st Battalion carried the King's Colors and National Colors over-seas; the 2nd Battalion stayed behind to recruit and train. So "the regiment" combined with other 'regiments' to form a brigade of several battalion-strength units. The U.S. had regiments of about 600 men, so effectively the same thing. Before WWI we re-organized as Square divisions, then before WWII as Triangular, then after Korea as Pentomic (five expected to consolidate to three after the nukes - stupid idea), then to Triangular again. Then we down-sized and kept the first battalion of regiments so the lineage would continue, and everybody got assigned to brigades - which are supposed to be temporary units tailored to a specific mission, not kept for decades.
Are US tactics better documented because the US Army was a less professional force? This is one of the points the movie "Saving Private Ryan" made, but is it supported by a difference in documentation?
The US was a very professional Army, not that it had a large population of Military career's, just that it was very well documented and organized, for example the US had only 1/3 of it's army outside of it's border's during WW2, most soldiers never even fought in a single battle, they often found themselves working on building infrastructure and working on keeping the army's oversea's armed and organized. America's army definitely was the best paid and supplied army of the war, mainly due to a focus of Support and Supply, rather then suicidal war ideal's. the whole shock and awe with superior firepower and better organization, rather then the Soviet unions mass assault's or the Japanese live off the land strategies.
speedy01247 All true, but my question had to do with the US Army, prior to WW2, being a comparatively small force that could rapidly expand for major wars -- unlike the European nations that maintained large regular armies.
You both are familiar with the event at Kasserine pass in Tunisia, right?
DDelete013 Unfortunately, most of the best training and education in war takes place on a battlefield.
The total motorization of these units would have made them much more effective than the horse-drawn units of the German army
...........but the 35mm A/T gun made them pretty useless.
Graeme, don't forget that the Germans were mostly using 37 mm A/T gun, and maybe the new 50 mm. In addition, most 1941 tanks had scarcely 1 or 2 inches of frontal armor. For example, the latest and greatest of 1941, Panzer III, Ausf. J, had only 50-70 mm of frontal armor. The Panzer IV, Ausf. F, also new in 1941, had just 50 mm of frontal armor. The Japanese tanks of 1941 were far worse. American A/T would have found the Matilda II a tough nut to crack (78 mm frontal armor), but the U.S. Army wasn't planning to fight Great Britain and the Commonwealth in 1941. LOL The 88 mm tank-killer--originally an anti-aircraft gun--didn't become a Wehrmacht mainstay until Rommel was assigned to the Afrika Korps.
The manual quoted was March '44.
Oh then, as Rick Blaine would say, "I was misinformed."
Anyway, by 1944, the M10 TD was available in quantity. Although its 75 mm gun and AP shell was unable to penetrate the front of a Panther or Tiger, its crews were told to use their weapon in ambush positions and deliver side and rear shots. The M10 could easily penetrate the best German tanks from the side, as could an M4 Sherman.
Why was the US worried about camo nets and visibility from the air, by the time of D-Day the German Air force was in no shape to attack them from the air at all. The US had complete control over the skies.
Experience learned the hard way from North Africa and Italy, when the Germans had near parity over the battlefield (before almost all units were withdrawn to protect Germany from U.S. day-bombing). Both Ernie Pyle (reporter)and Bob Hope (U.S.O. tour) experienced German bombing in Italy.
@@twostep1953 makes sense, thanks for the info.
Sounds like a crib sheet to explain to battlefield reporters, prefer the Nazi impromptu arrangements ! " And Take a Axe with you !"
Maaaan Fighting tanks is cooomplicated
Please say jeep!!!
Sheep? ;)
With air superiority, anti tank companies would be constantly harassed. Then with German armor and infantry would easily clean up the rest.
That's why you need good camouflage, concealment and entrenchment. Operation Goodwood is a classic example of overwhelming air strike in advance of ground force failing to dislodge anti tank positions, which then resulted in massive casualties for the follow up force. The British and Americans had 3700 bombers, medium and heavy, in 3 waves bombarding German positions. The bombardment was so heavy that it overturned tanks, and some Germans committed suicide. Yet, it failed to destroy all AT guns. When the British ground force advanced, they came under accurate fire from 88mm and 75mm guns that knocked out tanks after tanks. One tank regimental commander was asked after the engagement "where was your tanks", and he pointed to about dozens of em'. The superior officer replied "I did not mean your HQ tanks, your regiment'. "That's all that's left sir". The British lost some 3.5k men, 314 tanks while the Germans lost about 100 tanks.
ayooooo
Dem floppy disks
I can't understand what he is saying threw his southern accent.
Please türkish language
Is the American infantry supposed to look like spurdo? Lol.
Hay it take's the oddity out of dropping you're draws and planting you're but and kissing it goodbye, and the Russians weren't a bunch of drunks you had to do something with the Vodka how else can you use the empty bottle to make a Molotov cocktail?
America's Army would have lasted 6 weeks in Eastern Front.
And the Red Army never would have taken Okinawa, Iwo-jima, Tarawa, Wake, Guadalcanal,
+Kyle Jansky Why would our Military need to capture those insignificant places? Our Military crushed Japan in a matter of weeks in 1939, and then again in 1945. Japan's biggest defeat of the war was by Soviet forces at China, Manchuria. A Japanese million strong Army annihilated in two weeks. We captured more Japanese in two weeks than ALL English countries did in 4 years. We would have captured Japan, but America used nuclear bomb on civilians simply to stop our advances. You see ALL English countries had to create NATO after the war. English people fear Slavic people, we are the best
So, they captured a bunch of Japanese that had surrendered because of the end of the war? Casualties on both sides were very light in comparison to other battles of similar size to the one in Manchuria. The Japanese had already lost at that point. If you look at the "end" of the battle, it was VJ day, Sept 2 1945. They didn't actually defeat the Japanese, the Japanese had already surrendered. You also have to remember that worse bombings of Japan happened before and after the nuclear weapons were used as part of a larger bombing campaign. It isn't like the US was like,"Lets drop the bombs, they will quit right afterwards and that will stop those darn Russians". Also, it would be interesting to see the WW2 Soviet navy go up against even the late war Japanese navy in those "insignificant" places that were mostly of strategic importance during the war, defending Japan's resources in the south and eastern frontier on the ocean. But, that would be if the Soviet navy really existed in any real form during the war.
+Fa Que The Winter ?? 😂 No, our counter offensive at Moscow crushed the Nazis with superior tanks (T-34). You Western people always think Winter saved Russia? Germany was the offensive in USSR till Kursk, 1943. Would you say Winter saved USSR at Kursk 😂 Do you know what a factory is? Our factories produced more weapons, tanks, artillery than our enemies combined, including Japan. Our factories produced more airplanes than Germany, Japan and Italy although not combined. We put more people into uniform than ALL our enemies combined!
+pine cone I think it's very simples America used the A bomb to stop Soviet advances and to spread American imperialism. It worked Stalin was very paranoid and wanted his own. America betrayed their closest allies England and France over the nuclear weapons. America wanted to be only country with the bomb. Our intervention in the war with Japan proved to the world USSR was the world's military superpower. I think the facts and statistics speak for themselves. 80% of Germany's Military casualties occurred in Eastern Front. Japanese million strong army defeated in two weeks. It took English countries June, 1944-May 1945 to defeat a hand full of German divisions. We had to deal with 200 German divisions! America Government proved in WW2 and today they are nothing but a terrorist superpower. The US air force has terrorized innocent civilians in Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and other places
" If you should use an anti tank position on your property" Me: Listens intently....