Tackling Tanks - The German View

[cooper]

I am currently reading a book called 'A Wood Called Bourlon' by William Moore.

I have recently read a passage which gives sketchy details of how the German tried to hinder 6 pounder shots from male tanks.

It states that during the attack on 23rd of November 1917 in Fontaine, 3 waves of tanks attacked and entered the village, the first two being obliterated. The third wave went in just when the light was going.

Unfortunately the tanks were not supported by infantry, so the Germans could closely approach them in the fading light.

As the attack ensued germans were seen close to the tanks, some were even seen literally hanging off the sponson guns to stop them from being elevated or traversed!

It must have taken great courage to do this.

Would they have been in direct line of fire from say a revolver from within the tank?

Has anyone else heard of any such tactics being employed?

James

[Paul Reed]

When I did some research in the Stuttgart archives some years ago, I found an intelligence paper about anti-tank measures dated October 1916 suggesting using a 'cluster' stick-grenade to blow the tracks off. This was before AP ammo and eventually anti-tank rifles were developed.

I certainly haven't come across this measure - which sounds desperate to say the least!

You also have to remember William Moore was a journalist, and not an historian...

[cooper]

In the same passage he does mention this tactic. A 'cluster' of bombs thrown from close range to take the tracks off as you say.

James

[CROONAERT]

"Cluster bombs" were an early anti-tank or "bunker buster" grenade. They were a collection of stick-grenade heads tied by wire around a complete stick grenade.When the main head exploded,it also detonated the rest making an explosion up to 9x the power of an ordinary grenade.They were also used during WW2.

Talking of "desperate tactics",the Wehrmacht in Russia 1941-45 had an "official" anti-tank tactic. This was to approach an enemy tank with an anti-tank mine and place it on the tracks by hand!

dave.

[egbert]

To compliment the previous ant-tank tactics in/around Fontaine, I consulted the Reichsarchiv, Bd 31, Die Tankschlacht bei Cambrai 1917. In summing up: German infantery had a unique tactic to overthrow the tank waves. Inside Fontaine it is said, they could not engage the tanks with anti-tank artillery to avoid own,friendly losses. The first occupied German front line with infanterists, let the tanks passage without engagement. Since the British infantery hesitated and followed with too much distance, the tanks were not protected by British infantery. Having passed the first German line, the tanks were engaged by the second German line further aft. German first line infantery than blocked the British infantery from following the now trapped tanks. The engagement of British tanks was done by the following procedure: empty sandbags were stuffed with 3 handgrenades, a fourth one with fuse, showing slightly out of the bag, was used to detonate the total 4pack, always targeting the tracks. Outside Fontaine, around Bois de Bourlon, the tanks were mainly destroyed by anti-tank artillery, which took place in a very brave manner: artillery was called and located in forward positions , together with/in the first German infantery line. They had of course considerable losses, since the guns were pretty visible from the British line of sight. So far the Reichsarchiv, hope it helps!

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

I came across another account of anti-tank activity in the history of the 123rd Grenadier Regiment. On 11 April 1917 near Arras. The C.O. of the 3rd M.G. Company, Leutnant der Reserve Schnabel, waited for a British tank to come within 150 meters of his gun and then fired 1,200 rounds of armor piercing ammunition against the Male tank side. The tank was disabled within 50 meters of the German front line. The tank was set on fire from at least 3 shots striking the engine and the resulting fire set off the ammunition inside the tank. and the Germans later counted 77 rounds that had gone through both sides of the tank.

The armor piercing ammunition was effective but needed to be quite close. The guns were often sited and hidden waiting for the tanks to get close enough. It was another situation where British infantry were lacking and the tank was on its own.

I came across another account of the .5in German anti-tank rifle in 1918. It did tremendous damage if the round struck the tank but the rifle was very difficult to use. The second round fired by the German soldier in this instance fractured his collar bone.

Ralph

[Christina Holstein]

What about minefields as a defence against tanks? In 'The Artilleryman: The experiences and impressions of an American artillery regiment in the World War" by Jay M. Lee, which deals specifically with the 129th FA, there is a reference to two mine fields being crossed by the 129th in the Meuse-Argonne between Boureuilles and Vauquois.

He writes 'At least two such mine-fields were crossed, one having fused shells of about five inches caliber, and the other with a nbox type of mine. A Frech transport wagon was destroyed by the explosion of one of them as our troops were passing through".

Was that a common tactic?

Christina Holstein

[CROONAERT]

There are several posts about mines (A.P. and A.T.) in the thread "Missing" in the "soldiers" section of this forum. I know it's a strange place to find it,but we went off at a tangent (my fault,I'm afraid!).

Dave.

[CROONAERT]

I came across another account of the .5in German anti-tank rifle in 1918. It did tremendous damage if the round struck the tank but the rifle was very difficult to use. The second round fired by the German soldier in this instance fractured his collar bone.

There is an example of this 13mm "Mauser T - Gewehr" anti tank rifle in the Hill 60 museum.It's a beauty!

Incidentally,before the onset of this rifle and the armour piercing "K" ammunition,the ever adaptable german infantryman discovered his own armour piercing solution.He simply reversed the bullet in the cartridge case,so it fired flat end first.This had the effect of punching a hole in the armour rather than the pointed end just "mushrooming" on the surface.In this way,his 7.92mm G98 became the world's first true "anti-tank rifle".

Dave.

[CROONAERT]

The standard anti-tank measure was to use an ordinary field gun of up to 77mm calibre at zero elevation and fire it over open sights at the enemy tanks.Some were developed which had small wheels and were man-handled rather than animal pulled.These were a forerunner of the specially designed "PAK" anti-tank weapons of WW2.

Dave.

[Bryn_Hammond]

Following another topic, I came across this old thread and realised I had a fair amount to contribute. Better late than never!

Moore's story appears to come from Major-General HD De Pree's 'The Battle of Cambrai, November 20th to 30th, 1917' in the Royal Artillery Journal, in which he describes how:

"A second wave of 12 tanks advanced from the sunken road at 2.35 p.m. with the object of clearing up Fontaine. They all reached their objective but not before it was beginning to get dark. They met with very vigorous resistance, being bombed and shot at the whole time. In many cases the enemy rushed the tanks and tried to prevent the guns being used by hanging on to them, and though they remained in the village till 6.p.m. they also had to evacuate it when darkness came on."

Egbert's material from the Reichsarchiv was evidently used by the British Official Historians and by Percy Hobart (whose Cambrai: A Complete Narrative was reprinted in the WFA's Stand To No. 55, April 1999).

There's also a German anti-tank rifle in the IWM.

As for Ralph's stuff about reversed bullets, well, that was a much more thorny issue since Mauser ammunition like this was found in February 1915 - before the SmK ammunition was introduced in March and a long time before tanks first saw action. The British thought these might be dum dum bullets (and therefore banned) and carried out various tests into their effects as part of an enquiry. Subsequently, the British decided that the dum dum controversy was proving unproductive propaganda-wise and that use of this ammo was probably for use against sniper shields and let the matter drop.

I could go into this in more detail but why should I when there is a very good article in the Imperial War Museum Review No. 5 (1990) entitled 'The controversy over the use of the dum dum bullet in the First World War' by Neil Pilfold?!

[Jonathan Saunders]

There's also a German anti-tank gun in the IWM.

For those PALS more likely to be on The Somme than the IWM or Hill 60, there is also an example shortly before the exit at the Albert Museum.

[egbert]

Actually, nobody needed to hang at the gun barrel in order to prevent a massive attack. Quote from Mosier, "The Myth of The Great War", page 237ff (and Paul will love it):

By September 1916, the British had 49 tanks ready to go into action. Only 32 actually made it to the start line on the British side, and only 9 made it across to the German lines and accomplished anything."

[Bryn_Hammond]

I neglected to mention that the tank on 11 April attacked by Leutenant Schnabel would almost certainly be a Mark II tank and therefore have only mild steel plating as 'armour'. These tanks had been intended as training tanks. They might conceivably have had armoured sponsons (gun housings) cannibalised from the Mark Is used on the Somme.

This led to an exaggerated belief in the potency of the German AP bullet against tanks.