defence against tanks

[uncle bill]

I was wondering if anyone knows how the Germans reacted to the advent of the tank on the Western Front. I know that artillery was used against them on the Somme and I've just read an account in Jack Sheldon's excellent book on the German army on the Somme where a tank is attacked by men and grenades. After Cambrai was anything specifically made ie a type of mine or were these things that only appeared in the second world war.

[bernardmcilwaine]

hiya bill,i have seen reference to units raised to stalk tanks as well as using field guns,flame throwers and grenades,there are one or two pics knocking about of tank defences,bernard

[the gunners dream]

Bill

Small cannon and large-calibre rifles were used against the early World War I tanks being introduced by the British, many of which proved to be almost useless. Some weapons included the Armor piercing 7.92 K Bullets, then a larger anti-tank rifle when those became ineffective.

Also grenades were used, and the Geballte Ladung (‘Bunched Grenade’), basically several regular grenades bound together. Tanks were also vulnerable to artillery and mortars, especially if they became stuck and they could be targeted more easily.

By the end of the war a number of light guns, typically 37 mm, were being deployed on short carriages that proved to be considerably better.

By the end of the war most forces were deploying large high-velocity rifles, typically of .50 calibre calibre, with enough power to puncture the thin armor of the tanks of the era.

Hope this helps.

Steve Smith

[Jack Sheldon]

This is a very interesting topic. A friend of mine in Berlin is writing his PhD on this subject, so when he's finished we should know a lot more about it. Before starting in on some of the anti-tank measures taken by the German army, we can all have a smile at these next two enclosures. Technical Intelligence is always difficult to obtain on the battlefield, particularly if none of the equipment involved has yet been captured and the staff is relying on witness accounts. Those who have read the descriptions given in my book by the men of Infantry Regiment 180 after the fighting around Thiepval will know how inaccurate much of it was. Anyway herewith the attachments to an intelligence report on tanks put out by Army Group Prince Rupprecht on 18 Nov 16. I personally think it's a shame that Model 4 never made it into service!

Jack

[Jack Sheldon]

Models 3 & 4

Jack

[Jack Sheldon]

The arrival of tanks on the battlefield caused some very rapid development in counter-measures by the German army. Work on this never ceased for the reminder of the war.. Mines, which remained largely improvised right through until November 1918, were under consideration as early as February/March 1917. The next three sketches are by designers from Bavarian Pionier Company 3. I found them recently in the archives in Munich. It is clear to see how this improvisation was intended to work.

Jack

[Jack Sheldon]

That takes the story of mines

up to spring 1917. I'll have a look at the rest of my papers for information reagrding trials of various weapons against armour, further devlopment of mines and information regarding anti-tank obstacles and minefields. I think it fair to say that all the theory relating to both passive and active anti-tank defence was fully worked up, understood and applied before the end of the war. The Second World war and beyond just saw refinement of the ideas. How often have we heard that about the Great War!

Jack

[uncle bill]

great stuff, just what I wanted. Thanks for the pictures Jack, very Da Vinci some of them ! The mines are especially interesting.

[Jack Sheldon]

Bill

I shall, as promised dredge out some more stuff for you, but not today. I'm up to my ears with other things. I shall also try to point you in the direction of one or two less well known set piece anti-tank battles

Jack

[yellow]

Snipers where deployed against the tanks. I well trained sniper could shoot through the slits in a tank used by the driver. The bullet would travel through the viewer and into the face of the driver.

Hard to believe I know, but this became such a big problem that black extending lines had to be painted over the slits in the tank to prevent them from being located.

As with any AFV that uses tracks........these were the best target.

What is interesting is that the rear hatch of the Mark 1 could be opened from the outside. The enemy would open the door and proceed to shoot all the crew!

Steve.

[Malte Znaniecki]

Great stuff indeed,

many thanks for sharing the pics with us

Malte

[squirrel]

Very intertesting topic - the pictures are excellent.

[yellow]

At Cambrai the British unleashed the Mark 4. This had improved armour 50% thicker around the areas where the crew would sit or stand and near the engine. During the battle the Germans found that their anti tank rifles just dented the armour.

Dug in field artillery prepared in killing zones was the best defence against tanks.

Very often tank would stay static on their objectives at which points the germans would bring up light artillery and proceed to knock all of them out!

Gas was a big enemy for the tanks, having to wear a hood whilst inside the tank during a gas attack caused many crew to pass out...........more often than not the air they were breathing already was from fumes from the engine........this alone suffocated the crew.

The Germans decided to widen their trenches to prevent tanks from crossing. The basic design had to be improved so the length of the tank was increased. A Mark 5 would now become a Mark V Star. The daddy of all the trench crossers was the tadpole......because of its long tail.

Steve.

[Simon Jones]

They also used concealed tank traps, this one worked at Cambrai.

Regards

Simon

[bob lembke]

Jack and others;

Just noticed this. As you may know, I am full of family anecdotes. Let me pass on a detailed one in this area that hits this topic on the head in several ways, in my opinion.

My father was a Flamm=Pionier in Garde=Reserve=Pionier=Regiment (Flammenwerfer). On 28. 12. 16. he was badly wounded on Dead Man's Hill at Verdun, spent most of 1917 in and out of a number of hospitals (It took over 10 years for the wound to heal completely), and in 1918 he first was in Berlin, classified as fit for combat, but not for flame thrower duty, assigned to the unit that trained the recruits for the flame arm. MId-1918 he was able to trick his way back to the front.

At some time, almost certainly in 1918, he and a number of other men were sent to a course, and spent a week on a range driving in tanks over cratered ground, firing the MGs at targets. (I am not sure when this was, but early in 1918 he had taken a three week course in the MG 08 and the MG 08/15, I assume that this was after that.) Every day they fired off belts of 1000 rounds, and after the exercise they were called together and the results were announced;, "Pionier x, 1000 rounds, three hits; Pionier y, 1000 rounds, two hits; etc." At the end of the week they all assumed that they were going to be tank crew.

After one week they were called together by the officers, who said (roughly): "Men, we know that you think that you are going to be tank crewmen. That is not true; you are going to fight tanks. We wanted to show you that a moving tank is a miserable gun platform."

Then they were shown anti-tank techniques, in particular the use of the "geballtne Ladnung, in the usual form of six "potato masher" (Steilhandgranate war-heads taped about the head of a seventh complete grenade.

He said that one guy in his "unit" knocked out three tanks in two days. He would lay in a shell-hole, a tank would lumber past, and he would run up and grab the tread and allow it to pull him to the top of the tank. There, due to the 140 degree Fairenheit temperature inside, a hatch would be open. He would pull the little ball and drop the device inside; we can clearly imagine the results.

I hope he got his EK I, he clearly earned it.

I was a bit dubious about this story, but when I visited the Imperial War Museum in London a couple of years ago, I carefully examined the Mark V on the main floor, and you clearly could grab the tread ridge and get pulled along without getting your fingers pinched off. So the story holds water.

Also, as you may know, I am a specialist (or nut, your choice) on Flammenwerfer (FW), and their instructions included the finding that a FW attack from the front was not feasible, and to stalk them from the rear and to enflame them from that direction. I do has details on one such successful attack on a tank with two FWs.

Bob Lembke

[yellow]

Bob,

A very interesting reply.

Could you possibly post a link or photo of those German stick grenades that were bound together during WW1. I had no idea they were used in this configuration. I’ve always thought that was an anti tank measure used by the Wermacht.

The story of the veteran who destroyed three tanks......this must of been a rare occurrence or very early on in the war. Many of the tanks had infantry support and anyone approaching a tank would of most certainly of been shot. Where tanks were used in massed formations one would of assumed any enemy seen riding a tank would of been shot by the crew of another tank. A very lucky man indeed if he did three in one action.

Tanks were vulnerable to almost any weapon of the day bar the machine gun and standard rifle round. People for some reason assume the tanks armour plates were joined together with an almost air tight seal........not the case.........the first tanks were very crude and in some places the distance between plates would be as much as two inches. If someone could get close enough they could push their muzzle of the rifle through the gap!

But do not be mistaken the tank was a formidable weapon and there are accounts of a single tank killing as many as 90 Germans before it was destroyed.......in this case the tank was a whippet.

Steve.

[Simon Jones]

Bob,

A very interesting reply.

Could you possibly post a link or photo of those German stick grenades that were bound together during WW1.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bob - I second that. Do you have a photo of your father?

Steve - Here is a picture of the grenades, from the German Nahkampfmittel manual published 1 January 1917.

Regards

Simon

[ian turner]

Bit of an ill-informed comment perhaps, but I seem to remember reading about the tactic of playing machinegun fire onto single area of a tank's plating. Over time the plate heated up, and even if not pierced, it flaked on the inside, causing harm to the crew. The 'chain-mail' visor and neck-protector helmet being introduced to help avoid injury from such flying flakes?

Ian

[yellow]

Thanks for the reply Simon. I had honestly never heard of these being used during WW1.

The average stick grenade carried a charge of 6-7 oz of TNT so by my calculations and following the manual there is a 42-49 oz of TNT there. Even with that amount a man would have to get very close.

Steve.

[bob lembke]

Steve;

I just noticed the replies; I'll try to go through and respond to the matters that I have a handle on.

I read a lot about Pioniere and I know that the geballtne Ladnung was a common pioneer weapon, which I think were in use as long as the stick grenade was about. There are reports of, say, four or five additional grenade heads being attached; I am sure these were in error. If you look at the diagram you see how six fit snugly about the primary grenade, less would be lop-sided and unstable and might fall apart. There also was a second variant with a second set of six forming a second layer, but this would be very heavy. I have seen them attached with several turns of either black tape or annealed steel wire.

If people are interested in the several standard explosive/flame devices the Pioniere used I could lay it out. I believe that they mostly pre-dated the war. Does anyone know when the stick grenade was introduced? At one point only the pioneers had hand grenades.

The comment about having to be close: The technique that the tank-killing Pionier used was to drop the grenade into an open top hatch, which was open to let some of the fierce heat out. I assume he could see when a hatch was open, which I think was common. Seven concussion grenades going off inside the strong interior of a tank would probably kill every man, or put the odd survivor into a coma. I would also imagine that it would rupture the fuel tanks and pour fuel on the hot engine block. Nuf said.

I don't have an exact date for this training and the incident, but it probably was June 1918 or later, from the extensive material I have on my father's career, including his Militaer=Pass and other documents.

As to the mass attacks, I have read many first-person accounts of tank attacks, from both the British and German side, and an attack that started with say 50 tanks might have 30-40% break down mechanically before even reaching the take-off line, tanks would bog down in mud, get hung up many ways, drive thru a barrage that scattered the infantry, till you often had 5-6 tanks wandering about, often far behind the lines, usually seperated from their infantry, and perhaps really not knowing where they were. They were extremely dangerous, but also extremely vunerable.

I have read of, in British as well as German sources, about an incident when a German officer manned a 77 mm field gun single-handedly, and knocked out 17 British tanks before being killed. He was awarded the singular honor of being mentioned in the British dispatches! Just as well, one tank could do a great deal of harm, especially if the defenders panicked, which was understandable. That is why they went to such trouble to first select veteran storm-troopers, and then give them such an extraordinary training to take the edge off their understandable fear, and also understand the workings and limitations of a tank. I am sure that a Mark IV was used for this training. Most of the operational tanks the Germans had were British Mark IVs; additionally in one car park a Bavarian vehicle maintence unit had almost 200 Mark IVs stockpiled that were felt to be worth rehabing.

Simon;

Thanks for the post of the pages of the Nahkampfmittel manual. I have seen illustrations from it before. Where is it available? Original copies, copy copies, posted on the Internet?

Unfortunately, while I have lots of info on my father, and even a piece of his left upper arm bone blown out by a French 75 on Toter Mann, Verdun on 28. 12. 16., I have almost no wartime photos of him (much more of my grand-father), and none particularily war-like. He collected photos and mailed them to his father from the front (I have cover letters), and they must have gone wherever his photo albums went, into the sands of time.

Also, despite working with computers for 44 years, and having a good scanner, I have never figured how to add attachments. Do you create a file by say, scanning, position the cursor in the post draft text where you want it to go, name the file in the box below, and click "Add this Attachment"? Just guessing. Frankly, for my better stuff, you will have to wait for the book. (Only half-kidding.)

Ian;

It is true that a lot of junk flew about the inside of a tank when they were hit, and there were various efforts to deal with it (To wear chain mail inside a 140 degree tank interior in battle would probably kill the wearer. Probably not, but he would have so much sweat in his eyes he would have beem 3/4 blind.

Snapping my mechanical engineer hat on (six years, Cornell University), I would think that it would be impossible to actually hit one spot with so many rounds that it would locally heat up much, practically speaking, and if you had that much well-aimed firepower you could knock out the tank and/or the crew a lot more effectively firing at a number of specific spots; firing slots and barbettes, vision slots, periscopes (did they have them? I think so.) than attempt to heat the tank to increase spalling. Additionally, having studied steel, strength of materials, heat treating, work hardening, etc. to much a greater extent than actually needed for any practical purpose by a single human being, I would bet dollars (several) to donuts that heating a steel plate significantly (but not many hundreds of degrees) would effectively reduce spalling, not increase it, due to additional rifle caliber impacts from regular ball ammunition. So I think that the "heating" idea is another variant on what we Yanks call an "urban legend".

Bob Lembke

[Simon Jones]

Thanks for the post of the pages of the Nahkampfmittel manual. I have seen illustrations from it before. Where is it available? Original copies, copy copies, posted on the Internet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bob, thanks for your reply - I just bought Nahkampfmittel on eBay! I can email you jpeg scans, if you PM me your email address.

You can add pics which you have resized by using the reply option bottom right, then 'Browse' to find it on your hard drive, then 'Add this attachment', then click on the post where you want to add and use 'Add into post'.

Can't wait for your book!

Regards

Simon

[delta]

Thanks for the reply Simon. I had honestly never heard of these being used during WW1.

The average stick grenade carried a charge of 6-7 oz of TNT so by my calculations and following the manual there is a 42-49 oz of TNT there. Even with that amount a man would have to get very close.

Steve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are reports that the German defenders of Flesquieres used these to take out taking entering the village on the 1st day of Cambrai