What is the significance of tanks in WWII?

[Sirota]

Why were tanks, in general, important in WWII?

[Angrychris]

First time used in massive numbers and in modern build/combat. Prevent trench warfare and cover terrain faster. Anti-personal.

[Sirota]

Alright man, thanks a lot!

[Angrychris]

Your A belongs to me now.

[Sirota]

Well the mass-production and modern industrialization of tanks points will certainly help!

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Do you understand warfare of the Hellenic era? Lines of pikeman holding each other in place while heavy cavalry and light infantry attempt to outflank?

Well that's like modern warfare. Light infantry hold the enemy in place. Armoured units break through the enemy lines. Once you are through the enemy line you can do terrible things to them. You can attack them from behind, you can take out their logistics, command and support, you can cut the enemy off behind your lines, or you even can plow into their country and destroy their military-industrial complex. Armoured units also counter enemy breakthroughs.

Without tanks WWII would have been WWI all over again

[Poach]

Tanks (and Armour as a whole) played a vital role in the Second World War:

The Blitzkrieg doctrine, which secured the Fall of France effectively closing the Western Front on land until the landings in Italy and France, was based on fast Armour supported by Motorised Infantry and Close Air Support. Without the Armour component the units engaged in causing havoc behind enemy lines would have been robbed of a great deal of their firepower.

Secondly, as ireland has pointed out, tanks prevented stalemate. Machine guns, by now, had become much more reliable and portable since their rise to prominence in the trenches of the Great War. They were far more common amongst the soldiery by then and even a single company had enough firepower to turn any hill or village into a meatgrinder for unsupported infantry attacks.

Essentially, by the time the Second World War was in full swing, you couldn't hope to get anything done without Armour, atleast in Europe. This was somewhat different in the Pacific, where the terrain meant that Armour became secondary to Infantry and generally only appeared in small units of Light Armour to support Infantry movement. Armour provided a highly mobile and well protected artillery piece right into the centre of the battlefield, able to advance clean over obstacles like barbed wire and trenches that could delay any infantry units indefinately and engage enemy fortifications too well sited or protected for longer range artillery or air power to engage.

To answer your question in a single sentence: Extremely significant in Europe, still of importance in Asia, and a deliverer of major change to the way warfare is conducted.

[Demetrios of Messene]

Why were tanks, in general, important in WWII?

Because due to the reasons explained by the previous posters tanks act as force multipliers in a land army by combining quality (in terms of speed, armour, firepower) and quantity (made possible by industrial advances).

WWII in particular was the war when tanks first showed their importance, because tactical operations were for the first time designed in order to take full advantages of the tank (unlike WWI).

[Fionn son of Cumhaill]

To put it simply Tanks had become the cavaly of the modern era... While they were used in the First World War to great effect they proved to be almost unstoppable when pitched against obsolete armies take the Polish defense against the Nazis as a prime example, as they were not equipped to deal with the heavy armor(granted heavy artillery could destroy them depending on the calibre of the projectile used but as a whole they were too fast moving to be destroyed in signifigent numbers), and as such they were destined to be defeated... Tanks could be held at bay by anti tank guns and more impromptu methods, e.g. grenades or sticky bombs up close et cetera, but they would often fail... And when they were supported by infantry and aircraft they would madean army nigh on unstoppable(unless of course the enemy had a similar calibre tactical modus operandi and weapons)

Tanks melded the mobility of cavalry with the firepower of artilery and also the anti infantry effectiveness of heavy machine guns...

[Domen123]

The Polish army is not a very good example. In terms of AT defence they were quite capable at least in inflicting casualties (they were significant - ca. 1500 tanks knocked out, several hundreds written off + several hundreds armoured cars). The problem was lack of AT reserve on divisional level and higher levels (like AT battalion in German divisions and independent AT battalions on Corps and Army level), AT guns were dispersed between infantry regiments (and they were horse-drawn instead of being towed by motor vehicles) and indeed there was too low number of AT guns (27 AT guns per division while in German divisions it was 72 AT guns per division).

Also it should be noted that the Poles didn't manage to halt the German armour for long time because they had got a lot of gaps in their frontline (especially after September 3) and German armour often didn't have to break their defensive lines - only to bypass them taking advantage of those gaps and outflanking them.

That's how 4. Pz.Div. got to the outskirts of Warsaw in 8 days (btw., it had got hard times on 1 IX near Mokra, on 2 IX near Ostrowy, in both battles it was halted by Polish Wolynska Cavalry Brigade - then it simply bypassed the Polish defences taking advantage of the success achieved by its neighbour, 1. Pz.Div.). At Warsaw it was repulsed on 9 IX with heavy losses (Warsaw surrendered on 27 September and further siege of Warsaw after 9 IX was being conducted by infantry divisions).

Light artillery (75mm, 100mm) was also efficient against light tanks by direct fire.

Heavy artillery wasn't really able to conduct direct fire (only indirect), so it was not as accurate, but 1 hit = tank eliminated.

Polish army possesed a number of AT rifles which were able to immobilize a tank by killing its crew and causing some damages inside.

In France in 1940 where the Allies had much more tanks than the Poles in 1939, the German armour performed even better with similar casualties.

In the USSR in June of 1941 German armour also pierced the Soviet lines much easier and faster than in Poland in 1939.

The best example of an army incapable of AT defense and obsolete in terms of AT defence is probably the Yugoslavian army in 1941.

The German Army Group "Center" also suffered huge price for lack of proper (numerous & mobile enough) AT defence during Operation Bagration in 1944.

They lost entire Army Group (400,000 men, ca. 26 divisions destroyed) in 2 weeks. The Soviet average speed of advance in Bagration was 25 km per day.

The 400 km wide gap in the German frontline appeared after the destruction of Army Group "Center" in two weeks.

Bagration was the biggest German military defeat in WW2 and probably one of the biggest in their entire military history.

Tanks could be held at bay by anti tank guns and more impromptu methods, e.g. grenades or sticky bombs up close et cetera, but they would often fail...

Yes, to held tanks it is the best to have numerous and mobile (either self-propelled or towed by motor vehicles) anti-tank defence.

The Germans in 1944 made a mistake because they decided to produce low numbers of powerful heavy AT guns (e.g. 88mm) instead of producing smaller numbers of a bit less powerful (but still capable of destroying most of Allied tanks) 50mm and 75mm AT guns. Maybe 88mm was efficient (1 hit = 1 kill) but it had slow rate of fire.

It was also too big for AT gun - the 88mm was an easy target for enemy aircrafts and it was hard to mask it (AT guns should be masked or hidden somewhere).

That's why they lost at Bagration (when you have 1 - 2 AT guns per each km of the frontline and the enemy has 20 - 30 tanks per each km, you can't win).

In 1939 and 1940 German AT defense was more capable than in 1944. In 1939 and 1940 they had got 72 AT guns per division, while in 1944 only ca. 30 AT guns per division. AT guns were heavier in 1944 than in 1939, but also enemy tanks were heavier in 1944 than in 1939. So - overall - their AT defence in 1944 was weaker.

Also - during Bagration German Army Group "Center" had only small amount of self-propelled Tank Destroyers (most of guns were towed or horse-drawn).

An anti-tank gun must be mobile on the battlefield because when tanks get very close it should be able to withdraw or change its position.

---------------------------

Holding tanks by grenades or sticky bombs or even AT rifles / bazookas was not very probable in open terrain (in urban combat - yes, but not in open terrain).

And even if infantry succeded in holding tanks in open terrain using only such close combat weapons, it payed heavy price in KIA and WIA for such a victory.

[neillombardi]

Just to give another perspective, tanks are important but having them alone won't win you any war. Similar to air forces in the modern battlefield, you will always require ground troops to capture cities in urban warfare, especially when keeping the city intact is essential to the invading force.

[Salem1]

Similar to air forces in the modern battlefield, you will always require ground troops to capture cities in urban warfare, especially when keeping the city intact is essential to the invading force.

I never understood the point of this. Why would you waste soldiers trying to dislodge an army defending an urban environment instead of just destroy and burn the entire place apart? Then you can guard every exit, subterranean or not, with your ground forces and shell the city from outside with artillery. Those guys sending troops into cities are onto something I'm not I guess...

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

Those guys sending troops into cities are onto something I'm not I guess...

wars are always won on the ground and always will be

[Lysimachus]

I never understood the point of this. Why would you waste soldiers trying to dislodge an army defending an urban environment instead of just destroy and burn the entire place apart? Then you can guard every exit, subterranean or not, with your ground forces and shell the city from outside with artillery. Those guys sending troops into cities are onto something I'm not I guess...

The Allies tried this in WWII, but then they realised bombers couldn't win wars and that conventional methods had to be used.

[hellheaven1987]

I never understood the point of this. Why would you waste soldiers trying to dislodge an army defending an urban environment instead of just destroy and burn the entire place apart? Then you can guard every exit, subterranean or not, with your ground forces and shell the city from outside with artillery. Those guys sending troops into cities are onto something I'm not I guess...

The issue is it would not destroy the defenders, as Battle of Stalingrad shows. Besides, the human right issue would really give a nasty reputation for those who attack civilians, at worst a war against whole world.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I never understood the point of this. Why would you waste soldiers trying to dislodge an army defending an urban environment instead of just destroy and burn the entire place apart? Then you can guard every exit, subterranean or not, with your ground forces and shell the city from outside with artillery. Those guys sending troops into cities are onto something I'm not I guess...

The russians tried this in chechnya. Look what happened there, they were miserably defeated.

What are your objectives? Are you trying to kill as many people as possible? Fine, do that, although sending men in would still be better. Of course noone in posession of their mental faculties ever issues orders like that. Is your objective to destroy the enemy army? Then you need footsoldiers.

[Holger Danske]

Tanks are a mobil gun platform which enables you to put heavy firepower directly on to a target nearly instantly. They are a weapon system which, like all else have weaknesses and thus must be supported by infantry and air cover. Remove one of these two and tanks become extremely vulnerable.

[Angrychris]

If you control the air you control the battle. They may be won on the ground but air superiority controls everything.

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

If you control the air you control the battle. They may be won on the ground but air superiority controls everything.

I don't see how that opposes what I said. my post was directed towards those who keep insinuating that ALL we need to ever do is bomb the enemy into Kingdom Come, And as I said that's all well and good but the land war is what seals the deal. Maybe you misunderstood me.

[Holger Danske]

If you control the air you control the battle. They may be won on the ground but air superiority controls everything.

You can't hold ground with airpower. You'll always need the infantry for that.