tank fright

this was the major problem of the rumanian army.....just the appearance of soviet tanks made entire units to flee,from; soldiers to officers everyone was terrified when they would have to face tank units even though were old or updated tanks with poor tactics the rumanian units were in most situations overrun.
this tendency did not changed as the war progressed........
this was not true for all rumanian units but the majority behaved in this manner which is very sad
P.S. excuse my english i know it is very poor

I think you need to read some speciality books about this subject. You couldn't be more wrong in what you said. I recommend "Romanii la Stalingrad" as a very interesting study on what you said - and which proves you have no ideea what you are talking about.

Hallo bebe

With regards infantry men facing tanks it was alwas a disturbing anxious time for the individual involved, from the time of WW1, WW2 even up today with no-matter how much simulation and training a soldiers intial reaction is to be nervous, listing to the engine roar and clank of tank treads, coming closer, a perfectly normal reaction, in the circumstances.

The Russians tended to use Mass tank waves to swamp the Infantry and there are many accounts of troops breaking and running in face of this.

I know from personal experiance in 1979-80 having faced Christian Militaia tanks (Super-Sherman's) in Lebanon approaching my UN postion, the mouth goes dry and the heart starts pounding because you have no idea what this steel beast is going to do, and the 84mm Carl Gustaff Anti-tank rocket launcer in your hands seems very small compared with the weapon on the tank coming at you.



My personal photo by the way.

Kevin in Deva

This post has been edited by New Connaught Ranger on January 24, 2007 01:35 pm

Good point, Ranger. Did you get a tank kill, btw?

I think the main Romanian troop problem when dealing with tanks was the lack of appropriate anti-tank guns. They were using "door-knockers" 37mm and 47mm Breda guns on T-34's. These guns were simply useless on T-34's, by many German accounts. In the fall of '41, the Germans were able to circumvent the situation by using a variety of other weapons, such as the Flak 88 - which was a killer, as well as getting very close with the fast and manoeuvreable PzIII's. They rarely relied on engineers placing demolition charges on tanks (man-on-tank combat).

Romanians only received the 50mm and 75mm Paks (and manufactured a 75mm Resita Pak) in late '43 and '44, and even then they were not sufficient in numbers.

There is a famous WWII German manual on how a soldier can deal with a tank. It's been translated into English and it's floating around the web. I had it saved once, but I lost it.

It would be useful to post here - hint for anyone who might have this manual.

Thanks.

This post has been edited by mabadesc on January 24, 2007 01:47 pm

Hallo mabadesc,

With regards my post and picture, we were in a postion in the village of Bhy'tahoun on the edge of the Christian Militia enclave, and the UNIFIL area our job was to monitor and block the roads leading to Tibnin and surrounding villages.

Every so often the Christians would bring their tanks as close to our postions as possible, under our terms of engagement we had to receive fire from them before we could open fire in defence, the exception being if they crossed into our (UN) space, we could then engage, in this case, as with many other probes they stopped a couple of meters on their side of the line.

But even today I recall the heart thumping in the chest, nervousnous, and a very dry mouth.

War of Nerves!! We were facing this beast:



This Picture from; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:M5...an-latrun-1.jpg



This picture shows an 84mm weapon, in the hands of my buddy Corporal M. O'Donnel, from my pictures:



But I was ready to rock & roll not sure what the out-come would have been but when your 19 y.o. you tend not to think about the finer points in life

Kevin in Deva.

This post has been edited by New Connaught Ranger on January 24, 2007 05:34 pm

Well said! I'm' sure you would have done alright, though...
I kind of envy you for your experiences in the military.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.... tank fright in WWII.

first of all in 1941 and begining of 42 ro army faced light russian tanks,obsolete models against which the 47 mm AT gun was effectiv( i guess the 37 mm was also fit for the job if it was used properly) but i was refering to the huge diference between rumanian army infantry and german infantry: the germans remained in their foxholes ,let themselves overrun by the tanks then engage the russian infantry following the tanks with MG grenades etc and the tanks were then forced to fall back or be destroyed by tank hunting teams...
p.s. before the barbarossa offensive the german infantry was never put in such situation thus it did not had previous experience in solo infantry vs tanks warfare
i think it was the lack of knowledge regarding technological progress that made the rumanian soldiers to consider tanks as invincible

1. Can you back up with historical data the fact that T-34s were not used against the romanian army in '41 and beggining of '42?
2. In the period you are describing, ('41-early'42), there were no major engagements between Romanian troops and Soviet armor used "en masse". Your initial "tank fright" supposition was only born as a result of the Don Bend battles and the August 20 Soviet offensive in Moldova. Therefore, your point is moot.
3. You "guess" the 37mm was fit if used "properly". Once again, where is the data? If you check this site, you'll find the armor penetration capabilities of AT guns in the "Artillery" section (mm steel plate/at distance in m).

1. The events you describe - infantry letting itself overrun by tank wedges or bells (Panzerkeil/Panzerglocke) in an armored assault occurred very, very rarely even on the German side. Armored assaults were dealt with combined weapons coordination - Pak fronts, artillery, Flak, Fighter-bomber aid - before the tank mass reached infantry lines.
2. Because of the aforementioned point #1, only isolated tanks reached infantry lines, which is a totally different scenario.
3. Please clarify "tank hunting teams". If you mean panzer or assault gun groups, then yes. If you mean infantry tank hunting teams, then it's false.

My conclusions and opinion based on the historical works I've read:
1. Yes, there was a difference in infantry quality between Germans and Romanians. Not many people will deny this.
2. A portion of the difference is due to training, the majority is accounted by lack of equipment.
3. Tank-on-man combat occurred in rare and desperate situations, and never on an "armored assault" basis (tank waves - as was the Soviet technique).

Take care.

Good thing you didn't insert the atribute SLIGHT there ... A slight difference .... lol ...

Unfortunately I see that many myths continue to perpetuate themselves, mostly due to the existant lack of knowledge on the subject. What I find troubling is one's easiness of talking in very general terms about a subject one does not really know that well. The aim of this forum is to have informed and interesting discussions on historical facts, not airing personal opinions (for that we have the non-historical sections).

The first misconception is the fact that the Red Army tactics commonly used mass armored assaults on infantry positions. In reality, the major Soviet offensives started with an infantry assault (with some tank support) meant to create a breach in the enemy position. Only after the breach was created were the tank/mechanzied corps engaged. Their task was to penetrate behind enemy lines, disorganize the rear echelon area, prevent the intervention of enemy reserves, cut off supply lines etc. Thus the concept of "deep battle", as it was named.

Operation Uranus began with infantry assaults, which failed or progressed very slowly in front of the lightly entrenched Romanian infantry. Only in the afternoon was taken the decision to send tank corps head-on into Romanian positions and this was because the offensive was behind schedule. The tanks simply passed through, leaving the rifle divisions to deal with the Romanian infantry.

The second misconception is that first-line infantry usually fled when seeing a tank. The first logical idea that should cross one's mind is to imagine how can someone think that he can outrun a tank in a snow-covered field. Most of the first line units stood and fought, especially since the first assaults were carried out by Soviet infantry. The common tactic was to separate the tanks from the infantry and let them enter your own positions, where they can be engaged from close distance and disabled (the site contains the memoirs of a Romanian pioneer who was part of a tank-hunting team). This has happened times before Uranus.

The fleeing Romanians encountered by German troops at Stalingrad were mostly rear-area troops, which were very poorly armed and lacked good leadership. The failure of 3rd Army's reserves to stop the Soviet penetration and the speed with which the Soviet mechanzied units advanced towards rear-echelon areas created the panic among these men. Whereever the Soviet spearheads encountered first-line units, they also encountered organized resistance.

There would be more to write about, but not enough time.

Absolutely. A great (and obvious) point which only helps to dispel the myth of romanian front-line troops running from tank fright.

A prominent description of this is given by Stuka pilot Rudel, but one needs to keep in mind how difficult it would be to differentiate between first-line troops and rear-area supply troops from a flying plane.

If this discussion continues, I think it's important for everyone to define exactly which level, or step of the battle we are talking about, and use more specific quantities. Your description above is accurate, but it is also accurate to say that from a simple trench soldier's perspective, seeing 20 or 30 or 100 tanks in front of you constitutes an armored assault, regardless of whether they are attacking in support of the initial infantry assault, or as a second phase of the battle - the actual tank assault through the already made breach.


This post has been edited by mabadesc on January 26, 2007 03:28 pm

Even the official German investigation after the battle of the Don's Bend didn't reveal the tank fright you are talking about. From the entire 3rd Romanian Army, a single battalion broke and fled when attacked by Soviet armour. Even that particular battalion was quickly regrouped and sent back to face the tanks. None of the German officers attached to Romanian units, who witnessed the fights, accused our units of such things. Other Germans did, but they weren't there to see and they were just looking for a scapegoat for defeats caused by the arrogance and incompetence of their own leaders.

If the Romanian troops would have been as weak and useless as you describe them, you can be sure that the Germans wouldn't have used them in any kind of operations. It's sad for me to see that there are a lot of Romanians that know next to nothing about our real history and take as granted false views on the Romanian army from foreign sources.

Hallo Dragos,

The fact that these troops broke, when faced with a tank attack points to the fact they were fearful of tanks, soldiers have ran from other soldiers during a infantry assault never mind when tanks have been bought into the picture.

* So what reason did the OFFICIAL German Investigation give for this battalion breaking, they went home for dinner??

With regards Romanian history and the conduct of the troops being mis-represented I would suggest the people who have knowledge about the FACTS and the FIGURES publish them, otherwise they are just as guilty at perpetuating the myth that the Romanians were useless.

Under the old communist regime books detailing how good the Romanians were against the Communist no doubt would not have been popular, but that time is over, if you have the facts and figures then please publish them.

Not every person who joins a forum has the same knowledge and expertease as the others, if we did, we would have no need for a forum.

The starter of this topic (bebe) has a total of 11 post as of January 26th 2007,
you on the other hand have 636, instead of jumping down the guys throat, you no doubt could list a bit more than look at "Romanii la Stalingrad."
To junior members and posters we should offer encouragement, guide them in the right direction.

I for one would love to know more about the Romanian Army in both WW1 & WW2 but I am hampered by the fact I dont know enough Romanian to read it and understand it.

It might be interesting to see some more books being translated into English or even completely re-written by somebody of this generation using old documents and information.

And just so you dont feel so bad, I have read reference to the Hungarian, Bulgarian, Italian etc..etc.. being blamed by the Germans for the reason they failed.

Kevin in Deva.

For mr New Connaught Ranger I say again: if you want to read a hard study on the case with facts, figures, real references to archived documents, letters betwen romanian HQ and german HQ,letters betwen Antonescu and Hitler and other vital information on the issue, please get your hands on the book entitled "Romanii la Stalingrad", else do not ask me or Victor or anyoine else to reproduce 476 pages in here.
Dragos, Victor, Denes, others (me included) gave sources many times but I think none of the times those who asked for infos actually read any of them..

Well, for starters, there is plenty of material on this site, including descriptions of the battle, memoirs of veterans, etc. Victor and Dragos have spent a lot of time to write and translate these materials. Sadly, it seems that few people are actually using them. A whole book in English about Romania in WW2 is posted on this forum. Bebe or others could start by reading them. Not to mention that very detailed books, such as "Romanii la Stalingrad", are not that hard to find.

And I didn't "jump down the guys throat", there's nothing personal about it. I just said that I'm sad.