Tank Doctrines of the World

[Valles]

Mods may feel free to move ongoing other discussions on the topic here. ^_^

Anyway. I already more or less know what the first Maori 'tanks' are going to be like, and, interestingly, it doesn't involve treads. The trade off of increased mechanical reliability will be felt worth the loss of off-road performance involved in going with 'rover wheels' for Maori armored fighting vehicles, especially since the first generation of them won't be designed for direct assault at all. The Maori tank lineage will evolve from 8x8 self-propelled guns, and not small ones. The 'first generation' platforms - which are, alas, waiting for me to have the time to jump through the 'heavy tank' research hoop - will carry fairly heavy armor out of the expectation that they'll be made priority targets given the Maori doctrine of deploying such weapons close enough to the front for 'direct fire support'.

*considers*

Kind of like a StuG, really, only using a larger gun for, 1, More Dakka, and 2, mutual support between units on the front line. Since the wheels would make it more likely to get stuck, and limit the places it could go if it didn't want to do so, armor would be needful given how much any sensible opponent wouldn't want these things hanging around.

The second-generation models - which might or might not be contemporaneous, depending - would offload the heavy main gun and its ammunition in favor of machine guns and other specifically anti-infantry weapons.

It wouldn't be until the third generation designs that you'd see something like a 35mm or 50mm antiaircraft autocannon fitted in a cupola, creating something more or less like what we think of as a tank, and actual treads won't be appearing until the fourth-generation chassis, however long that takes.

[Logi]

The Republican Army is one of shock and mobility. In other words, possessing the capability to position into the proper place with the highest possible speed, the ability to deal massive damage in a short span of time, only to disengage and wait for another opportunity. A harassing force, in effect. The advantages of a mobile force is greatly appreciated as one notes the continual successes of the Motorized Rocket Corps.

The Republican tanks are already destined to be split down two routes:

The Assault Tanks; heavily armored with a slow speed. They possess a large main gun, used to fight heavy fortifications. In effect, they are something like the StuG, an assault gun. They work side by side with the Line Infantry, which are deposed to take care of large pockets of enemies or other manpower intensive work. Something like the Tanshuo IV, performance is rated as penetration against reinforced concrete.


The Armored Cavalry Tanks; lightly armored to the excesses of at most being able to withstand 0.5" HMG rounds, mounting a medium size high RoF main gun for anti-light fortification work carrying a HMG. It's main emphasize is on speed and only speed. The turrets are little more than a rotating hoist&mount style construction, the turret top open and exposed for reduced tank height and weight. It's constructions will be simplified to the utmost, allowing rapid repairs if it breaks down in the middle of an operation.
For an idea, think M18 Hellcat with less armor and a much less powerful main gun.

The speed to prevent enemies from entrenching or exploiting the breaks in enemy lines to cause havoc within the enemy rear lines is a much desired advantage.

The reason for tanks instead of armored cars for this purpose is quite simple. In China, there aren't a whole lot of roads, which means good cross-country mobility is a MUST. That is something armored cars can not return.

---

Of course, the inherent flaws with the doctrine as visioned is:

1) The Assault Tanks will be very easy to down once adequate AT weaponry is created in response. They are too slow to move out of the way and possess no weapon other than the large bore main gun. Not to mention there would be few spots that require such a tank.

2) The Armored Cavalry would be very easy to knock out of action if a hit is established on them. There may also be no situation for their use as envision, which makes them weak medium tanks. But the idea is tanks are a form of mechanization, like the motorization in the Cavalry force. Just the next step.

[TexanCowboy]

Do we really want to know Romanian tank doctrine?

Ok......



Romanian tank doctrine focuses on eliminating the middleman in explosions, by making them less expensive per explosive, while still just as deadly.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Bavarian armor doctrine is decidedly evolving.  Armored units are kept mobilized to allow training and testing of various doctrines. As vehicles become more capable, doctrine will evolve.

At the current time the armored cars are most reliable and capable of distance travel. They are however most restricted by terrain. They are viewed as supplemental to cavalry, allowing the cavalry the initiative to concentrate mass and firepower at points of their choosing.

tracklaying armored vehicles are seen as unreliable, and limited. Due to the high maintenance needs they are to be applied sparingly and kept near support.

Light tanks are seen as armored machine gun nests able to assist infantry more flexibly than armored cars. The utilization would see light tanks assigned in pairs to infantry battalions for a specific offensive or defensive period.

Heavier tanks are seen as having two prime roles. Bavarian heavy tanks resemble tracked casemented ironclads, with a single bow cannon and a MG, multiple MGs along the side, and an MG turret.



On offense, they can bring point firepower to bear on field fortifications, paving the way for infantry to follow. This would see them advancing en mass, using the bow cannon to engage artillery, MG nests and field fortifications, while the MGs use suppressive fire.  Should it be needed, they will turn broadside to bring the MGs into better use.

When not employed in attack, they should sit in Corps reserve with a high level of readiness. They can then be used to reinforce success, or defensively.

Defensively, they will be brought up behind the threatened line and arranged as large armored pillboxes to anchor a new defensive line. Once troops have withdrawn to their shelter, they can be used for a limited counter attack on the advancing foe, or if the line is secure- withdrawn to the reserve.

[ctwaterman]

The Below is simply my Oppinon please keep that in mind when you return fire *puts on his flak helmet* and makes sure his trench is deep and has overhead cover.   ;)

I think we need to keep our eyes on what the techs we have currently allow.

The 1910 Motorization provides a unit with additional "TACTICAL" Mobility
The 1920 Motorization Provides a unit with the additional "STRATEGIC" Mobility

Its a combination of the two above techs with the 1915 and 1920 Tank Techs that allows us to create certain types of units right now no army in the world is Strategically Mobile.... nobody has the level of trucks and Half Tracks achieved by the US Army in WWII ???   We might have a few brigades of mobile troops with enough trucks to move them but nothing on the level of packing up a division including its artillary, Infantry and Logistics elements and driving it 100 miles in a day !!!!!

What we have is units better at moving a few miles to exploit an open flank or who can take advantage of an opening or opportunity quicker then they could in the past.

Anyway large formations of Motorized Corps are Expensive I know I have 5 of them once a war starts they are very expensive to maintain and will get even more so as Armored Regiments and entire Armored Divisions come into existance.

Charles

[Desertfox]

The Swiss have two completely separate doctrines based on different territories.

Australia requires fast reliable armored vehicles. Will be served by off road capable armored cars armed with light MGs, serving with cavalry.

The real tanks (if I ever get to building them) will be big lumbering beasts design for direct assault on heavily defended positions to completely demoralize the opposition. They'll be slow, unreliable, but heavily armed and armored and will include flamethrowers for maximum physiological effect.

[Carthaginian]

The Confederacy has little use for your strange and expensive toys.
We understand the concepts of armored warfare, just not how they apply to us.

[damocles]

Dutch doctrine is here:

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3518.msg60420#msg60420



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Now that is the 1919-1920 experimental tank. Note the progression in experimentation and the conclusions from the Namur storyline.

This is the first true "Dutch" tank of BRNO design. Again with Bavarian assistance, this experimental tank like the GPW-2 is a proof of concept model.

Current MVB thought based on the GPW-2 and PBW-1 field trials is that a split between light and heavy tanks makes no sense. The light tanks are too easily killed by engine or driver bullet hits from heavy machine guns while the heavy tanks are too much burden and strain for the weak engines and transmissions BRNO can build. In addition, the big tanks just are too slow and too easy a target for the same anti-tank rifles and heavy machine guns that are death to the PBW-1s. Something in the middle of the two extremes seems to be the requirement.  Currently the PBW IVD is in mockup. First ten examples for trials are expected in 2H1921.

Provisional MVB thought on a future pantserbrigade organization sometime around 2H1921 or  1H1922:

-One tank battalion of three tank companies.
-Three mounted infantry battalions either as horse dragoons or lorried. (Depends -on finances and vehicle research. The half track looks promising as a possible infantry lorry.)
-One artillery battalion of motorized towed artillery. (This is definite as soon as the -1915 motorized tech for all units is researched and absorbed)
-One controlling headquarters battalion with pioneer company, scout company, medical company, quartermaster company, and feldpolitei company attached.

Estimated field strength per brigade would be about
-5000 men.
-48-64 pantserwagens
-192 infanteriewagens or 1800 horses
-24 howitzen and pantsertraktors
-100-200 other vehicles.

A lot depends on Bavarian experiments and assistance, but the MVB sees this as the basic building block unit of a future Rikswehr ~ 1925-1926.

Up to 5 such pantserbrigades would be subunits to a controlling korp HQ.  

[maddox]

France buys Italian, untill some French manufactorer gets hold of Dutch plans, and "Frenchifies" those.

[TexanCowboy]

Mine is the most innovative of them all!

[snip]

Ireland, being small, wonders what these "tanks" are.

(Military brass sees the plans and starts to drool. Then they see the cost, and pass out.)

At this time, the consensus withing the Irish Army is not what form tanks will take, but how to kill them fast. This means that there will be a great push for higly mobile means of killing tanks and on ways to get them over open sites of bigger guns. Or maybe it will be better to find a way to bring the big guns to the enemy tanks quickly...

[Laertes]

BLU Consultancies, after several case studies, is leaning towards the creation of "tankette" fleets.

Given advances in air power as a spotting tool for artillery, we believe that slow, heavy armour will inevitably be chewed up by pre-sighted fire against which it cannot retaliate. Thus, head-on armoured attacks will inevitably fail. Artillery-supported infantry - as shown in China - seems to be the only branch able to carry out successful attacks against a prepared position.

The future for armoured warfare is in small, fast vehicles, designed to support the cavalry, and to secure breakthroughs once the infantry have made them. We further believe that advances in communications - possibly by putting a miniaturised wireless set* in the troop leader's vehicle - will help defray the inevitable confusion and disorganisation of this style of warfare.

---

*BLU Consultancies is aware that such a technology does not exist. On the other hand, we feel that with sufficient research funding, its development might be possible.