Monday 29 December 2014

German Experience in the Spanish Civil War

"DOKUMENT
Oberkommando des Heeres.
Berlin, den 30. 3. 1939.
Gen St d H Nr. 130/39 g. Kdos. O. Qu. III
125 Ausfertigungen. Prüfnr. 56

The following is a report on the participation of the German Army in the Spanish Civil War and the lessons learned.
...
7. Tank forces

The use of obsolete Spanish and foreign armoured cars for reconnaissance was unsatisfactory due to insufficient off-road performance.

Italian light machinegun tanks were successfully used by infantry for close reconnaissance. Spanish infantry did not use their tanks in this manner. According to German observers, the tank could achieve better and quicker results after a successful breakthrough than just patrols on foot.

As an offensive weapon, tanks were used little in Spain, in small amounts of less than 50 vehicles and without appropriate support from artillery or trained infantry.

Aside from valuable and vast technical experience with vehicles, there are several points that must be analyzed carefully due to the specifics of this war. For instance, it was impossible to organize cooperation between tanks and infantry or artillery for both White and Red forces. From the Red side, Russian tanks broke off from infantry and were destroyed by Spanish nationalists, which threw incendiary bottles and hand grenades at them, and which could only be prevented by accompanying Red infantry due to the tanks' small numbers.

The German machinegun tanks [PzI] were not used in large units. The tanks were subordinated to infantry in small groups and supported it from line to line like an armoured infantry gun. Machinegun tanks could not achieve a decisive effect, since infantry was often incapable of capturing and holding territory, or did not deem it necessary. They were defenseless against sudden appearances of gun tanks [T-26], except at very short ranges.

It was already known since the World War that a gun tank has an advantage over a machinegun tank in a duel, and this was also true in Spain. On the other hand, the fact that machinegun tanks could penetrate Russian tanks at 100 meters and the effect of antitank guns led to Russian tanks approaching to a range of 1000 meters and firing from the spot, rarely moving closer. Gun tanks were frequently a decisive factor of the success of the Reds.

In general, it can be said that our ideas of tank-compatible terrain are very limited. It was possible to find out impassable obstacles and drive around them. It was harder for small tanks used in Spain due to many small obstacles, low stone garden walls, rough terrain with bushes, small but sudden changes in elevation, small rivers, and heavy wet silty soil.

Unlike in peacetime training and especially demonstrations, tanks in periods of long war should be taken care of just like horses, and should, if possible, avoid even small obstacles in order to not break down at a crucial moment.

During street fighting in Madrid, tanks had difficulty in streets with barricades, as they could not use their speed or fire at upper floors or roofs. Tanks armed with flamethrowers were used effectively in street fighting.

Foreign opinion suggests that tanks are effective when applied suddenly, in large amounts, and against an enemy that is already wavering, along with artillery support. Armour and armament are more important than speed or range. A tank unit needs means of fighting enemy tanks. All tank attacks not protected from tank or anti-tank guns, or done without an infantry escort, led to heavy losses and achieved success only through chance.

Light tanks are effective only with flamethrowers, their machinegun fire is inaccurate on the move. However, machineguns with special ammunition are being developed.

In general, tanks in Spain are used in insignificant amounts and without support from other types of forces. Anti-tank artillery, which was often used in small numbers, only sometimes surpassing the enemy, was often ineffective.

8. Anti-tank defenses

Due to a small amount of tanks and anti-tank guns used, experience gained was primarily technical and tactical. The use of anti-tank guns in Spain was always according to principles of the 14th company of an infantry regiment. Principle of use as an anti-tank unit were not applicable. Based on experience, including in Madrid, anti-tank guns have proven their reliability. They have shown that they can successfully fight Russian gun tanks. Based on the actions of Russian tanks in Spain (firing from 1000 meters and use for special tasks that arose in Spanish conditions), the limited range of anti-tank guns is insufficient. As a temporary solution, the sight scale should be increased to 1000 meters, but having a long range anti-tank gun is preferable.

He-112 fought armoured cars successfully. The S-30 machinegun with 2 cm armour piercing rounds is sufficiently effective.

If an anti-tank defense is well organized, many tanks will be lost, as it was shown that anti-tank guns surpass tanks in rate of fire, precision, and shot power, while being small and hard to notice even while firing.

Due to a lack of artillery in Spain, anti-tank guns were successfully used during offensive and defensive action as infantry guns against machinegun nests, concrete bunkers, and assaults on settlements, in combination with machinegun tanks. This was an infrequently used method, as it was feared that gun positions will be discovered ahead of time.

According to reports, it is adequate to have one gun every 200 meters when defending. This is adequate for limited amounts of tanks used in Spain, but not for massed use of tanks.

Red anti-tank trenches 500 meters long or more turned out to be completely impassable. They were made in mountain roads using explosives. Presence of other obstacles like concrete walls with closed off passages or streets covered in felled trees paralyzed movement.

Due to an extended front line and a lack of experienced sappers, anti-tank mines were not tested in large amounts.

In close combat, bottles with a flammable liquid and sulphuric acid were used effectively. Tanks that were hit caught fire and were knocked out."

Militägeschichte. 1976. № 3. S. 332-334.

7 comments:

  1. Never seen such a mess, several inaccuracies and misleading descriptions!

    1) "The German machinegun tanks [PzI] were not used in large units. The tanks were subordinated to infantry in small groups and supported it from line to line like an armoured infantry gun"

    - Wrong. They did not see any actions, since it was not necessity to engage.

    "Ein Einsatz der deutschen Maschinengewehrpanzer im Abteilungsverband kam nicht zustande, die Panzer wurden vielmehr in kleinen und kleinsten Einheiten der Infanterie unmittelbar unterstellt und begleiteten sie von Sprung zu Sprung als gepanzerte schwere Infanteriewaffe"

    2) "In general, it can be said that our ideas of tank-compatible terrain are very limited."

    - Wrong. This now contradicts heavy to what been said originally.

    "Ganz allgemein hat sich gezeigt, daß unsere Begriffe von Panzerwagengelände oft stark friedensmäßig beeinflußt sind."

    2) "It was possible to find out impassable obstacles and drive around them. It was harder for small tanks used in Spain due to many small obstacles, low stone garden walls, rough terrain with bushes, small but sudden changes in elevation, small rivers, and heavy wet silty soil.

    -So wrong, My xxx!

    "Absolute Hindernisse konnten im allgemeinen rechtzeitig erkannt und umgangen werden. Sehr viel stärker fielen, wenigstens für die in Spanien verwendeten kleinen Panzer, die Anhäufung von kleinen Hindernissen, niedrige Gesteinumwallungen von Gärten und Weideplätzen, unebenes Buschgelände, kleine überraschende Steilhänge, Flußrinnsale, schwerer nasser Lehmboden ins Gewicht"

    I won't bother to go further through that mess, such a sloppy accomplished translation is not even worth one minute of reading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice to see that you have the German, so we can all throw it into Google Translate to see who's closer :-)

      Delete
    2. I was translating a Russian translation of the original, so there may be some errors due to this double translation.

      Delete
  2. I'd say our Mister Anonymous is prone to a little exaggeration...

    1) I don't see a difference in meaning here:
    "Ein Einsatz der deutschen Maschinengewehrpanzer im Abteilungsverband kam nicht zustande[...]"
    Does in no way imply that ""The German machinegun tanks [PzI] were not used in large units.[...]" should be wrong. The rest is virtually the same.

    2) My translation of the German would be:
    "Generally, combat experience has shown that our assumptions about tank compatible terrain are heavily influenced by peace-time operations." The sentence implies that manouvre experience from training is far from actual needs/capabilities in combat manouvre.

    3) "Absolute Hindernisse konnten im allgemeinen rechtzeitig erkannt und umgangen werden" would be better translated as "It was normally very well possible to discover and avoid impassable obstacles." With emphasis on the discovering and avoidance being no big deal.
    The second part would be better suited in not saying "It was harder for small tanks[..]" but "A much bigger problem for the used small tanks were the many small obstacles[..]"
    As far as I see it, this is directly related to the "peace time assumptions" in 2). Eg. In training it would be assumed that the (small) tank could 'crush' the small obstacle. In war-time they wouldn't risk it because the light tank might brake down.

    just my two cents on it.

    Overall: I'd really appreciate German original documents to be linked, if possible. From what I gathered in the past year, Peter does a great job of translating the Russian into English, but often there are nuisances lost in double translation that do actually change meaning. In this very case it's negligible , though.

    regards,
    Clark

    ReplyDelete
  3. Since when we translate " Ein Einsatz.... kam nicht zustande" into "The German machinegun tanks [PzI] were not used in large units.[...] ?" Thats nutty!

    Einsatz = engagement
    kam nicht zustande = did not occur

    with a proceeding wording: "...the tanks rather accompanied the Infantrie in small subordinated units.. " negligible diffrences? certainly not!

    "Generally, combat experience has shown that our assumptions about tank compatible terrain are heavily influenced by peace-time operations." The sentence implies that manouvre experience from training is far from actual needs/capabilities in combat manouvre.

    Oh well, instead using google translator to make some laughable assumptions, you better ask someone which is influential in german to dismiss my points, rather than make a fool of yourself.

    Begriff ≠ assumptions !!!!
    Begriff(e) = plural

    That word "Begriffe" implies that the general comprehensibility of the Tanks-strengths in non-urban terrain is yet not well known, because its previous expericene was to heavily influenced by peace-time practices for any good use in real combat!!!!

    You would certainly not have passed with any of the profs I had in college. But lets thrown any primary context out the window, like the grammar and punctuation, ( *cough* manouvre *cought*) because those few cases are really negligible. I could spit a dozen more of mistaken sentence out of the article to your face, but Peter actually acknowledge the consensus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know if Mr. Clark knows German, though at least his translation is smoother than a machine translator. I'll admit I'm dependent on Google Translate and looking up singular words in the dictionary from the Get-Go.

      >Einsatz = engagement / kam nicht zustande = did not occur

      Well, Anonymous, then you'll have to fight the Russian translator (a professional), Google Translate, and also German-English dictionaries. A quick check suggests "Einsatz" shows up in them to mean "Use" and never as "Engagement".

      Further, even if we crossed out "Use" and put in "Engage", the sentence becomes "The German machinegun tanks [PzI] were not *engaged* in large units" ... which still isn't a huge deviation.

      >Begriff ≠ assumptions !!!! / Begriff(e) = plural

      In the dictionary, I've seen the former come out as "Concept", which is still not a great difference. The plural is rendered correctly so I'm not sure what you are complaining about.

      >That word "Begriffe" implies that the general comprehensibility of the Tanks-strengths in non-urban terrain is yet not well known, because its previous expericene was to heavily influenced by peace-time practices for any good use in real combat!!!!

      That's not horribly different from cutting to the chase and just saying that "In general, it can be said that our ideas of tank-compatible terrain are very limited", is it?

      Delete
  4. "Ein Einsatz der deutschen Maschinengewehrpanzer im Abteilungsverband kam nicht zustande,[...]"

    Der obige Satz bedeutet NICHT, das die Panzer nicht eingesetzt wurde, sondern stellt fest, dass sie nicht im Verbund eingesetzt wurden.
    The above sentence does NOT imply, that the tanks weren't used at all, but states that they were not used as independent manouvre units.

    "[...]die Panzer wurden vielmehr in kleinen und kleinsten Einheiten der Infanterie unmittelbar unterstellt"
    Dieser Halbsatz erklärt also, dass die Panzer stattdessen einzeln oder in Paaren (das bedeutet im Normalfall kleine und kleinste Einheiten) eingesetzt wurden.
    This part of the sentence explains that, that the Tanks were instead used individually or in pairs (which is what "kleine und kleinste Einheiten" normally implies).

    Oh, and I am very sorry for spelling manoeuvre wrong, this, of course, implies that I am incompetent. I can't draw from my University education for the translation and grammar never was my strong suit. I was just brought up in an English/German bilingual home.

    regards,
    Clark

    ReplyDelete