"Infantry only battles post-1939?" Topic

Are there any post-1939 battles won entirely, or primarily, by infantry, or infantry and artillery but not involving tanks and aircraft?

Thanks.

At the level of "battles" probably not. But at smaller scales sure. Loads of battles in the Pacific theater were primarily infantry fights. Ditto on the Eastern front. Lots of urban fighting was dominated by infantry.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "battle."

Battalion-plus.

Thanks

Yes of course. Most infantrymen were lucky to even see a tank.

If you are looking at battalion level, then countless thousands of such engagements were fought without the presence of a single armoured vehicle (well, maybe a few carriers or Konsomlets).

I would normally think of a 'battle' in WW2 involving a few divisions, if not several corps, and lasting days/weeks/months though.

That's good. Martin R, in which case, any that might be termed major or decisive victories? Can you name some you may be thinking about? Thanks.

Bloody Ridge on Guadalcanal. Marine infantry stood off a Japanese infantry attack at night. There was some American air support, but it wasn't particularly effective, and some involvement by light tanks, again not very effective:

link

Drinuimor River on New Guinea. A US Cavalry regiment (dismounted) stood off a breakout attempt by a depleted Japanese division. Another night battle:

link

I'm guessing there were quite a few in China, including ones involving British and American raider forces.

Can't say about aircraft, but Imphal/Kohima looks to have involved isolated battles not all of which involved tanks. link link

They did include resupply by air though.

Hürtgen Forest was fought by mostly infantry in its initial stages.

The Milne Bay (Japanese had a couple of light tanks, but they were bogged/shot up quite quickly), Kokoda, Buna-Gona (a few Australian M-3 Stuarts and Bren carriers made a late appearance, but mostly an infantry fight), Wau and Finschhafen are worth looking at. Shaggy Ridge is a battalion attack along a very high, knife-back ridge and the Markham Valley gives you the chance to use paratroops as well.

In Europe/Russia, there's a few mountain campaigns or perhaps the larger commando raids that may suit.

Guadalcanal – Marine 1st Raider and 1st Para against the Kawaguchi (35th) IJA Brigade. Primarily a night action without tanks and aircraft, limited artillery. (Edson's Ridge)

Guadalcanal – IJA 2nd (Sendai Division) against the 1st/7th Marine Regiment (Chesty Puller and CMH Manila John Basilone).

Makin Atoll – Marine Raiders and a small Japanese garrison, along with an attempted Japanese reinforcement by transport aircraft. This could be refought at a 1:1 ratio, without two much effort.

Battle of Keren. The largest battle in the East African campaign. Although the British had some tanks and carriers they couldn't participate as the only route forward they could take was a tunnel that was blocked up so all the actual fighting was infantry and artillery with some air support.

Terrific. I'll start with those suggestions. Thanks.

Northwest Europe is harder due to the greater prevalence of attached tanks in Allied divisions, but e.g. the actions by the parachute and airlanding units in the opening stages of both DDay and Arnhem were largely tankless.

Some pretty big engagements (up to brigade size).

Much of the fighting in Italy was also tankless due to the difficult terrain.

I'd have to look at some books for specific examples.

Generally you are not going to find many battles involving "first-world" forces during this time frame that do not involve combined arms. There needs to be special conditions that limit the availability of these assets.

Do a google search for the "Battle of Fox Hill" rather epic defense of a key pass during the Chosin Resevoir campaign. Fox Co, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment held out against a Chinese Volunteer Regiment for a week. The weather was cold and cloudy preventing air support. The Marines made good use of terrain.

The British Campaign to liberate the Falklands was 'mostly' an infantry fight. The UK had some Scorpion reconnaissance vehicles, but not maby and I think most of the attacks went home without air or armor support.

The Iran-Iraq war had some fairly large "infantry centric' battles. While there may have been aviation involved they were often "insignificant" due to poor coordination.

India and Pakistan had battles in the Kashmir that were primarily infantry/artillery fights due to the terrain.

Crete. With the exception of a spare armored vehicle or two almost entirely infantry oriented.

No tanks or aircraft makes it hard, especially in Europe.

The size of the battle would be key.

NW Europe as mentioned would be slim pickings. I would look at various British raids. Some were size able. Airborne operations contained a number of possibilities. Market Garden and Normandy both had numerous actions with no Allied air power providing direct support which I never understood. The Bulge had several engagement in various sectors without tanks.
Several have already mentioned Pacific actions. There were a lot in the Phillipines in 1941-2. CBI area had many such actions. The British vs Italians in the Sudan. The Balkans in 1941.
Plenty of Allied options. I will have to ponder the Axis for awhile.

I just started a closely related topic on this issue of assets vs command level.

Virtually EVERY WWII battle had pure-infantry engagements at company and platoon level. So if you're gaming at those levels then something close to a pure infantry fight should be the standard rather than the exception!

As you move above those levels of command you see true combined arms actions in WWII. That's not to say that arty didn't fire in support of a company or that a tank section or platoon wasn't attached to a rifle company. Such things did happen.

The typical rifle company or platoon commander did NOT routinely command a full combined arms force of infantry, armor, arty, and air, despite what many games systems would have you believe! Their world was dominated by rifles, MGs, and light or medium mortars under their direct control.

If you're fighting battalion level and higher then you'll so more combined arms fights in which the player might have control of a more diverse force.

So the first question you should ask is, what level of command are you gaming at? At company and below, don't sweat it. Every campaign and battle had pure infantry fights at the small unit level.

I'm still in my early war phase- but there are plenty of battles in Finland against the Soviets that didn't have tanks. I don't think there were any tanks in Norway.

The Greeks didn't have any tanks, so the beginning of the war with the German invasion in the mountains was also tankless (the panzer divisions went around while the mountain divisions used frontal assault tactics).

Yes, most of Norway was indeed tank free, although in fact the Allies did land two battalions of tanks at Narvik and the Germans shipped a battalion or two over as well.

"The typical rifle company or platoon commander did NOT routinely command a full combined arms force of infantry, armor, arty, and air, despite what many games systems would have you believe! Their world was dominated by rifles, MGs, and light or medium mortars under their direct control."

Most regimental or brigade commanders didn't command a full combined arms force of infantry, artillery, air etc either (although they would be quite likely to have some artillery support, at least in a set piece battle).

In WW2 the smallest combined arms formation was the division (or independant brigade), and the vast majority of divisions didn't have any tanks or air support at all. Division commanders would attach out their assets as required of course.

All very interesting and helpful to me. Thanks again.

During Day 1 of the Bulge there were numerous infantry and artillery only engagements all along the 28th Division's line. The Germans couldn't get any tanks across the river until late in the day and the Americans only had a few tanks available.