"Spanish Civil war anti tank" Topic

I am interested in how tanks and armoured vehicles were dealt with in the SCW. By this I mean in what ways would they be knocked out/lost. i do have some ideas ,but thought i would make use of the collective brain (or Brian). Please do include any strange ones you have heard about such as crowbars/blankets etc.thank you in advance.

martin

Petrol bombs seem to be mentioned quite frequently.

The impression I've gotten is that poor coordination between infantry and tanks made them relatively easy targets (along with quite a few being captured and repurposed, according to one book, the fascists gave a bounty for capturing T26)

I recall reading that the first time a T-26 was knocked out by Nationalist forces it was Moroccans that stalked the tank with bottles of flammable liquid.

German 37mm PAKs were sent to the Nationalist in some numbers and these could knock out any tank on the battlefield. There were other ATGs used by both sides, along with ordinary artillery pressed into service as AT guns.

Theres a story in some memoir I read about a 70mm mountain gun hitting a bilbao a/car in the front as it charged towards them . One Bilbao KO'd.
Most field guns in excess of 75mm would be capable of taking out any CV33/T26/Pz1/Bt5 . And for sure could take out any slow moving Tiznao .

Didn't some German 20mm AA guns make it to Spain as well?
I seem to recall some of them being fitted on vehicles.

The Pak 36 proved to be the king of the battlefield in the SCW , as far as tanks were concerned. Heavy machine guns also worked quite well against the tanks of the time (at close range) as did direct hits from field guns.

Yes, some Pz 1 were upgraded with 20mm cannon.

There was of course the usual scope for infantry heroics, dynamite bundles, molotov, crowbars, sheets hung across roads, roadblocks etc, but in general, the most effective AT weapons were AT guns, gun armed tanks and Armoured cars, and direct fire artillery. Just like WW1 and WW2.

One story I read relate how one side (can't remember which) temporarily stopped a armored column by placing a number of dinner plates upside down in the road. Apparently the plates were mistaken for mines by the tankers.

Just the sort of thing i needed. thank you chaps!

Any more???

Is there a new edition of 'Bayonets and Ideology' on the way, Martin?

I'm curious: if you're only asking about this now, what did you base anti-tank fire on in the first edition?

Anti tank rifles were surprisingly scarce…..not mentioned much in accounts or in lists of supplied materiel….. they would have been effective against most of the afv's deployed in the war too…..break down seems to have been the biggest cause of losses.

The Moroccans would sometimes use a metal bar to jam or throw a tread.

Yes, next years project is a new set of SCW rules. Henry, I always ask such things on the assumption that I do not know everything. New information often comes to light. Always prepared to learn new things.
Yes it does seem odd that AT rifles seem absent from SCW units.

martin

A lot of the WW2 familiar anti-tank rifles weren't introduced until a year or two before ww2 broke out at most, so I'm thinking there were too few in inventory to send any to Spain.

The Soviet anti-tank rifles, I don't think, were around until the civil war had ended.

Thanks Weasel, good point

martin

Anyone have any anecdotes about tank ditches or concrete items having any direct effect??

I asked a Spanish friend of mine and he said he'd ask a local historian he knows if he happened to know anything.

While there are lots of excellent skirmish level generic rules that can handle the SCW, some with specialist supplements for it, and going up a level there's B & I, there's always been a gap in the market for a high quality, dedicated division/corps level SCW rule set. I hope your new project is it, Martin.

Despite the appalling proof reading and English perpetrated therein I'm a long-time fan of your games, and have greatly enjoyed a number of them over the years, so I would be very excited if this is what's in the works.

Hello Henry
The new BAIT will replace the old one. this means about 3/4 platoons a player, plus some bits. For division or corps. Square Bashing would do well. BAIT will be out in September 2017(roughly)

thanks

martin

I have to admit that the chronological coverage of SB 2nd edition has always confused me. There are three different end-dates given: 1928 on the cover of the rule book, 1921 (end of the Russo-Polish War) in the rules introduction, and 1935 (Chaco War army lists).

I do think the SCW, being closer to WW2 and exhibiting the beginnings of huge technological and tactical advances, deserves special treatment. I know Martin Rapier produced an SCW SB variant many years ago, but that was for 1st ed. and it was pretty minimalist. Is there any chance of an official, more comprehensive SCW supplement for SB 2nd ed., even if it's just something you publish on your website?

Sounds a good idea!

" I know Martin Rapier produced an SCW SB variant many years ago, but that was for 1st ed. and it was pretty minimalist."

I reckon the mods I did for SB 1st Ed would work fine for 2nd Ed.

Yes, they were fairly minimalist, but so were the differences between late WW1 and the SCW.

Sounds like a solution. Thanks martin

The main and best AT gun was the Russian 45mm 1932 gun it was copied at the Placencia de las Armas on the other side the German 37mm PAK 35/36 was used.

28 excellent Swedish 37/45mm Bofors also called the "Makien" was the most modern type available arriving in early 1938.

6 20mm Oerlikon-Smegan guns from Mexico ended up in Nationalist when the SS Mar Cantabrico was captured. Later another 9 were sent and arrived in Bilboa on 1 June 1937.

The Republicain also had 30 37mm Mclean MkIII made in the USA sent by the way of USSR.

37/22mm Puteax Mod. 1916 T.r. gun was used in small numbers.

Massed fire of Rifles could be of some effect to new/skittish crews. It could certainly drive off a tank or few. The armour was often inconsistent in quality, so simply firing everything rifle calibre at a tank could cause "splash" (flakes of the armour) on the inside of the tank that could cause injury and certainly panic for the crew. Remember the face masks that WW1 tankers wore? That was the reason. "K" Bullets, steel cored rifle calibre bullets has been described as to be a problem for the Italian CV3s.

Just been looking at my Home guard manuals, written by SCW veterans and observers, the use of fire features heavily! Molotov's and fougasse mines ……
Obstacles include scaffold poles and timber in x's, oil drums filled with concrete and even cubes of brick construction. The tanks of the day were a lot weaker in their drive trains and couldn't bulldoze,climb and avoid such obstacles as easily as their later more powerful brethren.
Restricted visibility from within the tank was a significant but often overlooked feature too…..traversable cupolas and vision blocks were not around, limited view periscopes and basic vision slits were the norm…..if you can't see the enemy you can't shoot him!

The Anti-tank Battery of the British Battalion of the International Brigades sporting one of their (probably 1932 vintage) 45mm Soviet AT guns. They were later replaced with AT guns of (IIRC) Danish origin.

William Rust (of various positions in the British Battalion) describes it as having special AT shells with MG nests being the most common target.

There were no proper anti-tank gun in the Spanish Army before the war. in fact, the German Pak.36 and soviet 45mm were not delivered late 1936 or early 37 with shipments of their respective tanks. So early in the first few months armor was countered with light field guns as noted above and direct assault. Cooperation was very poor between armor and troops and a good veteran squad could tackle a slow FT-17, CA-1 or armored truck. Without proper infantry support these lumbering beasts were vulnerable to even a single soldier firing pistols into ports. If one waited long enough the old tanks broke down and the crew abandoned them.
The arrival of T-26 and German/Italian mg tanketes never posed the armor threat of late WWII. Armor was doled out piecemeal to support infantry and cooperation was still poor. T-26 tank was lightly armored and vulnerable to light field guns. Maintenance wise the T-26 was bad, there ability to penetrated enemy lines in any depth was low. They simply need extensive repair and constant refuelling/logistic. The time between major component service was short. On the immediate battlefield the T-26 was good, but the whole force over the long haul was a parking lot of Soviet quality junk. On the other hand, the Mk.I ran like a fine German machine should, except a twin mg tank was limited in firepower and no match face-to-face with a T-26.
So to reiterate, the counter armor tactics were to use light field gun early on until ATG arrived and assault a single slow moving tank after their escorting infantry broke and ran. Tanks at this period were slow moving pillboxes, if they could assault pillboxes or MG-nest, then they could take-out tanks.