Читать книгу The History of the West. Through the Eyes of Bears and Balalaikas - - Страница 6

Boys love tanks and often imagine war as a clash of tank armadas: T-34s on one side, “Tigers” and “Panthers” on the other. Tanks create a sense of security and impunity simultaneously: as if you yourself grow a thousand-horsepower engine and a long, all-penetrating gun, shielded by thick armor against which any other weapon is powerless.

The myth of the invincibility of tank armadas is purely a Soviet phenomenon, a legacy not even of World War II, but of the fervent pre-war propaganda that convinced Red Army soldiers there was essentially nothing to fear; thick armor and powerful engines would make war easy and safe.

Despite the not too impressive results, tanks are still loved in Russia to this day, stockpiling them in quantities unattainable for the rest of the world. How can one not recall that even before the war, the USSR had more tanks than all other powers combined? Unfortunately, this did not save them from brutal defeats.

To be fair, tanks were not created, nor did they claim to be a universal weapon. They appeared in World War I when it became clear that at the then-current level of technology, infantry practically had no chance of breaking through well-fortified enemy lines, that cavalry was ineffective against machine guns and a continuous front, and something entirely new was needed to break the war out of the trench deadlock. In World War I, many things were tried: airplanes, airships, and chemical warfare agents. Tanks found their place but in two roles: as breakthrough weapons (in England, they were called “infantry” tanks, and in the USSR “medium” and “heavy” tanks) and as a mobile means to roam the enemy’s rear after the success of the breakthrough itself, replacing cavalry (in England, such tanks were called “Cavalry” and in the USSR “light”). The former eventually remained as tanks, while the latter transformed into various armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, and even simply armed jeeps, the successors of the famous tachankas27.

As soon as tanks demonstrated their applicability, the question of countering them arose – every weapon immediately leads to countermeasures. The response was anti-tank artillery, anti-tank rifles, and by the end of the war, handheld anti-tank grenade launchers: bazookas and Panzerfausts. These are what can be densely supplied to the defending infantry ranks: the tank is an offensive weapon, their appearance on the battlefield is sudden and everywhere, and one must be prepared for it.

Anti-tank artillery had two principal drawbacks: low mobility and limited protection. And although firing from a stationary position, preferably from an ambush at pre-sighted targets, is much more effective than firing on the move, the tank also has a gun and moves quickly back and forth. Therefore, as soon as the opportunity arose, artillery began to be mounted on wheels or tracks and protected with some form of armor. Not as thick as a tank’s – otherwise, it would become expensive and unwieldy – but enough to protect against shrapnel. Thus, self-propelled guns appeared – weaponry similar to a tank but predominantly defensive.

The task of the tank is to break through enemy trenches and foxholes at full speed, helping its infantry to advance in the attack. The task of the self-propelled gun is to quietly move to a convenient position, cover the enemy with a couple of volleys, and relocate before a counterattack arrives.

The “tanks versus tanks” warfare, so popular among boys of all ages, is a phenomenon that professional military personnel have always tried and continue to try to avoid. Of course, an armored box with a gun can be used for such a purpose – but why? Why put expensive equipment at risk by sending it to do a job for which it is completely unsuited when there are simpler, cheaper, and equally effective means?

In those cases when tanks did encounter each other, it happened mostly by accident. Both sides, bewildered and rotating their turrets, tried to quickly retreat to their own lines – a tank cut off from the infantry is guaranteed prey for the opponent. By the way, in the pre-tank era, cavalry acted in exactly this way: charge – brief clash – disperse. Because as soon as a firmly standing man with a rifle appears on the battlefield, the cavalryman becomes an easy target for a bullet. Jeb Stuart28 is a testament to that.