2

Has any nation's tank doctrine ever used ramming as a primary or secondary means of combat? I'm aware that Soviet tanks at the Battle of Kursk would ram German tanks once they (the Soviets) ran out of ammunition, but this seems to be an emergency measure rather than a deliberate part of doctrine. Is there any nation for which tank-on-tank ramming has been considered a primary or secondary tactic in the field?

  • 1
    "Ramming" in military parlance means to breach a weakness in a defensive fortification...usually a door...something for which Tanks were ideally suited. There is no doctrinal "ramming" procedure of a military nature involving two like weapons platforms into one another. – Doctor Zhivago Jul 18 '16 at 0:36
  • 1
    The only mentions of Tank Ramming I could find are either on the Eastern front ww2 or in Operation Goodwood where a Sherman rammed a Tiger II. You can view the image here – NSNoob Jul 18 '16 at 8:47
  • While I have not investigated this, I imagine it is hard to construct an extension of a tank, which would damage the other tank, while leaving our own tank in favourable position. In other words, something that would damage a tank and remain whole... – Ludi Aug 9 '16 at 11:31
  • Yes, tank "taran" (Russian term) was adopted by the Red army as extreme measure when it was not possible to destroy a target in another way. Soviet tankmen specially learned to do this. The relevant article in Russian wiki: Танковый таран – Matt Aug 9 '16 at 11:52
5

In the Tiger Fibel (which is the Tiger tank's manual) it was explicitly stated that you should close in on targets and roll over them instead of using up ammo. While the images are in German, it can be found at: http://www.d13pfad.de/tigerfibel-english/

The page in question is page 91, which is basically dedicated to tell the tankers to not waste ammo or fuel.

It says: Nützt den dicken Panzer aus! Ran! (Use the thick armor, close in) Walzen ist billiger als MG! (Rolling over is cheaper than MG)

This could be interpreted as ramming as well, but it's not as explicitly stated as I had it in memory before rechecking the source.

  • Welcome to the sight. I'm absolutely willing to believe this - but could you provide a link to some evidence? – Ghotir Aug 5 '16 at 16:22
  • The Tiger Fibel is the source, you can find it with a web search, but as far as I am aware there is no English translation I could link you to. Not sure how much the German original text would help you. – Chrizzly Aug 8 '16 at 7:16
  • 1
    My German is a little rusty, but I can generally get the basic gist. :) My comment was more because, in general, I've noticed that people like links on the various stackexchange sites: an answer with links to evidence (even if someone needs to rely on something like Google translate) tends to be "better" than an unsupported answer. – Ghotir Aug 8 '16 at 14:43
  • After re-checking the source it turned out my memory on the topic was a bit off, so I edited the answer accordingly – Chrizzly Aug 9 '16 at 7:36
  • 3
    Presumably, this "rolling over" tactic was intended for soft targets rather than the "tank-on-tank" combat mentioned in the question. – Steve Bird Aug 9 '16 at 7:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.