Rivets and Pins
@rivetsandpins.bsky.social
@peteblanchard.bsky.social 's military history account.
I focus primarily on AFV development/warfare 1915-42.
Warning: may contain humour.
For more detail: https://rivets-and-pins.beehiiv.com/
I focus primarily on AFV development/warfare 1915-42.
Warning: may contain humour.
For more detail: https://rivets-and-pins.beehiiv.com/
Certainly a unique, um, installation!
November 3, 2025 at 8:17 AM
Certainly a unique, um, installation!
Looks like a humble 'bench replacement service'!
November 2, 2025 at 3:44 PM
Looks like a humble 'bench replacement service'!
My guess it the vehicle was abandoned by the Germans after they'd stripped it clean.
Evidence: no tracks on either side, no radio antenna, no turret MG, engine deck open, etc. Even the missing armour plates may have been scavenged to fit to other damaged tanks.
Evidence: no tracks on either side, no radio antenna, no turret MG, engine deck open, etc. Even the missing armour plates may have been scavenged to fit to other damaged tanks.
November 1, 2025 at 4:38 PM
My guess it the vehicle was abandoned by the Germans after they'd stripped it clean.
Evidence: no tracks on either side, no radio antenna, no turret MG, engine deck open, etc. Even the missing armour plates may have been scavenged to fit to other damaged tanks.
Evidence: no tracks on either side, no radio antenna, no turret MG, engine deck open, etc. Even the missing armour plates may have been scavenged to fit to other damaged tanks.
PS I love your example 👍
October 27, 2025 at 5:31 PM
PS I love your example 👍
Yes, I get the impression this expansion was chucking spanners in many directions!
It was all very well mandating an effectively sudden, rapid expansion of the armed forces, but without the ready materiel, manpower, leadership, expertise & training, they're just paper formations.
It was all very well mandating an effectively sudden, rapid expansion of the armed forces, but without the ready materiel, manpower, leadership, expertise & training, they're just paper formations.
October 27, 2025 at 5:30 PM
Yes, I get the impression this expansion was chucking spanners in many directions!
It was all very well mandating an effectively sudden, rapid expansion of the armed forces, but without the ready materiel, manpower, leadership, expertise & training, they're just paper formations.
It was all very well mandating an effectively sudden, rapid expansion of the armed forces, but without the ready materiel, manpower, leadership, expertise & training, they're just paper formations.
The independence of these brigades was short-lived as most were used to form new tank divisions in late 1939.
Why? Doctrine changed. The focus now fell on concentrating tanks in tank divisions to maximise the effectiveness of tanks, much to Guderian's satisfaction.
Why? Doctrine changed. The focus now fell on concentrating tanks in tank divisions to maximise the effectiveness of tanks, much to Guderian's satisfaction.
October 27, 2025 at 5:15 PM
The independence of these brigades was short-lived as most were used to form new tank divisions in late 1939.
Why? Doctrine changed. The focus now fell on concentrating tanks in tank divisions to maximise the effectiveness of tanks, much to Guderian's satisfaction.
Why? Doctrine changed. The focus now fell on concentrating tanks in tank divisions to maximise the effectiveness of tanks, much to Guderian's satisfaction.
Sure. I was talking about organic tank units within infantry divisions which didn't exist.
As you say, in the expansion of tank forces, German doctrine in the late 30s started to allow for independent tank brigades to support the infantry. But these came under the tank arm, & not the infantry.
As you say, in the expansion of tank forces, German doctrine in the late 30s started to allow for independent tank brigades to support the infantry. But these came under the tank arm, & not the infantry.
October 27, 2025 at 5:15 PM
Sure. I was talking about organic tank units within infantry divisions which didn't exist.
As you say, in the expansion of tank forces, German doctrine in the late 30s started to allow for independent tank brigades to support the infantry. But these came under the tank arm, & not the infantry.
As you say, in the expansion of tank forces, German doctrine in the late 30s started to allow for independent tank brigades to support the infantry. But these came under the tank arm, & not the infantry.
Even if doctrine had allowed the infantry to have tanks, the other inhibitor was production capacity.
At the start of WW2, the Nazis couldn't even produce sufficient tanks for their tank divisions (hence the huge numbers of PzKw I & II tanks used up to 1941), let alone make them for the infantry.
At the start of WW2, the Nazis couldn't even produce sufficient tanks for their tank divisions (hence the huge numbers of PzKw I & II tanks used up to 1941), let alone make them for the infantry.
October 27, 2025 at 1:40 PM
Even if doctrine had allowed the infantry to have tanks, the other inhibitor was production capacity.
At the start of WW2, the Nazis couldn't even produce sufficient tanks for their tank divisions (hence the huge numbers of PzKw I & II tanks used up to 1941), let alone make them for the infantry.
At the start of WW2, the Nazis couldn't even produce sufficient tanks for their tank divisions (hence the huge numbers of PzKw I & II tanks used up to 1941), let alone make them for the infantry.
The short-lived Light Divisions were not infantry divisions as such, being merely Panzer Divisions Lite™. The concept was judged to have not worked in Poland so they were converted to tank divisions in 1940.
October 27, 2025 at 1:28 PM
The short-lived Light Divisions were not infantry divisions as such, being merely Panzer Divisions Lite™. The concept was judged to have not worked in Poland so they were converted to tank divisions in 1940.
I'm not familiar with the Italians, but the Germans never had infantry support tank units before or at the start of WW2. That's why the Sturmgeschütz was created.
October 27, 2025 at 1:28 PM
I'm not familiar with the Italians, but the Germans never had infantry support tank units before or at the start of WW2. That's why the Sturmgeschütz was created.
However, the infantry realised they needed armoured mobile guns (for exactly the same reasons the British & French had developed tanks in WW1).
So the Sturmgeschütz concept was born.
So the Sturmgeschütz concept was born.
October 27, 2025 at 1:23 PM
However, the infantry realised they needed armoured mobile guns (for exactly the same reasons the British & French had developed tanks in WW1).
So the Sturmgeschütz concept was born.
So the Sturmgeschütz concept was born.
Infantry divisions had a different role to the tank divisions, often following & mopping up after the tanks. They were sometimes motorised but were mostly on foot with heavy weapons, etc mostly horse-drawn.
The slow infantry therefore were judged not to need fast tanks.
The slow infantry therefore were judged not to need fast tanks.
October 27, 2025 at 1:23 PM
Infantry divisions had a different role to the tank divisions, often following & mopping up after the tanks. They were sometimes motorised but were mostly on foot with heavy weapons, etc mostly horse-drawn.
The slow infantry therefore were judged not to need fast tanks.
The slow infantry therefore were judged not to need fast tanks.
Doctrine. Tanks were the core weapon of German tank divisions, with supporting service arms such as infantry, artillery, engineers, etc all armoured or motorised.
They were fast, meant to break through & envelop enemy forces.
They were fast, meant to break through & envelop enemy forces.
October 27, 2025 at 1:23 PM
Doctrine. Tanks were the core weapon of German tank divisions, with supporting service arms such as infantry, artillery, engineers, etc all armoured or motorised.
They were fast, meant to break through & envelop enemy forces.
They were fast, meant to break through & envelop enemy forces.
That's superb!
October 25, 2025 at 10:51 PM
That's superb!
German tanks were off doing tank things in tank divisions.
But the infantry said 'what about us when we come up against bunkers, etc? We don't have tanks'.
So the assault gun was invented as an infantry support AFV.
But the infantry said 'what about us when we come up against bunkers, etc? We don't have tanks'.
So the assault gun was invented as an infantry support AFV.
October 25, 2025 at 9:15 PM
German tanks were off doing tank things in tank divisions.
But the infantry said 'what about us when we come up against bunkers, etc? We don't have tanks'.
So the assault gun was invented as an infantry support AFV.
But the infantry said 'what about us when we come up against bunkers, etc? We don't have tanks'.
So the assault gun was invented as an infantry support AFV.
The tanks were in tank divisions, used for breakthrough/exploitation.
Infantry divisions had no armour & wanted a mobile armoured gun to deal with bunkers, MGs, etc holding them up.
That's where the Sturmgeschütz came in; an AFV to support the infantry, albeit one that came under the artillery arm
Infantry divisions had no armour & wanted a mobile armoured gun to deal with bunkers, MGs, etc holding them up.
That's where the Sturmgeschütz came in; an AFV to support the infantry, albeit one that came under the artillery arm
October 25, 2025 at 9:12 PM
The tanks were in tank divisions, used for breakthrough/exploitation.
Infantry divisions had no armour & wanted a mobile armoured gun to deal with bunkers, MGs, etc holding them up.
That's where the Sturmgeschütz came in; an AFV to support the infantry, albeit one that came under the artillery arm
Infantry divisions had no armour & wanted a mobile armoured gun to deal with bunkers, MGs, etc holding them up.
That's where the Sturmgeschütz came in; an AFV to support the infantry, albeit one that came under the artillery arm
I think the thicker armour/more powerful gun arms race of WW2 was inevitable.
In 1939, except for the French, everyone starts with mostly just bulletproof tanks. They then realise that's not enough & add armour.
More powerful guns are needed to beat the thicker armour and so on.
In 1939, except for the French, everyone starts with mostly just bulletproof tanks. They then realise that's not enough & add armour.
More powerful guns are needed to beat the thicker armour and so on.
October 21, 2025 at 11:55 AM
I think the thicker armour/more powerful gun arms race of WW2 was inevitable.
In 1939, except for the French, everyone starts with mostly just bulletproof tanks. They then realise that's not enough & add armour.
More powerful guns are needed to beat the thicker armour and so on.
In 1939, except for the French, everyone starts with mostly just bulletproof tanks. They then realise that's not enough & add armour.
More powerful guns are needed to beat the thicker armour and so on.
Very good!! I'd not spotted those.
October 21, 2025 at 11:16 AM
Very good!! I'd not spotted those.
Yes, it certainly prevailed *much more* in USA & USSR, though both countries still had dubious AFV projects!
Probably more to do with centralised AFV design\direction & factories being told 'This is what you're going to build' rather than the looser arrangements found in Britain, Germany & Japan.
Probably more to do with centralised AFV design\direction & factories being told 'This is what you're going to build' rather than the looser arrangements found in Britain, Germany & Japan.
October 21, 2025 at 11:05 AM
Yes, it certainly prevailed *much more* in USA & USSR, though both countries still had dubious AFV projects!
Probably more to do with centralised AFV design\direction & factories being told 'This is what you're going to build' rather than the looser arrangements found in Britain, Germany & Japan.
Probably more to do with centralised AFV design\direction & factories being told 'This is what you're going to build' rather than the looser arrangements found in Britain, Germany & Japan.
PS Didn't realise the Tortoise was a runner 😲
October 21, 2025 at 10:38 AM
PS Didn't realise the Tortoise was a runner 😲
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I still ponder why rational thought didn't prevail more during WW2 when it came to AFV design on all sides.
Guess AFV development was emerging from the interwar 'let's suck it & see' approach, plus the intense pressure to come up with timely war-winning weapons.
Guess AFV development was emerging from the interwar 'let's suck it & see' approach, plus the intense pressure to come up with timely war-winning weapons.
October 21, 2025 at 10:37 AM
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I still ponder why rational thought didn't prevail more during WW2 when it came to AFV design on all sides.
Guess AFV development was emerging from the interwar 'let's suck it & see' approach, plus the intense pressure to come up with timely war-winning weapons.
Guess AFV development was emerging from the interwar 'let's suck it & see' approach, plus the intense pressure to come up with timely war-winning weapons.