Or while those race traitors known as Briten and Amerikaner bomb ball bearing plants every odd day. *nod*
Advertisement
by Nekotani » Sun Feb 19, 2017 2:28 pm
Risottia wrote:Neu Leonstein wrote:And on Rommel, I feel like it's worth pointing out every time someone mentions him that as great a leader he might have been at the tactical level, he did mess up his logistics pretty badly. Not entirely his fault, obviously, but I think that there's a lot of British wartime propaganda speaking when people remember Rommel these days.
His deploy at the Second El Alamein was especially ineffective. I still think that if one wants to point out the best German armour general of WW2, it's most likely Guderian.
About Italian tanks, I wonder how come the nation which first came up with a heavy tank sporting a turreted main gun with a 360° traverse (the FIAT 2000, in 1917) could abandon the idea of heavy tanks and rely on tankettes and light tanks only.
by Empire of Cats » Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:05 pm
Nekotani wrote:Risottia wrote:His deploy at the Second El Alamein was especially ineffective. I still think that if one wants to point out the best German armour general of WW2, it's most likely Guderian.
About Italian tanks, I wonder how come the nation which first came up with a heavy tank sporting a turreted main gun with a 360° traverse (the FIAT 2000, in 1917) could abandon the idea of heavy tanks and rely on tankettes and light tanks only.
If I recall correctly, one reason for this was that there were quite a couple of generals who, like Budyonny but without the horse fetish, thought that the tank would be rendered obsolete and thus did not place much attention on them. Italian high command also thought a war would take place in the Alps or Balkans rather than the African desert and for that reason focused on light tanks which could maneuver more easily across the mountain passes. Which ended up screwing them over when Fiat M13/40's without equipment for the desert were deployed in Libya.
by Tbliska » Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:24 pm
Saying foolish things aloud is bad enough but then to immortalize them on paper - big mistake.
by Hurdergaryp » Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:39 pm
by Engleberg » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:14 pm
Umbrellya wrote:"You are literally the most unashamed German I've ever met."
Wiena wrote:"Engleberg you surely are the most savage guy in the whole game."
West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Anything Left of Center: *exists*
Engle: FUCKING REDS!
by Nekotani » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:31 pm
Empire of Cats wrote:Nekotani wrote:
If I recall correctly, one reason for this was that there were quite a couple of generals who, like Budyonny but without the horse fetish, thought that the tank would be rendered obsolete and thus did not place much attention on them. Italian high command also thought a war would take place in the Alps or Balkans rather than the African desert and for that reason focused on light tanks which could maneuver more easily across the mountain passes. Which ended up screwing them over when Fiat M13/40's without equipment for the desert were deployed in Libya.
From leading the field to being destroyed on it...what a fall from grace. Much like Japan, who actually made an effort at tank development after the Great War.
by Engleberg » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:34 pm
Nekotani wrote:Empire of Cats wrote:
From leading the field to being destroyed on it...what a fall from grace. Much like Japan, who actually made an effort at tank development after the Great War.
At the start of the war, Italian tanks were sufficient to an extent, but the problem was that on account of corruption, lack of planning, etc. it could not adapt to the times and produce newer models while the Allies started to field tanks such as the M4 Sherman and T-34. Though their tank destroyers, such as the Semovente 90/53 were pretty good. Only problem was they were rarely produced in high quantity.
I'm not really knowledgeable on the Pacific Theater, but it didn't seem that heavy armor was all that useful. One of the advantages that the Japanese had at the start was their light equipment which was ideal for jungle warfare.
Umbrellya wrote:"You are literally the most unashamed German I've ever met."
Wiena wrote:"Engleberg you surely are the most savage guy in the whole game."
West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Anything Left of Center: *exists*
Engle: FUCKING REDS!
by Novus America » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:44 pm
Nekotani wrote:Empire of Cats wrote:
From leading the field to being destroyed on it...what a fall from grace. Much like Japan, who actually made an effort at tank development after the Great War.
At the start of the war, Italian tanks were sufficient to an extent, but the problem was that on account of corruption, lack of planning, etc. it could not adapt to the times and produce newer models while the Allies started to field tanks such as the M4 Sherman and T-34. Though their tank destroyers, such as the Semovente 90/53 were pretty good. Only problem was they were rarely produced in high quantity.
I'm not really knowledgeable on the Pacific Theater, but it didn't seem that heavy armor was all that useful. One of the advantages that the Japanese had at the start was their light equipment which was ideal for jungle warfare.
by Germanic Templars » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:53 pm
by Engleberg » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:56 pm
Germanic Templars wrote:Sooo, is this just for tanks or can armored cars, APCs, IFVs be included too?
Umbrellya wrote:"You are literally the most unashamed German I've ever met."
Wiena wrote:"Engleberg you surely are the most savage guy in the whole game."
West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Anything Left of Center: *exists*
Engle: FUCKING REDS!
by San Marlindo » Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:27 pm
"Cold, analytical, materialistic thinking tends to throttle the urge to imagination." - Michael Chekhov
by Novus America » Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:32 pm
San Marlindo wrote:I don't really understand why towed anti-tank guns went out of use. They used to be as common as howitzers.
The difference being howitzers are still around and they're still making new ones.
I don't think any(?) anti-tank guns have been made since WWII. And I don't know of any country today which still uses them.
by San Marlindo » Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:46 pm
Novus America wrote:San Marlindo wrote:I don't really understand why towed anti-tank guns went out of use. They used to be as common as howitzers.
The difference being howitzers are still around and they're still making new ones.
I don't think any(?) anti-tank guns have been made since WWII. And I don't know of any country today which still uses them.
They went out of use because of anti tank missiles. They are obsolete.
Anti tank missiles have superior range, mobility and effectiveness.
"Cold, analytical, materialistic thinking tends to throttle the urge to imagination." - Michael Chekhov
by Empire of Cats » Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:55 pm
Novus America wrote:Nekotani wrote:
At the start of the war, Italian tanks were sufficient to an extent, but the problem was that on account of corruption, lack of planning, etc. it could not adapt to the times and produce newer models while the Allies started to field tanks such as the M4 Sherman and T-34. Though their tank destroyers, such as the Semovente 90/53 were pretty good. Only problem was they were rarely produced in high quantity.
I'm not really knowledgeable on the Pacific Theater, but it didn't seem that heavy armor was all that useful. One of the advantages that the Japanese had at the start was their light equipment which was ideal for jungle warfare.
Certainly tanks saw less use in the Islands of the Pacific, and smaller more mobile vehicles better.
Problem Japan had was their conflict in China. China had limited armor, but the couple times Japan had run ins with the Soviets they were crushed.
Though it was not just lack of armor, but other deficiencies. They Japanese Army was not very good. It had high morale, good determination. But its weapons, tactics and equipment lacking. It never developed modern combined arms abilities or the ability to use the tank as more than infantry support. As much a problem as their tanks being ill suited for combat in open environments was their tactics were also insufficient.
Japan had a a very good navy. Its army was not particularly good though. Often charging with mass infantry bayonets on bolt action rifles like it was before WWI.
This often got them massacred.
by Novus America » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:00 pm
San Marlindo wrote:Novus America wrote:
They went out of use because of anti tank missiles. They are obsolete.
Anti tank missiles have superior range, mobility and effectiveness.
Aren't those only designed to hit targets at very long range? It would seem like they need to travel a considerable distance to arm, but maybe this is just my ignorance on the topic showing.
Anti-tank guns could still be useful for targets at closer than missile range.
by The Conez Imperium » Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:02 am
Major-Tom wrote:I am utterly and completely devoid of any knowledge in regards to;
(1. Tanks
(2. Armor
(3. Guns
(4. Really anything military related.
by Germanic Templars » Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:17 am
The Conez Imperium wrote:Major-Tom wrote:I am utterly and completely devoid of any knowledge in regards to;
(1. Tanks
(2. Armor
(3. Guns
(4. Really anything military related.
If you like spreadsheets and video strategy games, then play Wargame Red Dragon. It's essentially spreadsheets graphically fighting on a map. It'll teach you all about the military between the 1950-80's
by The Conez Imperium » Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:25 am
Germanic Templars wrote:The Conez Imperium wrote:
If you like spreadsheets and video strategy games, then play Wargame Red Dragon. It's essentially spreadsheets graphically fighting on a map. It'll teach you all about the military between the 1950-80's
Actually from the late 40s to the early 90s (though those are considered prototypes like the M1A2).
by Risottia » Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:59 am
San Marlindo wrote:I don't really understand why towed anti-tank guns went out of use. They used to be as common as howitzers.
The difference being howitzers are still around and they're still making new ones.
I don't think any(?) anti-tank guns have been made since WWII. And I don't know of any country today which still uses them.
by Uxupox » Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:10 am
Hurdergaryp wrote:Uxupox wrote:Can't get tested when the possibility of getting spanked by the Soviets is on the horizon.
The Tiger II had its merits as a defensive tank, which is why the Third Reich strategists couldn't help themselves and deployed the seventy ton beast as an offensive weapon during the Battle of the Bulge. Typical.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ariddia, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Emotional Support Crocodile, Google [Bot], Hurdergaryp, Likhinia, The Selkie, The Xenopolis Confederation
Advertisement