Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The T-34 is an iconic tank that, while far from perfect, ended up defining the eastern front anyway. As far as fictional tanks go the Hammerhead looks like the platonic ideal of a sci-fi hovertank, while the Baneblade is the Baneblade.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/14 20:57:39
40k drinking game: take a shot everytime a book references Skitarii using transports.
I'm a little late to the dance... But my favorite tank is the Perky little bug from World War One... The Reault FT-17.
It is often called the father of modern tank design. I know it is slow and easily popped. But I think a legion of these upgraded with modern tech would be a fun little force!
The T-34 was a decent enough tank for the task it had to do. However, I also believe it was the most over-hyped tank in history. Soviet crews that had the option to upgrade from a T-34 to a US-provided Sherman jumped on the chance and much preferred them.
Much is made about how well the T-34 handled terrain compared to the Sherman. It did handle mud and snow better, but the Sherman was better at rubble, rocks, and logs.
The Sherman had much better armor. Add into this that the T-34 had really crappy tracks that broke often, and a cruddy transmission that needed a hammer to shift into high gear.
TheMeanDM wrote: You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"
The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.
There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.
Even the atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese surrendered due to a number of different factors of which the atomic bomb was just one (and not even the most important).
But while a war is never won by a weapon, I think you could say that some weapons contribute more to victory than others.
Amen to that. The Bomb didn't win the war. The war was won well before either Little Boy or Fat Man were dropped.
That did break the end though, they where still dragging it out and out. Willing to fight to death. The Nukes sent a clear. This is over now message. There was no fighting the nukes.
The anililation of entire cities by a single bomber, it was a terrifying force. It did be the only thing that could send the message. This war is lost.
Exactly. The Japanese wpuld have continued to fight...but the devastation of the atomic bombs ended the war, for all intents and purposes.
August 6,1945: The first atomic bomb to be used as a weapon is dropped on Hiroshima, Japan.
August 9, 1945: An atomic bomb is dropped over Nagasaki, Japan.
August 15, 1945: Japan surrenders, ending World War II.
9 days.
The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.
TheMeanDM wrote: You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"
The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.
There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.
Even the atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese surrendered due to a number of different factors of which the atomic bomb was just one (and not even the most important).
But while a war is never won by a weapon, I think you could say that some weapons contribute more to victory than others.
Amen to that. The Bomb didn't win the war. The war was won well before either Little Boy or Fat Man were dropped.
That did break the end though, they where still dragging it out and out. Willing to fight to death. The Nukes sent a clear. This is over now message. There was no fighting the nukes.
The anililation of entire cities by a single bomber, it was a terrifying force. It did be the only thing that could send the message. This war is lost.
Exactly. The Japanese wpuld have continued to fight...but the devastation of the atomic bombs ended the war, for all intents and purposes.
August 6,1945: The first atomic bomb to be used as a weapon is dropped on Hiroshima, Japan.
August 9, 1945: An atomic bomb is dropped over Nagasaki, Japan.
August 15, 1945: Japan surrenders, ending World War II.
9 days.
The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.
Firebombing did more damage and killed more people. Japan was fethed, no matter what. Dropping the A-bomb was flexing a warning at Stalin.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ACTUAL TOPIC, you ask?
Since Ouze stole my Hind D flying tank thunder, I'll have to go with the this epic fictional killing machine:
That's right, an Imperial Commissar riding a Leman Russ.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Ah, the Leman Russ. It's stupidly designed and impractical in every sense of the word. But it's also fething badass.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
TheMeanDM wrote: You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"
The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.
There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.
Even the atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese surrendered due to a number of different factors of which the atomic bomb was just one (and not even the most important).
But while a war is never won by a weapon, I think you could say that some weapons contribute more to victory than others.
Amen to that. The Bomb didn't win the war. The war was won well before either Little Boy or Fat Man were dropped.
That did break the end though, they where still dragging it out and out. Willing to fight to death. The Nukes sent a clear. This is over now message. There was no fighting the nukes.
The anililation of entire cities by a single bomber, it was a terrifying force. It did be the only thing that could send the message. This war is lost.
Exactly. The Japanese wpuld have continued to fight...but the devastation of the atomic bombs ended the war, for all intents and purposes.
August 6,1945: The first atomic bomb to be used as a weapon is dropped on Hiroshima, Japan.
August 9, 1945: An atomic bomb is dropped over Nagasaki, Japan.
August 15, 1945: Japan surrenders, ending World War II.
9 days.
The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.
Firebombing did more damage and killed more people. Japan was fethed, no matter what. Dropping the A-bomb was flexing a warning at Stalin.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ACTUAL TOPIC, you ask?
Since Ouze stole my Hind D flying tank thunder, I'll have to go with the this epic fictional killing machine:
That's right, an Imperial Commissar riding a Leman Russ.
Slightly off topic.
They caused 95% damage to some cities in Japan with fire raids. In matter of days.
They reduced entire cities to Ash and Japan did not surender.
There where battleships exacting fire missions on there home coastline and they did not give in.
The US had driven them back to the last lines of defense. The military officers had no desire or will to surender. They had been fighting for years ceaselessly without wavoring despite the loss of fleet, driven back to last islands. They never surrendered.
Minus thr nukee. There was no surender.
Oh...
Leman Russ is cool but its not quite as cool as a bane blade, aka a a mobile building/bunker on tracks.
Plus shadowsword... Hell hammers, storm swords... So many variety of awesome.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/14 22:38:51
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.
The war would have ended a few weeks later anyway, the Japanese airforce was at the time already flying on walnut oil.
I think the US just wanted to see what happens (and do a show of force against the Russians), which is also why they didn't threaten Japan with them, since they didn't know if the bombs would work.
Again, my opening statement has been taken too literally. The Germans, despite making superb hardware, could not bring themselves to SIMPLIFY.
Had they done so, and refrained from simply making bigger, heavier and more powerful tanks using an industrial base which was increasingly strained, they would have fared much better
It would have sucked since that would have only prolonged the war and maybe we'd have eaten the nukes. There's no way in which 60 million people with a few not-so-great-at-fighting vassal states can fight half the world and win. To win, this was all too late, IMHO it would have needed Operation Sea Lion to succeed to have a chance at all.
The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.
The war would have ended a few weeks later anyway, the Japanese airforce was at the time already flying on walnut oil.
I think the US just wanted to see what happens (and do a show of force against the Russians), which is also why they didn't threaten Japan with them, since they didn't know if the bombs would work.
Again, my opening statement has been taken too literally. The Germans, despite making superb hardware, could not bring themselves to SIMPLIFY.
Had they done so, and refrained from simply making bigger, heavier and more powerful tanks using an industrial base which was increasingly strained, they would have fared much better
It would have sucked since that would have only prolonged the war and maybe we'd have eaten the nukes. There's no way in which 60 million people with a few not-so-great-at-fighting vassal states can fight half the world and win. To win, this was all too late, IMHO it would have needed Operation Sea Lion to succeed to have a chance at all.
Japan surender was against every military code though, they had no apcepetence of the concept. It was to fight or die. Period.
Japan interestingly did develop some OK tanks in the end. The early ones where pretty light and not ideal for tank on tank warfare, more heavy anti infriantry weapons.
Later ones became tank killers though and late war prototypes.
Rarely ever seen...
Ans yeah. Germany was trying to make Nukes... Trying rather slowly and they lost resources and heavy water. However Germans where determined when given a coal and they would of tried to build a working nuke.
Short of that, out of spite, of they had nuclear material. They could make dirty bombs.
.
Yes, take out UK mainland and.. Maybe.. There's now no staging posts so close to Europe... But even that's a big maybe.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/14 22:53:02
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.
The war would have ended a few weeks later anyway, the Japanese airforce was at the time already flying on walnut oil.
I think the US just wanted to see what happens (and do a show of force against the Russians), which is also why they didn't threaten Japan with them, since they didn't know if the bombs would work.
Again, my opening statement has been taken too literally. The Germans, despite making superb hardware, could not bring themselves to SIMPLIFY.
Had they done so, and refrained from simply making bigger, heavier and more powerful tanks using an industrial base which was increasingly strained, they would have fared much better
It would have sucked since that would have only prolonged the war and maybe we'd have eaten the nukes
they were no where near making nuclear weapons, Hitler had diverted that research to rockets.
also its also important to remember Japan had started a 2 front war with Russia's invasion of manchuria 6 days before the Japanese surrendered
are you going to keep talking about it, or do something already?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote: I'm a little late to the dance... But my favorite tank is the Perky little bug from World War One... The Reault FT-17.
It is often called the father of modern tank design. I know it is slow and easily popped. But I think a legion of these upgraded with modern tech would be a fun little force!
Some FT-17s were recovered from Afghanistan in the early 2000s, they’d made their way there through the hands of several countries. They were in regular use through the 50s and apparently one was still running into the 80s!
Gen. Lee Losing wrote: I'm a little late to the dance... But my favorite tank is the Perky little bug from World War One... The Reault FT-17.
It is often called the father of modern tank design. I know it is slow and easily popped. But I think a legion of these upgraded with modern tech would be a fun little force!
Some FT-17s were recovered from Afghanistan in the early 2000s, they’d made their way there through the hands of several countries. They were in regular use through the 50s and apparently one was still running into the 80s!
Though a FT-17 in modern use would suck. I suppose instead of that specific vehicle it may be more practical to ask if something with a similar layout and armament would be feasible.
Probably also no. All that vehicle for a HMG is a waste, especially considering that much lighter vehicles can mount them, or larger ones use them as secondary weapons systems. I suppose looking at it, it could be an equivalent to the BRDM-2, though even that's being pushed out of service at this point.
You'd be at the point of replacing the gun and sights, thickening the armour, giving it some tertiary armour like ERA, and boosting the engine. At that stage that's a Scimitar recce vehicle. Then you'd look at it and wonder that for less price you could have a Toyota Hilux with a ZU-23-2 on the back and some bolted on armour. APCs these days have comparable armaments to that thing, and that's the crappy ones (the world's moved to IFVs for transporting troops, which looking at the Russian BMP-3 are armed like light tanks at this point).
Meanwhile we're in a world where Drones exist. The role of a small, light, but heavily armed vehicle can be fulfilled by them. Either completely lightly armoured and mounting some form of HMG, or built more like an autonomous tank (ah, besides youknow, real remote controlled tanks like the Russian Armata). I'd give the Russian Uran-9 drone as an example of the latter.
TheCustomLime wrote: Cold comfort for the poor Sherman crew who had the misfortune of fighting against the big cats, though.
Except the casualties among US armour was about 3%, with half being suffered while the crew was voluntarily outside of the tank.
Casualties among German armour divisions don't have figures as reliable, but it was at least more than ten times as high.
Its great having a high velocity AT gun, but when the other side has ten times as many tanks, half of which can pop your armour as easily as you can pop theres, and he's also got infantry with radios capable of calling down artillery and airstrikes directly on your position... then yeah the misfortune was all with the Germans.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
TheCustomLime wrote: Cold comfort for the poor Sherman crew who had the misfortune of fighting against the big cats, though.
Except the casualties among US armour was about 3%, with half being suffered while the crew was voluntarily outside of the tank.
Casualties among German armour divisions don't have figures as reliable, but it was at least more than ten times as high.
Its great having a high velocity AT gun, but when the other side has ten times as many tanks, half of which can pop your armour as easily as you can pop theres, and he's also got infantry with radios capable of calling down artillery and airstrikes directly on your position... then yeah the misfortune was all with the Germans.
Well, I don't know about you, but if I was a driver of a Sherman under fire from a platoon of concealed Jadgtigers the fact that statistically speaking casualties for my comrades in arms is low wouldn't make me feel much better.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
ThunderCracker wrote: I have to say, it does grind my gears somewhat that folk keep talking highly of the German tanks of WW2 so much.
Yes, I think we can all agree that they were indeed very good vehicles. But did they achieve their objectives, ie; win the war? No, they didn't.
Yep. What is most amazing about this whole debate is that when people talk about how great German tanks were, they talk about Tigers and Panthers. They don't talk about Panzer III & IV. Now, Panzer III and IV weren't great tanks, but they're the tanks that swept across France and reached the outskirts of Moscow. The Tiger and the Panther, they're the tanks of Germany's long, slow defeat. For all their specifications, the best the Tiger and Panther offered in the field was to make some Allied victories quite costly. As tanks built to do the tank thing, that is breakthrough enemy lines and run havoc through the enemy rear and collapse the whole line, the Panther and Tiger never had a single success between. On the rare occasion they tried such operations, Kursk and the Bulge, the operations were disastrous for the Germans.
Allied tanks were, as we know, generally inferior to their German counterparts in tank-to-tank combat. But once upgunned, as seen in the Sherman Firefly, all of a sudden, they were deadly. Michael Wittmann knows all about that. The British 17pdr it was armed with was easily comparable to, or even superior, to the much vaunted German 88.
Always with the Firefly. Seriously, it wasn't all that. I mean yes, the Sherman was good, and the 17pdr was good, but fitting the 17pdr on the Sherman came with problems (to reduce recoil they had to add a muzzle break, and then fired SABOT rounds... and then the SABOT discards and clips the muzzle break). It didn't make it a bad tank, but it was an issue the US 76mm didn't have. The big plus for the Firefly was it was there in Normandy, while the 76mm wasn't because US commanders didn't think them necessary. After Normandy the 76mm was the better option, but because so much of the war is focused on Normandy...
And while the 17pdr was a deadly gun, calling it equal to the 88mm is an exaggeration. It would be more accurate to say that the later Allied guns (be they 17pdr, US 76mm, or Soviet 85mm) were basically as effective as the German 88mm in most normal situations just because the deadly range of all those guns was longer than the normal range of combat, but in some select circumstances the 88mm was still more effective (such as extreme range). For a gun as good as the 88mm you have to go to the US 90mm, which in WWII was only mounted on the M36.
Had the Germans focussed more on upgrading their existing tanks, such as the excellent Panzer III and IV, they might have done better. Even as it was, the Panzer IV was a superb tank, which despite being upgunned and made considerably heavier than it's original design weight, still performed well. Yet hardly anyone seems to mention this vehicle.
The Germans did a great job upgrading the Panzer IV, but those upgrades reached a natural end. There's only so much you can do to increase firepower and armour on a chassis before you have to go back to first design principles. The problem, really, was that when Germany started with their replacement design, a slightly heavier, modernised tank at around 30 tons... they ended up mission creeping all the way up to the 44 ton Panther.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Just some examples of great pieces of war machinery...but ones that would not, could not, and did not single handedly win the war.
Sure, war is fought by whole armies and not individual weapon platforms. The overall strategic situation and the doctrine in which the platform is used is just as important as the actual weapon itself. However, with the Tiger and the Panther it wasn't just that they were on the losing side, the two tanks were involved in almost no significant offensive successes at all. The Tiger was a part of some successful offensives in the African sideshow, but that's about it for both tanks. Everywhere else their success was in fighting retreats. Again, a lot of that was due to events outside of the tanks themselves, but it is a significant mark against both machines.
And the reason why is simple. Heavier designs with reliability problems aren't very good at breakthrough/exploitation operations. And both tanks lacked decent HE rounds, and Germany had very limited mobile artillery. This meant that as seen in battles such as Bastogne, the Germans had real problems dislodging determined, dug in infantry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChargerIIC wrote: Going off this logic the best tanks of the war would be the M3 Lee and the T-34. Both were 100% successful in what they were designed for - as stopgaps that stemmed the superior german models and turned the tide of the war.
The T-34 wasn't a stop gap. What? The T-34 was built as a workhorse tank intended to breakthrough enemy positions and exploit the breakthrough with deep operations. Which was a role it remained in from the start of the war to the end.
Nor did it stem the tide of superior German models - when the Russians and Germans fought the T-34 was by far the best tank on the field. The only thing that beat the T-34 in any area was the better armoured KV series, which were also Russian.
Germany only claimed 'superior' tanks when it deployed heavier tanks specifically designed to counter the T-34. And it only deployed them in time to start constantly losing everywhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: There was a story I read once about a Sherman crew in the Pacific in WWII. They considered their tank lucky because it always used less fuel and never broke down. Then one day they got point blanked by a small anti tank rifle. It should never have penetrated the armor, but it did, barely. No one was hurts but something was up with their tank. On further inspection they found out that somehow the manufacturer shipped a low-armor "trainer" or testbed version. The army wanted to give them a proper tank, but they refused. The armor they had was sufficient as the Japanese had few anti armor weapons and they were still rifle proof.
I guess its possible that both a British tank crew and a US tank crew were both given training tanks by mistake, both found out when hit by small AT weapons, and both chose to keep their 'lucky' tanks. But I think it's more likely that this event, which a British Crusader tank commander wrote about in his memoir, has been 'borrowed' by the US and turned in to a Pacific story.
I can get the name of the memoir if you're interested. It's a cracking good read outside of that one story, as well.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/02/15 03:00:44
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
There were only 3 times after D-Day that US tanks (of any kind) fought a Tiger. The first was 5 Shermans vs 2 Tigers, and the Shermans kicked but with no casualties. The second was a Patton swapping hits with a Tiger before the Tiger got a lucky shot in. The Third was a bunch of Shermans shooting unmanned Tigers loaded onto a train, so that one doesn't really count.
Against the Panzer 3 and 4, the Sherman was by far the better tank. Even the smaller 75mm gun was more than enough to take them out.
German tanks were nice when they worked, but it's like Germans put no thought into ease of maintenance. If I remember correctly the time it took to change a transmission on a Panther was 8 days in a field workshop equipped with a crane, towing vehicle, and 8 guys. Changing a transmission in a Sherman was 2 hours with hand tools for 2 men wherever the tank broke down.
cuda1179 wrote: The T-34 was a decent enough tank for the task it had to do. However, I also believe it was the most over-hyped tank in history. Soviet crews that had the option to upgrade from a T-34 to a US-provided Sherman jumped on the chance and much preferred them.
Which says something about the qualities of the Sherman, not the failures of the T-34. You're comparing tanks #1 and #2 in the war. It's like saying people would rather have Usain Bolt race for them, therefore Tyson Gay isn't very good.
Add into this that the T-34 had really crappy tracks that broke often, and a cruddy transmission that needed a hammer to shift into high gear.
That was the KV tanks, which had chronic transmission issues. However, there was a lot of rougher finishing on the T-34, that is true. But there's a fair question to be had about exactly how you consider that issue. One the on hand, none of those issues were inherent to the design itself, built with the skill of German workers the T-34s would have been far better refined. So looking at the design in abstract maybe it shouldn't be considered?
Or if you want to look at the tanks that actually reached the field, including the low manufacturing standards, then you also have to credit the T-34 for being such a simple, robust design that Soviet Russia, which was an agricultural backwater ravaged by Civil War just a generation before, managed to outproduce a Nazi empire that had just about the entire manufacturing base of continental Europe behind it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Exactly. The Japanese wpuld have continued to fight...but the devastation of the atomic bombs ended the war, for all intents and purposes.
August 6,1945: The first atomic bomb to be used as a weapon is dropped on Hiroshima, Japan.
August 9, 1945: An atomic bomb is dropped over Nagasaki, Japan.
August 15, 1945: Japan surrenders, ending World War II.
9 days.
The atomic bombs effectively ended the war, forcing the surrender of Japan.
The atomic bomb played a massive part, definitely. But people dismiss the impact of Russia's declaration of war and their immediate invasion. August 8 Russia declares war. 7 days later Japan surrenders, and by that time Russia has cut through the Japanese so fast... you know North Korea - that's the part of the Japanese Empire that Russia was able to take in just 7 days. It was a hot knife through butter.
Thing is, the atomic bombs were a huge impact as it showed Japan couldn't withstand the bombing indefinitely. But also very important was that up until the Soviet operation, the Japanese were still holding on the dream that a negotiation might let them keep a large chunk of their Chinese holdings. Russia showed that a complete collapse of their position in China wasn't just inevitable, it was now inevitable within weeks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
XuQishi wrote: I think the US just wanted to see what happens (and do a show of force against the Russians), which is also why they didn't threaten Japan with them, since they didn't know if the bombs would work.
This is a myth, born largely by people losing the historical context of the war, and seeing it instead through the Cold War understanding that followed.
At the time, the atomic bomb wasn't seen as a uniquely different weapon. It was more powerful, of course, but cities were being demolished regularly with conventional bombing. By 1945 had come to see the loss of whole divisions of men as a daily occurrence. In that environment, any leader given a new, extremely powerful weapon is going to use it. In fact, I doubt many world leaders would even realise 'should I use this new weapon' was even a question that could be asked. Once you get numb to signing off on offensives with expected casualties of 10,000 or more, or an air campaign that might kill 100,000 civilians, you stop thinking about whether a new weapon might be seen in some new, horrible way in a generation or two. You just do what is needed to end the war.
Then a generation or two later, when the daily carnage of WWII is history, and everyone lives under MAD, then you start getting novel theories about the 'real' reason America dropped the bomb.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/15 03:43:11
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: For a gun as good as the 88mm you have to go to the US 90mm, which in WWII was only mounted on the M36.
It was also mounted on the Pershing but the Pershing didn't really do much.
Had the Germans focussed more on upgrading their existing tanks, such as the excellent Panzer III and IV, they might have done better. Even as it was, the Panzer IV was a superb tank, which despite being upgunned and made considerably heavier than it's original design weight, still performed well. Yet hardly anyone seems to mention this vehicle.
Indeed. There's lots of evidence that has led historians to believe that in many instances because of similar profiles from a distance Allies confused the Panzer IV with the Tiger inflating the laters reputation.
However, with the Tiger and the Panther it wasn't just that they were on the losing side, the two tanks were involved in almost no significant offensive successes at all.
As a matter of fact they began their service careers with a major offensive blunder at the beginning of the Battle of Kursk. The Panthers drove straight into a mine field and the Tigers ended up stuck in mud. The later was also rushed out before having coaxial machine guns or hull mounted machine guns, so once they got stuck they could do nothing to ward of Soviet infantry.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/15 03:58:14
TheCustomLime wrote: Well, I don't know about you, but if I was a driver of a Sherman under fire from a platoon of concealed Jadgtigers the fact that statistically speaking casualties for my comrades in arms is low wouldn't make me feel much better.
Well, yeah, when you come under fire from the enemy, you'd rather be them. That says something about the advantage of firing first, not the tanks involved or their rates of losses.
So why not instead of your contrived example, let's talk about my contrived example. It's a US infantry division advancing on ground held by a German panzer division. Sounds great for the Panzer division... except that even US infantry divisions had far more tanks in them than German panzer divisions. And that was on paper, in the field with the unreliability of German designs meant the actual number of tanks they had in operation at any time was even less.
Ah, but you've got a high velocity gun, so you should pop a bunch of Shermans before... yeah but no. The US begins with a day or two artillery bombardment, preventing you from concentrating and sapping morale. Then they begin a series of probing attacks against your forward elements, where recon units ID the enemy, radio back locations to artillery and deliver instant, overwhelming firepower to bounce the German positions. You want to mobilize your armour to engage, but concentration and movement will bring air attacks from the Allies that control the skies.
But hey, you've got a really good gun, and that armour should bounce a lot of Allied tank rounds if you keep them 1,000 yards away.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
TheCustomLime wrote: Well, I don't know about you, but if I was a driver of a Sherman under fire from a platoon of concealed Jadgtigers the fact that statistically speaking casualties for my comrades in arms is low wouldn't make me feel much better.
Well, yeah, when you come under fire from the enemy, you'd rather be them. That says something about the advantage of firing first, not the tanks involved or their rates of losses.
So why not instead of your contrived example, let's talk about my contrived example. It's a US infantry division advancing on ground held by a German panzer division. Sounds great for the Panzer division... except that even US infantry divisions had far more tanks in them than German panzer divisions. And that was on paper, in the field with the unreliability of German designs meant the actual number of tanks they had in operation at any time was even less.
Ah, but you've got a high velocity gun, so you should pop a bunch of Shermans before... yeah but no. The US begins with a day or two artillery bombardment, preventing you from concentrating and sapping morale. Then they begin a series of probing attacks against your forward elements, where recon units ID the enemy, radio back locations to artillery and deliver instant, overwhelming firepower to bounce the German positions. You want to mobilize your armour to engage, but concentration and movement will bring air attacks from the Allies that control the skies.
But hey, you've got a really good gun, and that armour should bounce a lot of Allied tank rounds if you keep them 1,000 yards away.
And let's be honest, which contrived scenario was more common during the closing months of the war? Being a German tanker was a lot worse than being an American one during those days. Your big tanks constantly broke down, was always short on fuel and was constantly strafed by aircraft you could do little to stop. Not to mention the artillery barrages.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
LordofHats wrote: It was also mounted on the Pershing but the Pershing didn't really do much.
Yeah, it's why I left it out. The British also had a version of the 17pdr better suited to operating in a turret, I want to say 77mm HV?, that they mounted on their tanks. Basically it reduced the recoil, which meant it could operate in a standard turret, which meant no barrel break. So the British and US both had excellent designs just in time for there to be hardly any more war to fight.
As a matter of fact they began their service careers with a major offensive blunder at the beginning of the Battle of Kursk. The Panthers drove straight into a mine field and the Tigers ended up stuck in mud. The later was also rushed out before having coaxial machine guns or hull mounted machine guns, so once they got stuck they could do nothing to ward of Soviet infantry.
Yep. There were a lot of errors at Kursk (when you make your attack so obvious that the enemy can invest in massive fieldworks and mines... maybe attack somewhere else), but its certainly true that the new wonder tank wasn't going to be what pulled Germany out of the mess.
Next time you see Panthers involved in an offensive operation is the Bulge, where they performed even worse because there Germany achieved surprise and managed the initial breakthrough of the front lines, but couldn't exploit that, because despite the surprise the massive advantage the allies had in mobility meant they could respond faster than the Germans could advance. Again, not entirely due to the limits of the German tanks (German logistics were lamentable in general)... but relying on such heavy tanks with limited anti-infantry effects was part of the issue.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
TheCustomLime wrote: Well, I don't know about you, but if I was a driver of a Sherman under fire from a platoon of concealed Jadgtigers the fact that statistically speaking casualties for my comrades in arms is low wouldn't make me feel much better.
Well, yeah, when you come under fire from the enemy, you'd rather be them. That says something about the advantage of firing first, not the tanks involved or their rates of losses.
So why not instead of your contrived example, let's talk about my contrived example. It's a US infantry division advancing on ground held by a German panzer division. Sounds great for the Panzer division... except that even US infantry divisions had far more tanks in them than German panzer divisions. And that was on paper, in the field with the unreliability of German designs meant the actual number of tanks they had in operation at any time was even less.
Ah, but you've got a high velocity gun, so you should pop a bunch of Shermans before... yeah but no. The US begins with a day or two artillery bombardment, preventing you from concentrating and sapping morale. Then they begin a series of probing attacks against your forward elements, where recon units ID the enemy, radio back locations to artillery and deliver instant, overwhelming firepower to bounce the German positions. You want to mobilize your armour to engage, but concentration and movement will bring air attacks from the Allies that control the skies.
But hey, you've got a really good gun, and that armour should bounce a lot of Allied tank rounds if you keep them 1,000 yards away.
Debbie's scenario is not contrived, it's actual.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
TheCustomLime wrote: And let's be honest, which contrived scenario was more common during the closing months of the war? Being a German tanker was a lot worse than being an American one during those days. Your big tanks constantly broke down, was always short on fuel and was constantly strafed by aircraft you could do little to stop. Not to mention the artillery barrages.
Yep. So I guess there's two questions,
1) If a Sherman (any variant) was taking on a Panther over open ground, starting 1,000 yards away, which would you rather be in?
2) If you were to pick either a Sherman or a Panther and be in either army for the remainder of the war, or until you die, starting from D-Day, which would you rather?
First question its the Panther, easy answer. Second question the answer is Sherman, even more easily answered
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Debbie's scenario is not contrived, it's actual.
Debbie? Okay if I call you Brazzled?
Anyhow, they're both contrived in that they're deliberately chosen to show the strengths of each, in their best circumstance. Both happened, or at least things like them happened. The Germans did place tanks in position to ambush and destroy advancing allied armour from range, and did manage to do so fairly often. And the Allies did use artillery and air power to degrade German positions and prevent concentration of force, while isolating forward units and wiping them with overwhelming firepower.
And TheCustomLime recognised the latter was more common, so I think we all agree overall.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/15 04:40:30
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Sorry typing from phone. Auto correct is brutal
Your scenario is very correct if things go right if they run into a prepared defense.
As the old joke went. Shoot a round at a noise. If you get accurate counterfire it's British. If you get lots of auto it's German. If nothing happens for two minutes and then artillery starts dropping on your position, it's GIs.
Just called me Bedazzled...
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
LordofHats wrote: It was also mounted on the Pershing but the Pershing didn't really do much.
Yeah, it's why I left it out. The British also had a version of the 17pdr better suited to operating in a turret, I want to say 77mm HV?, that they mounted on their tanks. Basically it reduced the recoil, which meant it could operate in a standard turret, which meant no barrel break. So the British and US both had excellent designs just in time for there to be hardly any more war to fight.
As a matter of fact they began their service careers with a major offensive blunder at the beginning of the Battle of Kursk. The Panthers drove straight into a mine field and the Tigers ended up stuck in mud. The later was also rushed out before having coaxial machine guns or hull mounted machine guns, so once they got stuck they could do nothing to ward of Soviet infantry.
Yep. There were a lot of errors at Kursk (when you make your attack so obvious that the enemy can invest in massive fieldworks and mines... maybe attack somewhere else), but its certainly true that the new wonder tank wasn't going to be what pulled Germany out of the mess.
Next time you see Panthers involved in an offensive operation is the Bulge, where they performed even worse because there Germany achieved surprise and managed the initial breakthrough of the front lines, but couldn't exploit that, because despite the surprise the massive advantage the allies had in mobility meant they could respond faster than the Germans could advance. Again, not entirely due to the limits of the German tanks (German logistics were lamentable in general)... but relying on such heavy tanks with limited anti-infantry effects was part of the issue.
The fire fly -17 pounder was flipped on side, and they cut down parts of the recoiil system to make it work in a turret. It was as original form too large and did not have lengh to fully recoil.with modifications it could work, we had to adapt it to use in tanks.
It sacraficed a little power but it also greatly boosted the fore power of a Sherman to dent big cats the 76mm could not.
There was several later models like black Prince in the coming line had things dragged on. Heavier armour Churchill and other tanks upgraded and enlarged. With larger turrets to better mount the big 17 pound guns, more room for thr recoil and crews and thicker armour to fight the heavier enemy tanks and survive.
A blqck Prince would of had a extra maybe 40% to front and a turret and Hull better suited to carrying thr big guns.
In the works was also thr formidable centurion at the end..
Allied tanks where catching up.
Soviet wise a heavy stalin tank was coming with maybe a 100mm gun in 1945 that scared the allies.
The big cats where going to face a challenge later on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/15 15:04:35
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
In late 1944 here is the list of vehicles that had realistic chances of dealing with Panthers and Tigers at decent ranges
Soviet: *IS tank- lets blow that turrent right off Comrade *KV/IS 155 - The first cat killer. Lets blow that turret off and send flying high so high, and also wipe out the company surrounding it. *SU-85. a little aging but still can do the job. *SU100. Oh yea, as they say on Forged in Fire, This...will KEEEL. *T34/85. Not as good a punch as the 76mm/777/17 lber, but works.
US/British: M10: 3 inch predecessor of the 76mm M4/76mm: bang bang. Later studies support this over both the Firefly and T34/85 based on penetration, rate of fire and accuracy (overall, 17lber more penetrative but less accurate). 17lber Firefly. Not accurate at distant, but 500 yards or under, very lethal with that sabot round. M36 Jackson. 90mm love comparable to the Tiger I's 88mm. M18/bulldog. 76mm bang bang if you're ready to shoot and scoot fast.
Allied tanks coming into service last Qtr 1944/early 1945: *Comet with the 77 (tweaked 17 lber). *Pershing with 90mm. *Pershing with 90mm long barrel equal to Tiger II's 88 *Centurion. *Tortoise heavy heavy heavy assault tank. Britain's answer to all things German. (The Brits got their act together and weren't messing around yowsa) Did I miss any?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/15 18:51:29
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
... dang." 
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
