Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
Question: Where was John Nance's loyalty's at? What I mean is I have heard that he was a conservative and somewhere else I have heard that he was a progressive. Also I heard that he proposed authoritarianism to FDR.
Then it would also need to invest heavily in large cargo ships, heavy-capacity cranes and stronger bridges... which were all reasons for why they didn't do it...
A fair question, I suppose. I recall reading once that maybe four to five M4 Shermans tended to face one Tiger tank in engagements, which America’s sheer mass-production capabilities no doubt allowed to be the case.
However, I do wonder what’d happen if ASB made large numbers of US-designed heavy and super-heavy tanks—such as M26 Pershings and T14s—materialize across Europe with their assorted crews, enough munitions and repair and maintenance facilities to take on Axis armor during World War Two. But that’s a different discussion for another time and place.
McPherson
Banned
Shermans fought, doctrinally, not as singletons, but as troops and squadrons against the Germans; so they always and I mean always were able to outmaneuver the Germans for the flank shot to close and kill even the toughest German tanks in combined arms battle sets. British did it, too. Why fight fair? Nothing operates in isolation.
And lets be clear here as well, its not like the Germans did not understand combined arms and squad tactics, they did. And used them frequently in the Polish campaign, invasion of the low countries and France. Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, the Germans used squad level tactics for their tanks. They knew that it helped to have several tanks working together in cooperation, and it won them huge victories. However by the time the western Allies are invading France the Germans are to thinly spread and primarily conducting fighting retreats across western Europe. So one Tiger tank being left behind, either on purpose or through last minute changes in timetables, is more often than not all the tigers encountered. It also was a major problem that the Germans, but this point were very short on tanks, compared at least to the number of vehicles the USA and Britain were producing.
So with that in mind the war becomes even less fair for the Germans. And also, getting back to the original post that brought out this conversation, in this circumstance why would the US Army need such heavy tanks? Its not like the army wasnt destroying Tigers, they had been since North Africa quite often. So if you are in the US army high command and are seeing these reports of US tanks engaging and destroying the German heavies with stupid high win to loss rates how could you then justify the cost associated with continuing to develop a heavy tank to match what the Germans had. Much the same logic was the case with the US armies decision not to equip new tanks with a 76 mm gun. Shermans were regularly engaging Tigers, and destroying them. And with five to one odds on average, so why then invest in heavy and superheavy tanks to fight the Germans?
Thats my two cents worth anyways hope I am not to late to the party.
McPherson
Banned
Here is an interesting statistic. The Germans at the invasion of 1944 France (counting the French machines still in their inventory) had about 3,000 AFVs in France. The Allies had to build up over the course of a month to match those numbers. In the fighting before the final surrender, the Americans lost about ~1400 AFVs and killed about ~2,000 German AFVs. Don't have any numbers for the British, but I think they did about the same business. THAT includes infantry kills but there were some tank battles in France, (Battle of Arracourt (victory), Goodwood (defeat) The Bulge (victory) CAEN (the Canadians never get enough credit for the victory.) of some major significance. The point is that once the Germans lost their aircover, the Wallies had four moves to the Germans' one, which is why Tigers and Panthers were left behind to be killed by 1s, 2s, or 5s because the Germans could not move during daylight or they would be infantry or artillery killed by tank hunting American, British, or Canadian CATS (combined arms teams). If the enemy knows about where you are, and you have no clue where he went, you are done in open tank country warfare. He can outmaneuver you easily and enfilade your sorry Tiger aspidistra with a 6 o' clock 7.5 cm birthday present up the old engine kazoo.
Could anyone recommend good and thorough books on the Chinese Civil War, between the Communists and Nationalists? Bonus points if there's audio versions available (audible seems to have none, though it does have an interesting looking title on the Taiping Rebellion).
I concur on the whole “Noooooo!!!!!!” since the magical sci-fi I obsessed over once my dad first showed me never comes to be. But what would a TL without what’s arguably G. Lucas’s finest film series entail?
We already know that the denizens of that world will miss something that they don’t even know they should have, but that’s only a starting point for OTL discourse.
McPherson
Banned
I must be weird. I would not miss Lucas' work one iota as I actually think it would be a null event if it never happened, but Reagan's bluff that came from it? That PoD with no 'Star Wars' anti-ICBM program would be interesting in of itself.
A battleship Bismarck POD. Not worth a thread, so putting it here:
Let's say everything about Bismarck progresses the same, until her last battle. She sinks the Hood, is chased all the way around the British Isles, gets crippled by Swordfish torpedoes and caught off France by KGV and Rodney. Here it changes - it is not a drawn out death where she is battered into a burning wreck by her two foes. Instead, Rodney's first salvo is a golden BB - a 16 inch shell goes straight through her armor, into her forward magazines. And within minutes of her second meeting with British battleships, Bismarck is simply gone.
How would things proceed? Royal Navy just avenged Hood unambiguously. There is no question about what happened - Rodney fired, there was a great gout of fire, and Bismarck rapidly disappeared beneath the waves. How would both sides react? And since this really would not do anything to cause any great changes to the war, how would the debate and mythology post-war would change?
Let's say everything about Bismarck progresses the same, until her last battle. She sinks the Hood, is chased all the way around the British Isles, gets crippled by Swordfish torpedoes and caught off France by KGV and Rodney. Here it changes - it is not a drawn out death where she is battered into a burning wreck by her two foes. Instead, Rodney's first salvo is a golden BB - a 16 inch shell goes straight through her armor, into her forward magazines. And within minutes of her second meeting with British battleships, Bismarck is simply gone.
How would things proceed? Royal Navy just avenged Hood unambiguously. There is no question about what happened - Rodney fired, there was a great gout of fire, and Bismarck rapidly disappeared beneath the waves. How would both sides react? And since this really would not do anything to cause any great changes to the war, how would the debate and mythology post-war would change?
Well the whole German turtleback armour is the best armour ever and the germans were so smart and the germans had the best ships in the world. If only they had more trend would likely never come into being. And Tirpitz would likely be much reworked for the ship.