how earlier, say 1915.
Good question. Yeah, I guess that 1915 works--but now we have to work out why America enters the Great War that early in the game.
how earlier, say 1915.
Good question. Yeah, I guess that 1915 works--but now we have to work out why America enters the Great War that early in the game.
Good question. Yeah, I guess that 1915 works--but now we have to work out why America enters the Great War that early in the game.
‘Hillary Clinton Vs. John McCain In 2008’.
McCain would still lost even if he picks someone else as Palin. Republican candidate was destined to lost election in 2008.
For the turrets there were major reasons that the French went that way. They were not correct in hindsight. But they made sense at the time.Three different ideas of mine
- What If France's obsession with 1 and 1½ Man turrets for their tanks never came to pass, a timeline where the all French tanks were designed with 3 man turrets from the 1930's onwards.
- What if William Goebel survived his assassination, either the wound was not mortal or by some miracle he survived in the end.
‘Barack Obama Doesn’t Run Again In 2012’. What could dis-incentivize him from aiming for a second term, I’m unsure of at the moment.
For the turrets there were major reasons that the French went that way. They were not correct in hindsight. But they made sense at the time.
Chieftain largely says that in his videos. Not sure which ones but I remember him saying that.The French had a steel shortage, weak automotive industry, an infantry support assault doctrine based on "deliberate assault", a severe manpower crisis, and a fixation on the FT-17 tank architecture to fit that deliberate assault doctrine and a fairly weak economy as well as the lack of tech to make their auto-cannon concept work. The tanks they build make a lot of sense based on their doctrine. The only thing they can do to improve their situation is to solve the auto-loader conundrum. Postwar they still have the same problems which is why they persist in the same solutions.
Chieftain largely says that in his videos. Not sure which ones but I remember him saying that.
In 1931, French armor units were about to be massively equipped with infantry support light tanks, like the Renault R35 and Hotchkiss H35. However, the specifications of the time called for a cavalry medium tank. This meant a fast tank. Renault already had experience with the D1 and D2 medium infantry support models. This led Renault to create the AMC 34 (for “Automitrailleuse de Combat”). But in 1934, the specification was altered, now requesting a better armored and faster model. Renault then redesigned its plans around the same basis to save time, creating the AMC 35. This new design incorporated, for the very first time, the new experimental APX-2 two-man turret.
This was not derived from any specification, but only a new idea from Renault, after hearing many operational training reports and memorandums. Although systematic three man crews for all French tanks of the interwar were mostly dictated by demography, this was also issued by technical limitations. A smaller, one man turret was easier to design and build. The Châtillon APX-2 model was also very costly. The first prototype, conceived by Renault and presented in March 1936 to the French Vincennes materiel commission, suspicious after the rejection of the previous Renault AMC YR, first found it unacceptable for service, as it didn’t fulfill all requirements of speed and protection. But political pressure, ensured by the German remilitarization of the Rhineland, plus the urgent need of the cavalry, led to its eventual acceptation.
Off the table as that is "too current". But for a past example, that could be discussed, look at Herbert Hoover and the economy as a modus.