Ramontxo
Donor
Yes I remember reading it twice (not saying that I would not read it Thrice...)I didn’t. I actually can’t remember who originally wrote that, but it was so well wonderful that I have to repost it every time the Ratte comes up.
Yes I remember reading it twice (not saying that I would not read it Thrice...)I didn’t. I actually can’t remember who originally wrote that, but it was so well wonderful that I have to repost it every time the Ratte comes up.
The factories weren't so much destroyed as they were damagedSo the factories producing Mk-III were destroyed? Weren't those also the factories that made Stugs? Where did they produce them after that, or were most of the rest of the Assault Guns based on the Mk-IV?
You misunderstand the weapon systemThis shows a lack of tactical thinking 101.
When you have 360 deg of fire, it also means the opposite can see you in reverse.
You should be in dead ground, protected from view and fire from flanks/rear/ distant fire,
and have no dead ground for the enemy to appear "unexpectedly".
LOL.Brooke btw is not an artilleryman his regiment of commission was the RA but his previous two appointments have been commanding an infantry Bde and Director of Military Training his next would be GOC Southern Command.
So with the knowledge that Germany learned through the war through its own tanks and the tanks of its enemies...
How would you think the Reich's perfect tank look like in 1945?
Now of course in 1945 the Reich was pretty much kaputt, so let us ignore those stupid restraints like resources or the war and and give the Germans the endless fields of the simple drawing board.
How close to a first gen MBT do you think it would be?
That is a separate issue. Whether fired straight off the march, or fully deployed. The tactical placement of the gun in either mode needs to be considered.You misunderstand the weapon system
It can be fired from it 'wheels' in exactly the same way as the PAK 38 if necessary but can also in about the time its taken you to read this post be setup by its 3 man team to fire from its 'deployed' setup.
Here is a training video where the gun is shown deployed in both fashion
Well that appears to be your opinionThat is a separate issue. Whether fired straight off the march, or fully deployed. The tactical placement of the gun in either mode needs to be considered.
With such short range, 360 deg fire offers little advantage. A gun with that with high profile, has very poor survivability.
As guns should never be placed alone, but in pairs or groups. Again 360 deg is not an asset.
Look at photos of guns deployed, and the arcs they can use?
They did. They never repeated. 6 pdr, 17 pdr and 32 pdr didn't bother. That's the RA wartime opinion, not mine!Well that appears to be your opinion
The Royal Artillery who might be considered subject matter experts on artillery - thought otherwise.
Again much larger and much heavier weapon systems - not nearly as easy to achieve a 'crew deployable 360 degree system' and while the 2 pounder was a peacetime weapons system with time to develop, the 6 pounder and subsequent guns had war time expedience and were 'rushed' into service with the 17 pounder initially mounted on a 25 pounder carriage as the 'Pheasant'.They did. They never repeated. 6 pdr, 17 pdr and 32 pdr didn't bother. That's the RA wartime opinion, not mine!
Nigel states it clearly....
The deployment principles for anti-tank guns were to site them with an uninterrupted (enfiladed) field of view over their arcs of fire. The need for surprise at the most effective range meant the ideal positions were defiladed that covered an obstacle. Effective fire meant concealment and surprise: camouflage, defiladed from enemy observation and dug-in whenever possible. Digging was often easier said than done, it took 12 - 15 hours to dig-in a 17-pdr. Defilade usually meant engaging tanks from the side, which presented the largest target and had less armour than the front, the first Pz KfW Mk VI Tigers were destroyed by 6-pdr fire from their flank at ranges between 500 and 900 yards.
ANTI-TANK
nigelef.tripod.com
9 and 617 squadrons have a jolly day out with Tallboys and Grandslam. I doubt the Ratte would be able to get out of the crater.HiI always wondered what the Allies reaction would be if the Nazi's actually built the Ratte tank. This tank would be so large that for its main weapon system, it would have a turret from the Bismarck, then 4 turrets that were the main King Tiger gun. It would be so large that it would be designated a "Landcruiser."
Probably would have suffered the same fate as Battleship Yamato.
The 6 pdr goes back to '38, and there never any plan to repeat 360 deg fire.Again much larger and much heavier weapon systems - not nearly as easy to achieve a 'crew deployable 360 degree system' and while the 2 pounder was a peacetime weapons system with time to develop, the 6 pounder and subsequent guns had war time expedience and were 'rushed' into service with the 17 pounder initially mounted on a 25 pounder carriage as the 'Pheasant'.
And yet no angst!
The 6 pounder was a heavier gun with far greater recoil than the 2 pounder - to have given it a 360 mounting would have made the gun far too heavy for a 3 (6 including driver and ammunition handlers) man crew to manage without increasing the size of the gun crew.The 6 pdr goes back to '38, and there never any plan to repeat 360 deg fire.
Remember 25 pdr was choosen, not as the best caliber, but one that could be retrofitted to 18 pdr carriages.
So it was the first time BA, used a hybrid system. It was already force to use miss-use 25 pdr as an AT gun due to the short comings of it's AT guns.
It retrospect, the French probably had it right. The 25mm, would have being enough for infantry, and for use against thin AFVs (eg IJA tank), and the 47mm with a very useful, slow and heavy HE (1.4kg shell /142 g explosive vs 40mm .86kg /85g explosive). BA could jump straight to long 75-77mm.
Watched a bit of that video, looks like a good system and almost certainly better than this:You misunderstand the weapon system
It can be fired from it 'wheels' in exactly the same way as the PAK 38 if necessary but can also in about the time its taken you to read this post be setup by its 3 man team to fire from its 'deployed' setup.
Here is a training video where the gun is shown deployed in both fashion
Not bad, does not make it good.The 2 pounder having such a feature and later heavier war time guns not, does not make it a bad system
The choice of 25 pounder was not only driven by the 18 pounder but also as a realisation that increasing to 105mm did not improve the ability to destroy prepared positions and the then understanding that sustainable rate of fire had a greater suppressive impact - IMO they were correct in choosing the 25 pounder gun/howitzer system and it served the British commonwealth well.
What makes it good is that it was effective against the enemy tanks it faced in the early part of the war and frankly a better weapon than the PAK 36 which was ineffective against the British infantry tanks. You need to measure these things against direct contemporaries, not weapons that didn't enter service until much later.Not bad, does not make it good.
By infantry tanks, that means only Matilda 2, which only a very few were in France and entered general service much later.What makes it good is that it was effective against the enemy tanks it faced in the early part of the war and frankly a better weapon than the PAK 36 which was ineffective against the British infantry tanks. You need to measure these things against direct contemporaries, not weapons that didn't enter service until much later.
Which of course ignores North Africa where the 2pdr was highly effective again and the PAK 36 proved inadequate, again. The PAK 36 is the direct counterpart of the 2pdr, if the 2pdr is bad, what does say about the far less effective PAK 36?By infantry tanks, that means only Matilda 2, which only a very few were in France and entered general service much later.
All other British tanks were easily penetrated by Pak 36.
47mm was in service, in multiply countries and true, limited service in France (same as Matilda)