Obergruppenführer Smith
Banned
Understood.Don't insult other members.
Use the report button if you think there is an issue.
Play the Ball.
Understood.Don't insult other members.
Use the report button if you think there is an issue.
Play the Ball.
The Germans did the same thing with their own penal battalions and yet nobody ever insists the Germans had a horde mentality and were a bunch of simplistic brutes.Obergruppenführer Smith,
Dude, seriously? This is supposed to be a forum about alternate history speculation - not a platform for SJW denouncements. Noting the relative educational levels of the Soviet Union versus the US is hardly a racist thing. And the Soviet tactical doctrine did base itself on an expenditure of manpower that no Western nation would've accepted. That's why Red Army divisions were always larger than their equivalent Western military formations - the Soviets needed those extra warm bodies as they planned on consuming them at a faster and more frequent rate than the Western armies would. A look at how the Red Army ran its penal battalions would also make this clear. For the Soviets, the role of the penal battalions was to lead the way in any attack and thus cause the enemy to reveal its defensive positions so that the rest of the army could then concentrate on those. So, yes, the Soviets did tend to view their troops as simple bullet magnets.
That is outright racist and ignorant. You should be ashamed of yourself.
People also forget that Pavlov's House was basically a turkey shoot with no semblance of tactics whatsoever. But no, fuckin "HYOOMAN WEHVES" for anything that isn't the Wehrmacht or SS. Arracourt would make the Wehraboo community's heads explode.The Germans did the same thing with their own penal battalions and yet nobody ever insists the Germans had a horde mentality and were a bunch of simplistic brutes.
The problem with this is that each heavy tank unit would mean multiple Sherman units that do not show up, because the heavy tank costs more to produce, takes up more room in transports, requires more supplies and requires special transport provisions, and diverting resources from Shermans reduce their economies of scale. Plus if I remember correctly, tanks were only the 4th greatest killer of Shermans, after AT mines, infantry AT weapons and AT guns, certainly heavier tanks will do nothing about the mine problem, and probably nothing about the Infantry AT weapon or AT gunsIf heavy tanks were used properly they could have given the Germans serious problems.
The Germans were facing a tank shortage in 1944, altering the tank loss raito even slightly would have serious consequences for the Germans.
World War 2 was still a infantry war, a few Shermans not being destroyed would be a few more Shermans to pound on infantry, which the Sherman excelled at.
That's what happens when you use the same drivetrain one a 30-ton and a 45-ton tank. You think they would have at least used the original V12 version of the Ford GAA couple with an automatic transmission with more than 4 speeds.Also, for example, the M26 used 4x as much gas as the Sherman to cover the same distance. You will never have the same speed of advance, will never get the big breakthroughs, and will have to fight all the way across France, instead of racing across in weeks.
I'm lost, what's racist about the comment? Or ignorant?
The problem with this is that each heavy tank unit would mean multiple Sherman units that do not show up, because the heavy tank costs more to produce, takes up more room in transports, requires more supplies and requires special transport provisions, and diverting resources from Shermans reduce their economies of scale. Plus if I remember correctly, tanks were only the 4th greatest killer of Shermans, after AT mines, infantry AT weapons and AT guns, certainly heavier tanks will do nothing about the mine problem, and probably nothing about the Infantry AT weapon or AT guns
I would agree with this, if you're talking about any nation other than the USA and the USSR. Those two nations produced tanks in such massive numbers, they both could have produced a large number of heavy tanks and the transport for them with no problems.
USSR did produce fairly decent numbers of Heavy tanksI would agree with this, if you're talking about any nation other than the USA and the USSR. Those two nations produced tanks in such massive numbers, they both could have produced a large number of heavy tanks and the transport for them with no problems.
Nicholas Moran is an excellent guy to listen to for more about this.
This particular video lays waste to that whole Tank Destroyer myth as well as many others. Moran pulls his info from original source documentation - US Army Field Manuals from the era, among other resources.
That, and this thread was also partly inspired by me thinking of the King Tiger and the IS-2 and thinking "Why didn't the Allies mass-produce a badass heavy tank like that?"
There was an action issued already for the comment.I'm lost, what's racist about the comment? Or ignorant?
Though the movie Battle of the Bulge is horrendously historically inaccurate (using M24 Chaffees to represent Shermans
Too bad one of the only accurate parts was the singing of Panzerlied.
Well, there were M24s present in the Bulge, having first deployed to ADs in November.
But yeah.
Too bad one of the only accurate parts was the singing of Panzerlied.