|
OwlFancier posted:If the tank as a concept had been invented a bit earlier you loving know that we'd have had land dreadnoughts by 1914 and the first world war would have been essentially the plot of Mortal Engines with the British and German tank fleets driving all over France trying to find some small, 150 ton tanks to blow up without risking their 800 ton flagtanks. But... rivers?
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:What's specifically the difference between blitzkrieg and deep battle? I'd say it's the existence of clearly defined Schwerpunkt(en). If you know where your focal point to break through is, it's Blitzkrieg. If you're awaiting results to figure out where the weak spot is that you can exploit, it's deep battle. Alternately deep battle is blitzkrieg that knows when to stop to regroup and resupply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:But... rivers? I'm sure we can build a tank with a track length longer than the Rhein is wide.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:What's specifically the difference between blitzkrieg and deep battle? I'd say that the biggest difference is that Blitzkrieg is a colloquialism used in a more descriptive sense on how the Germans ran their wars for the period of 1939-1942. Deep Battle is an actual, written down doctrine. Overall the difference is that Deep Battle emphasised wider frontages and significant use of reserves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I'd say it's the existence of clearly defined Schwerpunkt(en). If you know where your focal point to break through is, it's Blitzkrieg. If you're awaiting results to figure out where the weak spot is that you can exploit, it's deep battle. In the last thread someone linked a wargaming discussion about how Soviet doctrine worked. The tldr was that the by the book, apparent inflexibility of Soviet low level operations (that western observers frequently criticize) served a valuable purpose. It enabled their high command to rapidly change the axis of attack in response to the changing battlefield and have a much shorter decision cycle than the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Greatest blitzkrieg of all time happened in 1944. 1945 also made a ridiculously good showing with August Storm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:1945 also made a ridiculously good showing with August Storm. That's like the '92 dream team playing Angola, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:The article is worth reading.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's a really massive stretch to compare the Battle of France 1944 to the Battle of France 1940. I don't agree with your understanding - just because the maneuver based combined arms exploitation of space occurred after a phase of attritional warfare (driven primarily by terrain) doesn't negate its characteristics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As a side note I think I found my favorite word, Russian for "infantry who ride on tanks" is "tankodesantniki" The proper English translation is "ablative armor".
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I don't agree with your understanding - just because the maneuver based combined arms exploitation of space occurred after a phase of attritional warfare (driven primarily by terrain) doesn't negate its characteristics. Yeah, I'd say it has to do with how they staged their breakout and encirclement, although there is a way to look at it where it's got similarities to a really protracted deep battle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:But infantry tanks were essentially just "Breakthrough" tanks ala Tiger I, KV-1 under a new, exciting coat of paint The idea isn't dumb, because that's what the Germans were doing for quite some time! And the Brits had plenty of Bren carrier lying around to transport infantry, so the problem isn't with infantry not being there with them. I don't really have beef with the infantry tanks, HE shells notwithstanding. Cruisers though, were just so stupid from the beginning. In 1939 a British armored division has only 2 battalions of infantry, attached to the "Special Group" with AA and artillery. Then a cruiser tank brigade, and an infantry tank brigade, neither with any organic infantry. Like, what? It's like some cavalryman's fantasy somehow got translated into official doctrine. Forward, the Light Armoured Brigade! The whole thing with cruisers is that they keep getting mentioned like some integral concept stage of armour design, when it's more like the British got stuck with them at a bad time and started building Shermans and Grants as quickly as possible. They keep calling fast tanks cruisers, but they end up using them in the same way as regular tanks, and don't follow any of the design principles of cruisers, and altogether abandon the idea. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
The idea of cruiser tanks running roughshod in the rear areas of the enemy is hilarious. You could achieve superior results with UCs and the Daimler Armored Car.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I don't really have beef with the infantry tanks, HE shells notwithstanding. I would expect the infantry tanks at least to be penny-packeted among the infantry operationally, not operating as a group on their own, I mean that's what they were for. That's not totally out of left field, you see artillery being treated that way as well for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
The Infantry Tank Brigades were actually independent and penny-packeted out to support Infantry Divisions and the Armoured Divisions had , not that that's really much better. Armoured Divisions actually had two Armoured Brigades which were, weirdly, composed of three Regiments rather than three Battalions. By 1940 they had integrated the motorised Infantry Battalions into the Brigades and there was a third "lorried" Battalion as part of the Special Group. "Lorried" is a wonderfully vague term at that point, which seems to mean "only has to walk sometimes".
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Jesus christ it just gets worse and worse. What the hell is the difference between Light tanks, Light Cruiser tanks, Close Support cruiser tanks, and Heavy Cruiser tanks? I saw a light armoured brigade and a heavy armoured brigade in the divisional structure, and just loving assumed that infantry tanks were with the heavies. Nope, just more "Heavy Cruiser Tanks".
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Eg. Finland has many reservist local defense units equipped with jack poo poo vehicles. The Finnish infantry brigades are supposed to use tractors, trucks and buses for strategic mobility though. Besides, the only thing they're good for is for being a force-in-being anyway since they have almost no AA or AT gear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Can't we agree to disagree and just make fun of the Maus? It could have been worse. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:It could have been worse. Lol at this wedding cake
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Hey don't make fun of the Kearsarge and Virginia classes!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Jesus christ it just gets worse and worse. What the hell is the difference between Light tanks, Light Cruiser tanks, Close Support cruiser tanks, and Heavy Cruiser tanks? Tank, Cruiser Mk I (A9) with 2 pdr. Tank, Cruiser Mk I (A9) or Mk II (A10) with that 3.7" howitzer I mentioned earlier. Tank, Cruiser A9 Mk II (A10) with 2 pdr (originally intended to be an infantry tank! :eng99). Why am I using both the Mark and the A number? Wellll... Thing is, because of how things rolled out the production of stuff wasn't quite ready to replace these early Cruisers with the later Tank, Cruiser Mk III (A13 Mk I) or Tank, Cruiser Mk IV (A13 Mk II) entirely, so all of them saw combat in France in June 1940. Because gently caress you and your wish to easily keep poo poo straight in your head. I have started on the effortpost of British tank design, but it'll take a while to get everything done. It was a total clusterfuck early on before they simplified down a bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
One thing I've learned re:tanks is that during WWI they were parked in Tankdromes (also called Tankodromes), which is a word I want to see brought back. Or just the -drome suffix in general, really. Source: Life in a Tank, by Richard Haigh. Yvonmukluk fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
It's always fun to try and explain to people who grew up watching the Hitler Channel how the Soviets post-1943 (give or take) were actually extremely loving good at modern combined arms warfare. Also I know the argument kinda passed, but the Leo I wasn't really another look at the "Cruiser tank" idea, it was fast because armor was seen as a pointless trait in the HEATFS era before composites. Not getting shot is a much better way of staying alive, and speed is a commodity in that regard (along with all the other advantages mobility entails). It's not really a great comparison if you're trying to validate on doctrine there. Mazz fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:That's like the '92 dream team playing Angola, though. I prefer to think of it this way: August Storm is the time trial mode of armored warfare.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 19:28
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:One thing I've learned re:tanks is that during WWI they were parked in Tankdromes (also called Tankodromes), which is a word I want to see brought back. Or just the -drome suffix in general, really. I am too down for this idea, simply so in the future we can have droneodromes.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Also I know the argument kinda passed, but the Leo I wasn't really another look at the "Cruiser tank" idea, it was fast because armor was seen as a pointless trait in the HEATFS era before composites. Not getting shot is a much better way of staying alive, and speed is a commodity in that regard (along with all the other advantages mobility entails). It's not really a great comparison if you're trying to validate on doctrine there. Really it's just interesting to see how many times people have decided they need a big gun that moves fast but comparatively little armour.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:It could have been worse. who runs bartertown
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:It could have been worse. E100?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Mazz posted:It's always fun to try and explain to people who grew up watching the Hitler Channel how the Soviets post-1943 (give or take) were actually extremely loving good at modern combined arms warfare. I don't think anyone's trying to validate cruiser doctrine, but some of the designs cruiser doctrine produced were good, or at least satisfactory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:E100? Mauschen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:The Finnish infantry brigades are supposed to use tractors, trucks and buses for strategic mobility though. Besides, the only thing they're good for is for being a force-in-being anyway since they have almost no AA or AT gear.  (On the one hand, I was light infantry, but on the other, we lorried everywhere because gently caress trying to run a sissi company's command post with nothing but the gear you can carry.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I don't think anyone's trying to validate cruiser doctrine, but some of the designs cruiser doctrine produced were good, or at least satisfactory. Name one
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Name one ETA: arguably you could claim the infantry tanks were a product of the same doctrinal split, in which case the A12 Matilda II was a top end tank of its day and the Churchill was a solidly upgradeable workhorse like the Sherman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Yeah pretty much those. Also Centurion was created from a Cruiser specification, though it either was immediately or became designated an MBT*. *I don't know which, it's not an era I'm a huge nerd for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah pretty much those. I believe it was ultimately designated as a 'Universal Tank'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:The Finnish infantry brigades are supposed to use tractors, trucks and buses for strategic mobility though. So I'm envisioning a unit mounted on frigging John Deeres, 18 wheelers and yellow schoolbuses going into action. Is, uh, that really what they do? It seems a bit...rustic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
The Army has a bunch of old-rear end buses painted drab olive and they're used to transport people to exercises, so they have enough vehicles to get by in peacetime. But yeah, there's a law that the military can appropriate whatever gear it needs to operate, and that would probably mean they'd end up
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Crusader, Cromwell and Comet, to varying degrees at varying times. The Crusader is debatable but for the early desert war where it fought nothing but the earlier marks of Panzers II through IV it was at least competitive. I'm not fully sold on the Matilda just because of how slow it was. Sure, it was competitively armed and well armored, but tactical mobility was poor due to the top speed and weight. It got a good rep due to the armor, and in a WoT featureless plain that might be fairly useful, but in an actual by-God tank battle I'm not convinced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I'm not fully sold on the Matilda just because of how slow it was. Sure, it was competitively armed and well armored, but tactical mobility was poor due to the top speed and weight. It got a good rep due to the armor, and in a WoT featureless plain that might be fairly useful, but in an actual by-God tank battle I'm not convinced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
Too much tankchat, post swords, pikes, muskets and other  stuff.      
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 21:55
|
|
