Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Demise of U.S. Tank Destroyer Doctrine

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NYC USA
    Posts
    694

    Default Demise of U.S. Tank Destroyer Doctrine



    The us tank destroyer was the reason that america built lightly armed tanks.
    americans wanted the sherman to avoid fighting panzers but to concentrate on infantry support.

    the TD would engage the german tanks from long range ambushes, using speed and surprise to get away.

    unfortunately, this role rarely materialized as tds were often used in infantry support roles and their very thin armor and open top made them vulnerable to all infantry weapons.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    3,126

    Default

    very good post,thanks :wink:

  3. #3
    Bluffcove Guest

    Default

    yes a truly ****ing excellent bodacious mammoth ****ing immense great brilliant marvellous post

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Bucharest - Romania
    Posts
    3,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluffcove
    yes a truly ****ing excellent bodacious mammoth ****ing immense great brilliant marvellous post
    I'd say that you are drunk, but, never knows... I'll don't consider your post as insulting, only provocative (it is the right term??)

    Anyway consider my post as an informal warning.
    Regimentul 38 "Neagoe Basarab"
    Divizia 10 Infanterie


    101st Airborne

  5. #5
    Bluffcove Guest

    Default

    provocative is the correct term, but my intention was infact Parody. However dani I repect you as you have shown yourself to be an MOD worth his salt.

    I havent seen you get invoved in Flame wars, invate dullards to post in threads that you also moderate or infact seen you send offensive PMs to any members of this Forum as a result I understnad that a criticism from you is noteworthy and I shall attempt to amend my parodies in future (possibly even indicating when they are intended to highlight other issues)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    3,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluffcove
    provocative is the correct term, but my intention was infact Parody. However dani I repect you as you have shown yourself to be an MOD worth his salt.

    I havent seen you get invoved in Flame wars, invate dullards to post in threads that you also moderate or infact seen you send offensive PMs to any members of this Forum as a result I understnad that a criticism from you is noteworthy and I shall attempt to amend my parodies in future (possibly even indicating when they are intended to highlight other issues)
    bluffcove,i will always ignore your attempt to make a war,and make me angry.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Freiburg-Deutschland
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Back on topic ,write something and stop the war . :wink: :wink:


    Meine Ehre heißt Treue

    Oberstleutnant Hanz Lutz

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clauss von Stauffeberg
    Back on topic ,write something and stop the war . :wink: :wink:
    Well, if you insist on going back on topic I'd like to point out that the Sherman actually did a better job than any of the German tanks in 1944/45. Very rarely was the battle Sherman .vs. Panther/Tiger. More commonly it was Sherman + US Infantry .vs. German Infantry. In that role the Sherman did stellar work and saved an immense number of American lives. By the end of the war the German tanks simply weren't doing this work, largely because there weren't enough as they were too busy concentrating on building super-tanks - and the German infantry suffered as a result.
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Freiburg-Deutschland
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    I agree with you ,but i still think Tiger is best then sherman this is out of topic ,we have debate about . :wink:


    Meine Ehre heißt Treue

    Oberstleutnant Hanz Lutz

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    716

    Default

    Good points pdf27 and nice post.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27
    Quote Originally Posted by Clauss von Stauffeberg
    Back on topic ,write something and stop the war . :wink: :wink:
    Well, if you insist on going back on topic I'd like to point out that the Sherman actually did a better job than any of the German tanks in 1944/45. Very rarely was the battle Sherman .vs. Panther/Tiger. More commonly it was Sherman + US Infantry .vs. German Infantry. In that role the Sherman did stellar work and saved an immense number of American lives. By the end of the war the German tanks simply weren't doing this work, largely because there weren't enough as they were too busy concentrating on building super-tanks - and the German infantry suffered as a result.
    This is the very thing Ive been banging on about. While the allies concentrated on a few versions of armoured vehicles the Germans diversified to the extreme. It was very frustrating for German mechanics to have to work on all the various marls of AFV's the Germans were producing. In my opinion, if they had concentrated on the STUG, Panther and Hetzer it would have been far more profitable for them in the last year of the war. The Tigers and King Tigers and Uber Tigers, only ended up sucking down even more fuel and steel and were ultimately pointless.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NYC USA
    Posts
    694

    Default

    actually firefly, the reason why the germans didn't build that many hetzers or stugs was because they had a higher loss rate then regular tanks. no turret, slow to aim, lower ammo capacity, very weak side armor. when the tracks were knocked off the tank by a mine or at weapon the assault gun was nothing but a useless piece of metal. stug iiis and hetzlers cost around 85,000 reichmarks, which was only 20,000 rm lower then the cost of building a panther.

    and the reason why they continued to build panzer ivs , hetzlers, stug iiis, was that it was too expensive to retool their factories to build all panthers.

    however, i don't think that it was that bad to build king tiger tanks. they were tremendously destructive for their lifespans. also, the crews in tigers tended to survive A lot, so an elite armor force would be useful. the cost of building one king tiger one could build 2.5 panthers.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    That doesnt really explain then why the Germans built so many assualt guns. Interesting though, can you publish where you got the relative costs from?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NYC USA
    Posts
    694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly
    That doesnt really explain then why the Germans built so many assualt guns. Interesting though, can you publish where you got the relative costs from?
    stug IIIs are built on obsolete panzer III chasis. hetzlers are built on obsolete czech tank chasis. panzer iiis and the czech tanks were main weapons of early war. these factories were always present, it was just much cheaper to keep the factories the way they are instead retooling.

    in early war, the panzer iii was meant to be germany's main tank, it got all the factory space, but once the t-34 was encountered, the panzer iv became preferred. however, teh german's couldn't just get rid of the factory space so they continued building cheaper stug iiis while expanding their panzer iv factories.

    "handbook of german military forces" US war department

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    So what was the first German AFV to deal effectively with the T-34?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The battle of Kursk
    By FW-190 Pilot in forum 2006 Archive Room
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 03-29-2006, 06:26 PM
  2. Looking for books on Soviet tank doctrine
    By Gavin-Phillips in forum 2006 Archive Room
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-03-2006, 09:08 AM
  3. Machine guns
    By George Eller in forum 2005 Archive Room
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-08-2005, 09:19 PM
  4. British Tanks Pt 1 - Vickers Light Tank
    By BDL in forum 2005 Archive Room
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-09-2005, 10:42 AM
  5. Russia T-34/85 and Joseph Stalin 3 tank
    By FW-190 Pilot in forum 2005 Archive Room
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07-04-2005, 06:31 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •