| Subject: Re: Attention, mere mortals! |
Author:
Andy
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 01:50:08 01/12/06 Thu
In reply to:
Campisi
's message, "Re: Attention, mere mortals!" on 23:45:37 01/11/06 Wed
>>I posted my thoughts on WW2 air forces over at the
>>Cafe in The Adventures of Geegaw Hackwrench: Where the
>>Eagles Dare section.
>>
>>As for land battles, I don't really know as much.
>>There aren't enough video games that include tanks,
>>jeeps, motorcycles, gun emplacements, and bunkers that
>>were so critical during the war. They just have you
>>run around with a rifle shooting stuff.
>>
>>I think that the Germans had a massive advantage
>>tank-wise. They were able to demolish so many Allied
>>tanks, ti was mind-boggling. I kinda need a more
>>specific topic if you want to further discuss stuff
>>with me, which I am more than happy to do.
>
>From what I've gathered, the US Shermans were inferior
>to the Tigers mostly due to the thinner armor and weak
>guns. Although, I've heard that the Russians actually
>had the best tanks at the time.
As for tanks, these are my general thoughts (facts, if you wish)
The germans: Began with extremely reliable, if a little bit weak, tanks, and alter tehy got superior tanks with superior armor, guns and optics. The problem? Not so reliable, and teh bigger ones needed tons of gas.
Russkies: Mass-produced stuff. The T-34 was good in teh beginning (when nothing but the german 88mm FlAK could take them out), and reliable, but it couldn't be uparmoured. They were uparmed with 85mm guns, which made 'em somewhat OK again, but that was not until -44, and theys till had overly weak armor. Other russian tanks were somewhat OK, even if they had trouble with the german 88 (all tanks had, so...). And then there's the fact about crew ergonomics... they were non-existant. The best point? All tanks were designed to be mass produced.
The brits: Either too slow, or unreliable as [beep]... and never a really good gun (those freakin' 2pdrs until 42?). The only "good" stuff they had was Shermans refitted with 17pdrs and Churchills, I'd say... true, the Cromwell was good as well, but only had a 75mm (as did the Churchill, but that one had better armour)
The yanks: Well, the Sherman weren't great, mostly because it should have come a year earlier. It had poor armour, at least when compared to the gusn germans had, and its own gun (75mm) was initially quite soddy... but bear in mind that the Sherman wasn't designed to fight other tanks, so that's mroe to blame on the planners. It was later, however, equiped with 76mm guns, which made things much better, and were uparmoured as well, although they were still in danger if a 88 was in teh viscinity. And then, when the war was almost over, they finally came with a succesful tank, in teh M26 Pershing. Enough armour to be safe from long range shots from 88s, and a 90mm gun capable of taking out Tiger IIs...
For fighting tanks, there was the tank destroyers, which were fairly successful, especially teh M36 equiped with a 90mm gun...
As for teh italians and Japs, I'm afraid alck knowledge about the exact details, but I know tehy were to weakly armored, and most fo teh guns were to weak as well...
Woops... that's what you get for getting me motivated...
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 