Jump to content


Rants and Death Traps


  • Please log in to reply
441 replies to this topic

EnsignExpendable #441 Posted Sep 03 2015 - 05:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostDastank56, on Sep 02 2015 - 13:22, said:

The numbers on the eastern front were 9 t-34s to knock out one Panther ,simple a Panther

took out 9 T34s before it was destroyed..  On the western front we faired better only losing 5

Shermans for each Panther lost.Here is the Question I would like answered Why is it

no one mentions the Fact GM had ties to Nazi Germany and operated factories in

Germany before and through out the war.Yes the very same GM that supplied our

beloved trust worthy Shermans


 

 

This is some kind of avant garde art piece, right?



Beausabre #442 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 21:30

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 10 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    06-18-2018

OK, After slogging through this whole thread, a few comments from an ex-officer with 25 years experience as a tanker and cavalryman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) WOT has nothing to do with actual tactics, it is NOT a simulation (Ya want a sim, go try Steel Beasts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_Beasts ), WOT is a shoot-em-up. fun to be sure, but in no way reflective of armored warfare. So anyone who goes around trying to prove his point by citing the game is only accurate about the game and not reality


 

2) WOT sees armored warfare as a sort of duel conducted in a vacuum. It totally ignores the Combined Arms Team (Tanks, Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery, Aviation, Engineers, Air Defense,  Close Air Support, Naval Gunfire - to name those up at or near the tip of the spear). So comparisons saying one tank is "better" than another (assuming they are contemporary - A Panzer III would have no hope against a M1A2) are specious. It's arguable that the Germans had the inferior vehicles in the first part of WWII, but their superior organization, tactics and training resulted in victory.


 

3) The whole question of "better" has been discussed by Nick at length. Please remember the old saying, "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics" Ahhhh, logistics! you exclaim, smacking your lips as if you were tasting a fine wine. Yeah, right....Two examples. The overriding strategic consideration for the US in World War 2 was getting the men, equipment and supplies to the battlefield. Period. That's the reason the US Maritime Commission built 2800 Liberty Ships, 500 Victory ships and 500 T2 type tankers, along with another 1700 vessels ranging in size from harbor tugboats to ocean liners (troop transports). And the Navy built 560 Destroyer Escorts (out of 1005 authorized !) and 100 plus Escort Carriers (The 50 Casablanca class CVE's were built in only 366 days - a carrier a week!) to escort them.  Why? You could have had a great vehicle in Detroit, but if you can't move it in sufficient numbers to where it is needed, it may as well be scrap metal. So the US had to make compromises to ensure transportability (guess what, every weapon is a compromise) Second, a Panther took an average of 75,000 man-hours to produce, the T-34 took only 2,500.(Osprey's T-34 vs Panther).  Now the German vehicle may have been "better" (particularly sights and gun), but it was not twenty five times better. As Sergei Gorshkov put it, "Quantity has a quality all its own"


 


 


 

 

 

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users