French WW2 tanks..... I´ve not seen much about them. Don´t know what they were called but I remember reading somewhere that they had many more tanks overall than the Germans at the start but they were all positioned poorly for one thing (many housed inside Maginot Line bunkers) and deployed without fast armored battle units in mind (to the chagrin of ol´ beak-nose DeGaulle). I also remember mention that the largest number of them were very light tanks that were sadly underpowered (under 40 hp), slow (something like 15 kph tops) and undergunned.
Modern Weaponry
-
-
they had some big heavy battle tanks but they were frighteningly slow and the designs hadnt changed much since WW1, the French inter-war establishment being deeply conxervative in military matters and having a "Maginot mentality" as its been called. In truth the French believed that the Line would obviate the need for mobile forces and victories in the field, so the bulk of resources was thrown into the Maginot defences, in the futle belief that no hostile force could penetrate it, ideas which of course were woefully misbegotten. Morale in the French Army was very low and the standard of training in modern battle techniques very poor, in contrast to the Germans who, despite being numerically inferior to the French and less well equipped with heavier units, had developed new tactics and training to gain the initiative (plus the German rear echelons were still heavily dependent upon horses unlike the French who were almost fully mechanised) French deployment of their armoured units was shabby and disinterested, many were in storage right up until the French surrender, some had no ammunition or fuel and their tactical situations were poorly thought. As a result they were rapidly cut off and eliminated by Panzers and stukas, or often simply abandoned, their crews lacking effective orders. The French tank force was little more than a force on paer, yet properly directed it could well have prevented the German advance and victory; certainly a longer and more two-sided battle would have ensued.
-
Well, It´s that fool me once, fool me twice thing isn´t it? What if the Maginot went straight to the English Channel instead of stopping at the Ardennes? To speculate on my own question, I imagine that the German war machine then would have emphasized aerial bombardments and field gunnery to a far greater degree. But I wonder..... Edited by - Indy11 on 2/13/2004 7:12:07 PM
-
I think what WWII proved is that you can´t rely on fixed defences like the Maginot line or Atlantic Wall. All an invades has to do is punch a hole at any given place and the entire thing is rendered useless. Plus, with paratroopers... Still, I agree that it would have been a bit worse for Germany if the line had been complete. Whie I find them impractical fortresses are very attractive to me. I always try to create them in one way or another in my strategy games <img src=smilies/icon_smile_big.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>
-
The Iron Curtain is always gonna have a specal place in my heart though...
-
Bah, that´s only because it has media savvy. Similar to the "Berlin Wall"; the media love to throw stuff like that around. What about artillery? That´s very useful in combat. Provided you can actually hit what you are aiming for.
-
Artillery are useless. They cost an absolute fortune to build and use and they have´nt got a chance in hell of actually hitting anything. Also, you can´t use them in cities. (unless you intend to explain to the UN why you killed about 300 people for no particular reason)
-
oh i totally disagree. Artllery has dominated the battlefield for centuries. It´s incredibly accurate now and particularly devastating directed en masse in to compacted areas and formations. Mdern artillery is able to keep pace with advancing elements and thus provide swift accurate fire support wherever its needed, day or night. hell, there are even anti-tank guided artillery rounds, how accurates that! Modern artillery is mostly guided by radar or laser or some other system, and this makes it far more accurate and therefore more devastating, as you are pretty much ensured a hit. My ship only had a 37mm main gun, later replaced by a 50mm (finally a 57mm) but because fire control could hit the target almost every time first shot, it was more efficient than salvoes of much higher calibre. It´s estimated that back in the old pre-computer days of naval gunnery, 1 shot in every 10 could be considered a hit, out of the hundreds of shells usually fired in naval battles.
-
Those aren´t terribly good odds. I guess that it would have been a matter of luck in WW2 ship combat. The ships weren´t agile enough to avoid the shells, and they had to trust to inaccuracy. Mmm, that´s not a good way to make war; relying intirely on luck.
-
thats why ships carried hundreds if not thousands of rounds, and why if the magazine was hit, the ship tore apart (Hood) even a short engagement could expend hundreds of shells. In terms of actual combat, the Battle of the River Plate wasn´t very long, but each ship on the British side (Ajax, Achilles, Exeter) expended over 600 rounds of large calibre ammunition each, i think Exeter expended over a thousand before her turrets were taken out. Graf Spee took about a hudred hits, 64 on the superstructure. 100+ hits for almost 2000 rounds fired. shelling is a numbers game, that´s why "crossing the T" was so important, you bring the maximum number of guns to bear on a compacted target while the target closes the range, thus maximising your own chances of hitting the enemy and minimising his chances of hitting you. for those of you who don´t know (i know YOU do Esq! <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>) the Battle of the River Plate was the interception of the powerful German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee in 1939 just after the outbreak of WW2 by the British cruiser HMS Exeter and two destroyers, Achilles and Ajax. Despite being totally outgunned, the British ships pressed home the attack and despite heavy damage (Exeter withdrew) drove the Graf Spee into the River Plate estuary in S. America where she was scuttled by her crew. Absolutley brilliant naval story, real stirring war stuff. ..which reminds me, must get back to Call of Duty.. do Pegasus Bridge again. Hold until relieved, hold until relieved. Edited by - Tawakalna on 2/15/2004 3:41:42 PM
-
It is an inefficient means to make war. Still, at least when you DID hit something with a 57mm gun, you made sure that the other guy knew about it! What I find interesting is that although naval vessels carried enormous guns for shore bombardment, there haven´t been that many occasions in which they have been used. Bombers seem to be the preferred method of "pacifying" a region these days.
-
Overlord was presaged by a massive naval bombardment, as were the Anzio and Salerno landings and of course all those Japanese island campaigns. Because battleships were obsolete by the end of the war, they largely disappeared from the line, but they have been used as floating artillery since, Lebanon 83 for example, and as missile platforms in GW91.
-
Artillery. I think the numbers of guns and tanks deployed by the Red Army in the drive West toward the end of the war pretty much tells the story. They had more cannon massed against the German Army by some huge ratio like 10 to 1. Sea battles. The 9 16 inch guns on the Iowa class battleships have a range of almost 15 miles using some 640 lbs of powder to throw a projectile payload weighing between 2100 to 2300 pounds for that distance. Very few armies had comparable mobile pieces, shore guns of comparable size were permanently installed (The WW1 German "Big Berthas" may have been larger). Guided missile systems do not yet drop that big of payload in an as economic fashion. Speaking of favorite weapons.... even though obsolete by naval aircraft and carriers, the biggest battleship ever to see combat was the Japanese Yamato class with 18.1 incn guns. Maybe the only class of battleship that would have beat an Iowa class battlewagon in a toe to toe showdown. Those 18 inch guns tossed out 3200 lbs of payload for a range of about 16 miles Edited by - Indy11 on 2/15/2004 7:12:04 PM
-
How about aircraft carriers? They are arguably one of the most powerful weapons in existance today. They made battleships obselete, the aircraft on a single carrier were able to carrier a far greater payload far farther than the guns on the largest battleships, and some of the most powerful battleships of the time (the <i>Bismark </i> and the <i>Yamato </i>) were sunk by carrier based aircraft. In the case of the <i>Bismarck </i>, it was actually obselete Swordfish torpedo planes, launched from the British <i>Ark Royal </i> that finally managed to sink it. Likewise, the <i>Yamato </i> was also sunk by torpedo planes.
-
battleships, gone the way of the dinosaur. Anyone who was lucky enough to see one of the last American ones like the New Jersey will never forget them; all sailors still love battleships, but you wouldn´t go to war in one anymore, theyre far too vulnerable for a highly expensive asset. other than carriers, and fleet auxiliaries, the largest surface vessels now tend to be missile cruisers, and the bulk of Navy work is done by frigates and destroyers, possibly light cruisers. There´ll never be another set piece naval battle, and there´ll never be battle fleets like there used to be. the Bismarck was a beautiful ship, btw. Never really like the design of Yamato and Musashi, just too big. But the finest ship ever to have sailed and fought was HMS Hood (well apart from Victory, but that´s another matter altogether!) Ah, the Royal Navy. Still the standard by which ALL other navies are judged, and always will be.
-
Pearl Harbour anyone? I´m making record time! If only I had someplace to be...
-
Depending on how you see it the US was VERY lucky when it comes to Pearl harbor. For all thier planning Japan failed to destroy the vessels that really mattered in the pacific; the carriers and the submarine fleet. Had it not been for that Midway certainly would have been lost and probably much more, even Hawaii.
-
anyone ever heard of the m802a1? it is a monster .50 calibur sniper rifle oohhh.....big holes.....
-
Pearl Harbour - really bad film. Total fonk in fact. Tora! Tora! Tora! was much better yawn boring Taw movie trivia, it was originally to be directed by Akira Kurosawa, and was his first and only film for a foriegn ie non-Japanese film company, and he detested it. In Japan he was highly respected and obeyed and was used to doing things his way, not being contradicted and overruled by producers and accountants, so he walked off set and went home. All his footage was destroyed, although the Japanese scenes in the released film were shot to his screenplay and storyboards by another director. mal, you´re talking about the .50cal Barrett, right? I´ve never ever seen one outside of films, tv, and games. I don´t think they´re exported out of the States
-
HMS Hood. Heavy cruiser. Hmmmm. Finest as in nicest looking or finest as in best in class or both? What do you think of the latest theory of how she went down? That both magazines blew? The physical evidence certainly seems to support this. The US had plans to build a Montana class battleship to outdo the Yamato class boats. They never got built, though, as there was not point to pouring capital into an even bigger dinosaur. There is some dispute, though, on whether the Montana or the Yamatos had the biggest guns.