The plan was agreed upon before D-day, the Uk and canadians hold down the bulk of german armour, while the US takes the port and expands out of the perninsula.
Argh!! Now I'm seeing red again!
This "plan" was a invention by 'Monty' to justify his shortcomings during his command of the Normandy theatre, just as Operation Market Garden was a "90% success" as he said in the aftermath of that fiasco...
If you look into the plans of Operation Overlord, Caen was an objective on D-Day itself and the British paras was to form the left flank of the invasion. There were never a 'plan' to tie down the German forces, it just happened to be so as the bulk of the German forces came from east and arrived at the Commonwealth sector first. :
And yes, as you can guess: -I can't stand that prima donna 'Monty'! He did a good job in North Africa, but from Sicily onwards he lost it in the competition with the Americans!
I've heard many different ideas behind the 'plan' but they're are a couple of indepth books in my local library, which I need to study again.
And I don't care much for Monty(arrogant as hell), despite me being english. Still, his slow tactics saved lives of his men..but prolonged the war..so they cancel each other out!
YES 60+ YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT. ACTUALLY MBT ARE EXPENSIVE AND VUNERABLE TO AIR POWER/URBAN FIGHTING.
so what has changed since 40s regarding protection against most common AT sources?
Quote:
YES IT IS. MIDWAR TANKS ADOPTED SOME BASIC TECHNOLOGY. AMMO WAS GENERALLY UNPROTECTED UNTIL THE 1950/60 ERA.
does that help alot?
and yes u were wrong - WW2 tanx were designed to be pretected against most common AT sources.
Quote:
LOOK AT KURSK AND THE BULGE. ALLIED AIRPOWER WREAKED HAVOC ON BLITZKRIEG
where can u c Blitzkrieg in those ops?
Quote:
AT KURSK HUNDREDS OF GERMAN TANKS KNOCKED OUT BY STORMBIRDS FIGHTER BOMBERS.
sorry mate, u r completely wrong here .
Quote:
NAZI DOCTRINE RELIED ON SUPERIOR TRAINING AND LOCAL SUPERIORITY + EXECELLENT COMMUNICATIONS. THEY SLOWLY LOST ALL OF THESE AND THEN THERE INIATIVE
they could achieve LOCAL SUPERIORITY even in 1945 .
Quote:
T34 FIGHTING UNTIL 1990S. MORE IMPORTANTLY UPGUNNED AND CHASIS USED FOR OTHER AFVS. A ROLLS ROYCE OF TRACTOR TECHNOLOGY
why then no soviet post war AVF followed T-34?
food for thoughts, eh?
Quote:
RUBBISH !. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN.
PzVI was designed for quality reinforcement of breakrthrough units - kinda looks it was meant to fight overhelming odds .
Quote:
TIGER WAS DESIGNED FOR 88MM GUN AND OTHER TECHNILOGCAL IMPROVMENTS.
which ones, for instance?
Quote:
REALLY A SUPER HEAVY TANK. THIS PHASED OUT BY THE 50S FOR THE MBT. A MEDIUM HEAVY TANK !.
why super heavy?
still agree that hvy tanx were substituted by MBT altho in 60-70s.
Quote:
THEY HAD NUMBERS AND SOME OF THE BEST ARMOURED/GUNNED TANKS. SIMPLE
do u mean tank or tank forces?
and btw in 1940 USSR has already had T-34 and KV..
Quote:
OK THIS IS A BROAD SUBJECT. GERMANS TOOK MASSIVE KIA. STRIPPING GERMANY OF DEFENCES AND FIGHTING ON THREE FRONTS. MASSIVE PROBLEMS WITH EUIPMENT COMMONALITY AND SUPPLY. ETC ETC
OK THIS IS THE LAST REPLY. WERE TAKING A VERY BROAD VIEW HERE. AND AS THIS IS NOT A HISTORICAL LESSON BUT THE CC FORUMS. I AM NOT SPENDING TIME BY CROSS REFERENCING ON INTERNET MY FACTS.
so what has changed since 40s regarding protection against most common AT sources?
HEAT ABSORBENT ARMOUR, REACTIVE ARMOUR, SPACED ARMOUR, CHOBHAM ARMOUR, HIGH GRADE ARMOUR, WELDED CONSTRUCTION ( ALSO WW2 ) INTELLIGENT' ARMOUR ( FUTURE ). SLOPED/SHAPED ARMOUR. BOLT ON ARMOUR FOR VARIOUS DUTIES ( ALSO FOR AFV )
does that help alot?
and yes u were wrong - WW2 tanx were designed to be pretected against most common AT sources
AGAIN THAT IS INCORRECT. AMMO STOWED IN RACKS AND READY TO USE. CHARGES/PROPELLANTS VERY COMBUSTIABLE. WHAT DO YOU MEAN >MOST COMMON AT SOURCES<. WW2 ERA TANKS RANGED FROM TANKETTES TRU TO 6 TURRET ODDITIES. AT GUNS STARTED FROM 20MM TRU TO 75MM AS A RULE OF THUMB. BY END OF WAR THE BAZOOKA/PANZERFAUST AND HIGH VELOCITY AT GUNS 88MM - 122MM RULED THE GAME. NO TANK IMPERVIOUS TO BOMB OR EXPLOSIVE. SEE IRAQ IN PRESENT DAY.
where can u c Blitzkrieg in those ops?
REALLY ???/. KURSK WAS OVERCONFIDENT AND INCOMPETENT NAZI LEADERSHIP IGNORING STRATEIGIC REALITY AND RELYING ON 'FIREPOWER' AND MANOUVERE. THEY LEARNED THERE LESSON THERE. BULDGE WAS USING SUPRISE/AIR SUPREMACY ( ALLIES GROUNDED IN BAD WEATHER ). ON A RELATIVE NEARROW FRONT TO GAIN STRATEIGIC OBJECTIVES. WHICH WERE TO SEIZE ANTWERP AND SPLIT OR TURN ALLIED FORCES. BLITZKRIEG WAS NOT KJUST TANKS, BUT COMBINED ARMS AND 'ONCE AGAIN' SUPERIOR TROOP INTELLIGENCE. A BIG SUBJECT BUT LETS NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE REALITY HERE.
sorry mate, u r completely wrong here .
OMG ****. YES THEY DID. 2 PANZER DIVISIONS NEVER ENTERED THE FIGHT FULLY. WHAT ABOUT NORMADY. SS PANZER DIVISION NEVER MADE THE JOURNEY TO BEACHEAD AS DESTROYED EFFECTIVELY EN ROUTE. RUSSIAN II2 BUILT AS 'FLYING TANK'. ACTUALLY RUSSIN AIRPOWER BECAME VERY EFFECTIVE ON EASTERN FRONT. VERY UNDERATED. BUT THEY ALSO SUFFERED FROM POOR DOCTRINE AND LEADERSHIP IN EARLY WAR. AND LACK OF A MODERN OR STRATEIGIC AIR ARM.
BATTLE OF IWO JIMA. MARINE SHERMANS WORTH THERE WEIGHT IN GOLD, H.E AND FLAME FLUID. ISLAND BASED P51 RESPONSIBLE FOR PINNING DOWN OF LARGE SCALE JAPANESE MOVEMENTS. MARINES COULD ATTACK IN DIRESTION OF WILL AND JAPANESE RELEGATED TO STATIC DEFENSE. OK THAT IS NOT A CLEAR VIEW OF THIS BATTLE BUT YOU GET THE IDEA. ISLAND HOPPING ' WAR IN PACIFIC BY USA AN BLITZKRIEG. AVOID CENTRES OF RESISTANCE AND TAKE TACTICAL TARGETS OF CHOICE.
they could achieve LOCAL SUPERIORITY even in 1945
SURE. THEY HELD THE GROUND WHICH HAD TOO BE FOUGHT FROM THEM. MOST NAZI OFFENCES AFTER 1944 SUMMER FAILED. ON ALL FRONTS.
why then no soviet post war AVF followed T-34?
food for thoughts, eh
OMG !. IT WAS UPGRADES 3-4 TIMES. FROM ENTERING UNIT SERVICE I THINK IN 1940. AFTER ALL WHOS HEARD OF GRANTS/CHURCHILL/BT7 ON ANY ARMYS WISH LIST. AND ITS PHILOSOPHY OF SPEED/PROTECTION/GUN WAS ! DEVEOPLED FURTHER.
PzVI was designed for quality reinforcement of breakrthrough units - kinda looks it was meant to fight overhelming odds
KINDA NOTHING. WAS DESIGNED TO HAVE FIREPOWER AND ARMOUR AT LOCALITY. IF DESIGNED TO FIGHT 'OVERWHELMING ODDS' THEY WOULD HAVE CREWED IT WITH KAMIKAZI TANKEES ALL ARMED WITH POCKET HOWITZERS. THEY FOUGHT OVERWHELMING ODDS BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TOO IN INCREASINGLY POINTLESS OPERATIONS. THE PANZER IV WAS EVENTUALLY TO HEAVY DUE TO ITS UPGRADES WITH SOME WEAKNESSES NEVER REMEDIED.
which ones, for instance?
MOBILITY. FIRST REAL HEAVY TANK THAT COULD SPEARHEAD ASSAULTS. RUSSINA KV1A-S TO UNDERGUNNED. OPTICS EXECELLENT FOR TIGER. ELECTRIC TURRET. STOWAGE BINS FOR SHELLS. POWERFUL ( MODULAR ) ENGINE. ETC. IT WORKED AND WAS NOT A DUMB ELEPHANT.
why super heavy?
still agree that hvy tanx were substituted by MBT altho in 60-70s.
hAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE T10/CONQUERER/MAUS = AMERICAN DESIGNS. TOO IMMOBILE AND VUNERABLE. ALSO COSTLY TO PRODUCE.
do u mean tank or tank forces?
and btw in 1940 USSR has already had T-34 and KV..
T34 NOT FIGHTING OPERATIONALLY UNTIL 1941 IN LOCAL COUNTER ATTACKS. UNTIL COUNTER ATTACK AT MOSCOW. RUSSI ARMOUR INADEQUATE IN FINNISH WINTER WAR.
YES SO THAT IT. THERE WERE WINNERS AND LOSERS ON ALL SIDES. GLORY AND OBLIVION IN EQUAL MEASURES.
OK THIS IS THE LAST REPLY. WERE TAKING A VERY BROAD VIEW HERE. AND AS THIS IS NOT A HISTORICAL LESSON BUT THE CC FORUMS. I AM NOT SPENDING TIME BY CROSS REFERENCING ON INTERNET MY FACTS.
up to you, really
Quote:
HEAT ABSORBENT ARMOUR, REACTIVE ARMOUR, SPACED ARMOUR, CHOBHAM ARMOUR, HIGH GRADE ARMOUR, WELDED CONSTRUCTION ( ALSO WW2 ) INTELLIGENT' ARMOUR ( FUTURE ). SLOPED/SHAPED ARMOUR. BOLT ON ARMOUR FOR VARIOUS DUTIES ( ALSO FOR AFV )
Just for note:
Spaced armor = 1942.
sloped armor = 1935.
bolt armor = 1942.
modern common AT weapons can penetrate these and other .
Quote:
AGAIN THAT IS INCORRECT. AMMO STOWED IN RACKS AND READY TO USE. CHARGES/PROPELLANTS VERY COMBUSTIABLE.
you are incorrect again
who cares if shell can't penetrate armor?
f.e. as far as you mentioned T-34, it was designed to deflect AP shells of <=47mm caliber = the most common ATGs available that time.
Quote:
WHAT DO YOU MEAN >MOST COMMON AT SOURCES<.
i mean (and they meant): most common AT sources available in armies of potential enemy that time.
Quote:
WW2 ERA TANKS RANGED FROM TANKETTES TRU TO 6 TURRET ODDITIES. AT GUNS STARTED FROM 20MM TRU TO 75MM AS A RULE OF THUMB
all the tanx developed during ww2 were taken that into account .
Quote:
BY END OF WAR THE BAZOOKA/PANZERFAUST AND HIGH VELOCITY AT GUNS 88MM - 122MM RULED THE GAME.
mate, you are wrong again .
Quote:
NO TANK IMPERVIOUS TO BOMB OR EXPLOSIVE. SEE IRAQ IN PRESENT DAY.
so what has changed?
Quote:
REALLY ???/. KURSK WAS OVERCONFIDENT AND INCOMPETENT NAZI LEADERSHIP IGNORING STRATEIGIC REALITY AND RELYING ON 'FIREPOWER' AND MANOUVERE. THEY LEARNED THERE LESSON THERE. BULDGE WAS USING SUPRISE/AIR SUPREMACY ( ALLIES GROUNDED IN BAD WEATHER ). ON A RELATIVE NEARROW FRONT TO GAIN STRATEIGIC OBJECTIVES. WHICH WERE TO SEIZE ANTWERP AND SPLIT OR TURN ALLIED FORCES. BLITZKRIEG WAS NOT KJUST TANKS, BUT COMBINED ARMS AND 'ONCE AGAIN' SUPERIOR TROOP INTELLIGENCE. A BIG SUBJECT BUT LETS NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE REALITY HERE.
really.
do you really know what Blitzkrieg was?
Quote:
AT KURSK HUNDREDS OF GERMAN TANKS KNOCKED OUT BY STORMBIRDS FIGHTER BOMBERS.
sorry mate, u r completely wrong here .
OMG ****. YES THEY DID.2 PANZER DIVISIONS NEVER ENTERED THE FIGHT FULLY.
hehe, could you please prove it?
Quote:
WHAT ABOUT NORMADY. SS PANZER DIVISION NEVER MADE THE JOURNEY TO BEACHEAD AS DESTROYED EFFECTIVELY EN ROUTE.
what weed do you smoke?
Quote:
RUSSIAN II2 BUILT AS 'FLYING TANK'. ACTUALLY RUSSIN AIRPOWER BECAME VERY EFFECTIVE ON EASTERN FRONT. VERY UNDERATED. BUT THEY ALSO SUFFERED FROM POOR DOCTRINE AND LEADERSHIP IN EARLY WAR. AND LACK OF A MODERN OR STRATEIGIC AIR ARM
agreed on that (since late 1943) but tell me please how is it connected to OMG ****. YES THEY DID.2 PANZER DIVISIONS NEVER ENTERED THE FIGHT FULLY.?
Quote:
SURE. THEY HELD THE GROUND WHICH HAD TOO BE FOUGHT FROM THEM. MOST NAZI OFFENCES AFTER 1944 SUMMER FAILED. ON ALL FRONTS.
agreed, i could tell that from mid 1943 .
Quote:
OMG !. IT WAS UPGRADES 3-4 TIMES. FROM ENTERING UNIT SERVICE I THINK IN 1940
so what? PzII/III/IV/M4A1 was upgraded more than 3-4 times since entering to service .
Quote:
AFTER ALL WHOS HEARD OF GRANTS/CHURCHILL/BT7 ON ANY ARMYS WISH LIST. AND ITS PHILOSOPHY OF SPEED/PROTECTION/GUN WAS ! DEVEOPLED FURTHER.
PzIII was faster than T-34, had better armor against the soviet AT weapons, had gun that could penetrate most of common tanx that time .
Quote:
KINDA NOTHING. WAS DESIGNED TO HAVE FIREPOWER AND ARMOUR AT LOCALITY
ever tried reading Speer?
Quote:
IF DESIGNED TO FIGHT 'OVERWHELMING ODDS' THEY WOULD HAVE CREWED IT WITH KAMIKAZI TANKEES ALL ARMED WITH POCKET HOWITZERS.
somhow they did that w/o having kamikaze tankers .
Quote:
THEY FOUGHT OVERWHELMING ODDS BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TOO IN INCREASINGLY POINTLESS OPERATIONS.
so, the germans didn't know that USSR or UK had more tanx than they had in 1942?
Quote:
THE PANZER IV WAS EVENTUALLY TO HEAVY DUE TO ITS UPGRADES WITH SOME WEAKNESSES NEVER REMEDIED.
i guess u meant PzVI
so what upgrade did make PzVI heavier than it was?
Quote:
MOBILITY. FIRST REAL HEAVY TANK THAT COULD SPEARHEAD ASSAULTS.
ha, you second me for spearheading assaults .
B1bis,Matilda II, KV-1,2 were real heavy tanx .
Quote:
RUSSINA KV1A-S TO UNDERGUNNED.
in 1940?!
Quote:
ELECTRIC TURRET.
never .
Quote:
STOWAGE BINS FOR SHELLS.
PzVI was the first?!
Quote:
POWERFUL ( MODULAR ) ENGINE. ETC.
hehe.
Quote:
hAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE T10/CONQUERER/MAUS = AMERICAN DESIGNS
.
no,sry, never heard of T10/Maus = american designs...could you tell more about that?
Quote:
TOO IMMOBILE AND VUNERABLE. ALSO COSTLY TO PRODUCE.
T10 was immobile?
Quote:
T34 NOT FIGHTING OPERATIONALLY UNTIL 1941 IN LOCAL COUNTER ATTACKS. UNTIL COUNTER ATTACK AT MOSCOW.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
