Jump to content

RoentgenMD

Members
  • Content Сount

    889
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3892
  • Clan

    [BTLST]

Community Reputation

484 Excellent

About RoentgenMD

  • Rank
    Ensign
  • Insignia
    [BTLST]

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Edward James Olmos, Actor: Battlestar Galactica. Born February 24, 1947, East Los Angeles.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,176 profile views
  1. RoentgenMD

    6000+ wrecks dot the seabed from WW2

    Recommended watching.
  2. RoentgenMD

    Talking about Tank Stuff

    Indeed, Black Sea access has always been important.
  3. RoentgenMD

    Submarines Are Back.

    I find the hydro detection changes and oil slicks a big improvement, with assured flooding and reduction in ship air strike area also improvements. The hydro change in particular gives cruisers an added role to play. The biggest problem is still the “ping” mechanic. Both for subs and for ships. For a submarine which really is a super stealth class, the ping mechanic really isn’t a good way to implement an additional torpedo mode. The added detection makes the sub too vulnerable (especially with all the air strikes), and it also makes the DCP of surface ships too taxed. Better would be passive homing torpedoes, which do not penalize the sub in detection or have a DCP requirement, and which home in on the nearest ship OF EITHER SIDE in their forward “arc” of say 30 degrees. To offset the ability, these torpedoes could be slower and have less range, but do same damage, as regular torpedoes. Just my two cents. I do not think subs are awful, in fact the opposite. I do think players need a unique and compelling role for them, which does not affront historical sensibilities, for them to be accepted.
  4. RoentgenMD

    Talking about Tank Stuff

    I have spent the last two pages of posts defining defensive vs offensive in terms of the heavy tanks’ ability to be used in blitzkrieg, why heavy tanks did not fit the concept of blitzkrieg, and the total lack of their operational success in the two battles at which they were ATTEMPTED to be used in an operationally offensive manner. If you can’t grasp the above, I recommend you go back and re-read the posts I’ve already made. Better yet, buy some academic works and do some reading on why they weren’t.
  5. RoentgenMD

    Talking about Tank Stuff

    The motive behind pursuing "truth". One is intellectual. One is manipulative. Motive is everything. There is a strong tendency for those in the latter camp to tyrannize those of the former, this is incidentally why academic tenure was created as a concept. To reprise my original point. The vast majority of German "heavy tank" engagements of WW2 were not offensive, in the sense of "operational offensive". There were only two failed exceptions where these heavy units were attempted to be used offensively, Kursk and Wacht am Rhein. No, they did not break out at Kursk, and even if they had, the heavy units would not have been able to perform. In other words, the German heavy armor was a failure. The US Army understood this and it is why they kept the Sherman when other, heavier US armor types were available. Other points worth mentioning. For those who can't read well. In no place did I defend the leadership of Nazi Germany as @Arlskandir seems to believe as he quotes me out of context. However, I did point out: One might mention the many millions civilians slaughtered under another regime of interest at this time, which included starvation: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/trofim-lysenko-soviet-union-russia/548786/ https://news.stanford.edu/2010/09/23/naimark-stalin-genocide-092310/ Regarding my point on the Luftwaffe, which @Arlskandir seems to think is controversial. I refer you to Murray's excellent work: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/ Regarding Rommel, who @Arlskandir thinks is "meh"... I don't think you should short him. Both contemporaneously and posthumously, he was considered someone who "was a Soldier's Soldier" and an excellent tactician by both sides. He may not have been as "meh" as you think, besides running the English across North Africa with inferior forces and supply and crushing the French and BEF in 6 weeks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_Greift_An I have taken far too much of my free time to defend some simple statements which are not very controversial. I recommend those who are curious to read some additional scholarly works on the matter.
  6. RoentgenMD

    Talking about Tank Stuff

    Anti intellectualism at its finest.
  7. RoentgenMD

    Talking about Tank Stuff

    Some pursue history because they want to influence the present. Others want to get at what actually happened. They are not mutually compatible goals.
  8. Will the resulting complete western embargo disrupt WOWS? Or are there sufficient international servers? Serious question (and serious scenario). TIA
  9. Perfectly sound to me. Anyways, so that welding... :)
  10. RoentgenMD

    Talking about Tank Stuff

    Read some books and get back to me.
  11. RoentgenMD

    Talking about Tank Stuff

    Specifically at Kursk, the Germans put the biggest tanks in front with the heaviest armor. Just as common sense would dictate, in the same way you would use fresh and well equipped troops in an attack instead of lighter or more worn troops. As I mentioned already. They also used PzIV because that was the second best and they didn’t have many Tigers to use, certainly not enough to spread about an entire offensive line. But if you don’t keep those Tigers supplied with fuel, lots of spare parts, time to do maintenance, all of which they need more of than a standard PzIV (or Sherman), then you will lose those heavy tanks in a short timeframe, and their loss will be more keenly felt. Heavy tanks are best on defense, where if they fail due to maintenance (or lack thereof), they can be recovered and put back into service. If you lose that Tiger in an attack and you fail, you lose the Tiger forever.
  12. RoentgenMD

    Talking about Tank Stuff

    Regardless of any supposed design intent which was both outdated WW1 thinking and baloney, dreamt up by some REMF who had no idea what tanks were being used for, the fact that they were used alongside Pz4 means that they were used In same capacity as any other capable tank the Germans had. Period. If they did a job no other tank could do, then you would not see them used alongside other tanks. I don’t defend some ancient REMF’s design justifications which seems like some want to do, maybe he was an excellent staff officer and that seems to appeal to some. But what I can say is in terms of what they were good for, what they were actually used for, and that they COULD NOT be used for strategic offensive operations in any real terms, due to their logistical problems. Pedantic insistence they were used in a offensive way because in a battle they attacked over 50 miles is like saying a electric bicycle is a Tesla because it has wheels and runs on batteries.
  13. RoentgenMD

    Talking about Tank Stuff

    Again, and I don’t know how many times I have to say this, they used everything they had. Including denuding the entire eastern front of armor to focus it all at Kursk. Even then, there wasn’t enough armor. Tigers were preferred over other tanks to lead the charge in the same sort of way you would prefer a fresh, fully equipped battalion of mechanized troops, rather than a regular line battalion without heavy weapons which was on foot. were tigers used in short offensive roles as part of a larger attacking force? Were they more capable of taking heavy frontal fire than a Pz4? Absolutely. But you notice both types in your diagram at the front point, and I would wager that the tigers were far in the minority
  14. RoentgenMD

    Talking about Tank Stuff

    The leading formation you show has both Tiger and Pz4. Why? Because they threw everything they had at it. The formation is a typical attempt at trying to break free of the defensive lines at Kursk, which the Germans completely failed to achieve due to the incredible defense in depth that the Soviets arranged. It was a completely botched offensive without any semblance of secrecy, that no one in German leadership believed would succeed. No breakout was achieved. The best and most mobile formations the panzer corps had were crushed without any chance of operational success, leading to complete collapse of any viable German counterattacking forces and widespread German withdrawal trading ground for time, along the entire eastern front until at least 1944. To treat Kursk as if there was any sort of a questionable outcome, or that the Germans had any kind of a chance at a breakout, is pure fiction.
  15. RoentgenMD

    Talking about Tank Stuff

    The plain fact is that the German army was highly successful in the early stages of the war, far out of proportion to the ability they should have had on paper. The collapse of France and Britain in 1940 (Britain saved by the English Channel) and the collapse of the Soviet army in 1941 were both results of a highly innovative German leadership and tactics. The French armee and British expeditionary force were larger in terms of both quantity and quality of men and materiel than the Wehrmacht. Yet they fell in 6 weeks. The Soviet army itself had more tanks and aircraft in May 1941, than the entire German army by a very large measure - in 1941 the Soviets had more than 25,000 tanks, with at least 11,000 on the western front opposing the Wehrmacht. They had double the men of the Germans, around 5.5 million in arms, and 33,000 artillery pieces, 3x more than the Germans. To compare, the Panzer Corps in 1941 had around 3,500 tanks, 10,000 artillery pieces, and around 2.5million men. Usually, in the attack, you want at least a 2:1 advantage in numbers, yet the Germans were vastly outnumbered by the opposite ratio! The vast successes of the early campaigns of the Germans against all odds lent them an air of invincibility which was finally broken at Stalingrad and El Alamein. The impact of their outsized successes led military analysis and resulted in widespread adoption or outright copying of blitzkrieg / combined arms, maneuver and tactic theory, armor development, all the way to implementing versions of Wehrmacht squad and platoon design after the war —- in both the Western powers and Soviet. so again, the truth is somewhere in between the reactionaries and anti-reactionaries. If you are to be taken seriously by serious people, denying the facts simply won’t do.
×