Tanks and other Armoured Vehicles Image thread.

Buba said:
Not true. The armaments industry was in the far west - like in Paris. In WWI France was the "Arsenal of Democracy", as evidenced by the American Army being equipped with French made weapons.
Also, in WWI there was no razing of industries. I admit that in the occupied territories Germans did dismantle factories and kept them crated, letting the the now unemployed workers baely scrap by.
Click to expand...
France, Britain, America, and Italy didn't adapt to the post-WW1/interbellum era. They were still basing everything on either WW1 paradigms (the French), believing that mechanized units would be secondary to... horse cavalry and infantry (yes, I have no idea why some thought this), or they simply didn't invest all that much into R+D (the Americans especially, and the Italians).

The reasons why Germany had so many successes early on were because they invested time and resources, developed new doctrines like blitzkrieg and true combined arms with training and (for the time) superior tanks to the already obsolete Entete vehicles), and subsequently developed counters to the WW1 paradigms the other powers were operating on.

The Spanish Civil War also gave them valuable combat and performance data for their training, tactics, equipment, and the like, which were used to refine everything.

Even the Soviets had a heads up that times were changing and were quietly adapting to the times, such as when they exchanged advisers/training with Germany when there were veneers of peace. They simply just didn't adapt fast enough before war broke out a few years later.
 
Buba said:
Not true. The armaments industry was in the far west - like in Paris. In WWI France was the "Arsenal of Democracy", as evidenced by the American Army being equipped with French made weapons.
Also, in WWI there was no razing of industries. I admit that in the occupied territories Germans did dismantle factories and kept them crated, letting the the now unemployed workers barely scrap by.
Click to expand...
In my understanding, it wasn't the armament industry that was razed; it was everything supporting it that was razed. Basically, the factories for the base materials that were needed to make the armaments were largely gone.

Also, video on French tank design during the Interbellum era:

Jormungandr said:
France, Britain, America, and Italy didn't adapt to the post-WW1/interbellum era. They were still basing everything on either WW1 paradigms (the French), believing that mechanized units would be secondary to... horse cavalry and infantry (yes, I have no idea why some thought this), or they simply didn't invest all that much into R+D (the Americans especially, and the Italians).

The reasons why Germany had so many successes early on were because they invested time and resources, developed new doctrines like blitzkrieg and true combined arms with training and (for the time) superior tanks to the already obsolete Entete vehicles), and subsequently developed counters to the WW1 paradigms the other powers were operating on.

The Spanish Civil War also gave them valuable combat and performance data for their training, tactics, equipment, and the like, which were used to refine everything.

Even the Soviets had a heads up that times were changing and were quietly adapting to the times, such as when they exchanged advisers/training with Germany when there were veneers of peace. They simply just didn't adapt fast enough before war broke out a few years later.
Click to expand...
In the case of the US, you can squarely blame Congress, who make pinch pennies of yore look like they're free with their money... or pull the 'nice budget you got there, [yoink] we'll take half of it, and you got to do with less' when it came to the military.

I mean, Congress was filled with people like Benjamin 'Pitchfork' Tillman (though, if records were to be believed, not as racist) who loved starving the US military in general of money, leading to all sorts of staffing, procurement (Mk14s being an example), development, maintenance, and other issues.
 
France using the old 37mm cannon on modern projects is really a bad move though, even factoring in logistics.
The gun is so laughably under powered against both hard and soft targets.
 
Aaron Fox said:
In my understanding, it wasn't the armament industry that was razed; it was everything supporting it that was razed. Basically, the factories for the base materials that were needed to make the armaments were largely gone.
Click to expand...
I believe your understanding to be incorrect. In WWI France churned out guns, tanks, airplanes etc. without a problem. In the interwar years it fucked up by nationalisation, leniency towards labour unions, placement of orders at state arsenals and not with private industry etc.
In 2Q1940 French armaments were going brRRRT.
 
49ersfootball said:
France has slow tanks ?
Click to expand...
Till 1940,yes.They focused on supporting infrantry,so must be slow,otherwise infrantry could not follow.
That was soviet problem with T.34 - they were too fast,and even when they go aas slow as possible for them,infrantry still could not follow.
So,they either must go ahead of them,or stop and become better target for guns.
That is /except poor training/ one of reasons why soviets advanced so slow and with such terrible loses.Even in 1945,when germans practically run out of ammo,soviets still lost 4KIA for one german soldier.
 
ATP said:
Till 1940,yes.They focused on supporting infrantry,so must be slow,otherwise infrantry could not follow.
That was soviet problem with T.34 - they were too fast,and even when they go aas slow as possible for them,infrantry still could not follow.
So,they either must go ahead of them,or stop and become better target for guns.
That is /except poor training/ one of reasons why soviets advanced so slow and with such terrible loses.Even in 1945,when germans practically run out of ammo,soviets still lost 4KIA for one german soldier.
Click to expand...
Not when the damned thing needed a hammer or superhuman strength to get into top gear, haha. T-34 in theory could go pretty fast, but in practice technical issues slowed em down until late-war.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Not when the damned thing needed a hammer or superhuman strength to get into top gear, haha. T-34 in theory could go pretty fast, but in practice technical issues slowed em down until late-war.
Click to expand...
True - but they were still too fast for infrantry,and,as a result,either get burned or go ahead of them and also get burned.
When french tanks could go as slow as infrantry without stopping and making themselves easy target.

To be honest,i always wonder why germans almost never used french tanks - for supporting infrantry they would be good till at least 1943 where Allies get new AT guns.
 
ATP said:
True - but they were still too fast for infrantry,and,as a result,either get burned or go ahead of them and also get burned.
When french tanks could go as slow as infrantry without stopping and making themselves easy target.

To be honest,i always wonder why germans almost never used french tanks - for supporting infrantry they would be good till at least 1943 where Allies get new AT guns.
Click to expand...
Germans did use French tanks, a fair amount too. But they were simply antiquated. Why use a Somua when a Panzer 3 or 4 does a better job?
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Germans did use French tanks, a fair amount too. But they were simply antiquated. Why use a Somua when a Panzer 3 or 4 does a better job?
Click to expand...
Not Somua,but infrantry tanks,like Char B1, R.35,40 and H.35,39 - only to support german infrantry,in other worlds - not in panzer divisions.
They would be good enough against british 40mm AT guns ,and soviet 45mm.
Both get new 57mm guns,if i remember correctly,in 1943.
 
ATP said:
Not Somua,but infrantry tanks,like Char B1, R.35,40 and H.35,39 - only to support german infrantry,in other worlds - not in panzer divisions.
They would be good enough against british 40mm AT guns ,and soviet 45mm.
Both get new 57mm guns,if i remember correctly,in 1943.
Click to expand...
The French tank armor was somewhat overrated, while it was thick, it was cast, which lowers it's effectiveness. And worse yet it wasn't cast especially well, which hurt it's effectiveness even more.

ren35capt03-3fb90656c63bb2429e54d599e18dd320.jpg

And I assure you, Germany was so strapped for equipment they absolutely used French tanks of all sorts.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
The French tank armor was somewhat overrated, while it was thick, it was cast, which lowers it's effectiveness. And worse yet it wasn't cast especially well, which hurt it's effectiveness even more.

ren35capt03-3fb90656c63bb2429e54d599e18dd320.jpg

And I assure you, Germany was so strapped for equipment they absolutely used French tanks of all sorts.
Click to expand...
Both true - but,they could use it more for infrantry support in 1941 and 1942.
 
ATP said:
Both true - but,they could use it more for infrantry support in 1941 and 1942.
Click to expand...
Germans had already designed the StuG III for that purpose. Also, they found uses for their captured French tanks - airbase defence, anti-partisan duty(a Renault R35 will go a lot of places in the Balkans that are beyond heavier tanks). Lastly, the limitations of those one-man turrets were really big - it would have been a pain to integrate those in German first- or second-line units.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top