What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Superthread XIX

Status
Not open for further replies.

God-King Dean

Immortal
Messages
46,614
Over all I'd say he's one of my favourites. I've read his book "Infantry Attacks" from his time in WWI and it's pretty cool: pretty detailed but somewhat understandable if you give yourself enough time to digest it. It's more or less his personal journey along with his insights in to tactics and so on. He's generally considered to be one of if not the best armoured warfare general in WWII: known for leading the "Ghost Division" in the French campaign (Named because no one could keep track of them) and let down in North Africa largely due to a severe lack of resources (a result of the war of attrition that was happening in Russia and Germany's rather poor production efforts). He was a bit of a gambler and liked to use big counter-offensive manoeuvres with tank formations and so on but was a quick thinker and easily adapted to the situations around him, whereas someone like Montgomery was more in to coming up with detailed plans and executing them to the very last detail. The Italians didn't like him very much because he generally used them as Cannon fodder in his offensive manoeuvres: fair enough if you ask me because the Italians started all the conflict in North Africa but didn't have the officer class to sustain any effective operations.

That being said I put a lot of his legacy down to hype from the Allies. They billed him as a worthy adversary type of character: a likeable opponent amongst a collection of inherently evil bad guys. The fact that he committed suicide after supposedly being involved in a plot to kill Hitler helps this immensely but whether he was actually involved in any plot is unknown to anyone. He was really popular in Germany anyway, thought of as a loyal, professional solider who's job was simply to fight wars. He was apparently quite politically naive (apparently once suggesting to Hitler that he give a Jew a a position in the Nazi cabinet to try and quell suspicions that the Nazi regime was anti-Jewish) but again, the fact that he served in the first months of the war as the leader of Hitler's personal bodyguard, I very much doubt this.

Also interesting to note that he seemed to really rate Australian and New Zealand troops noting that "If I had to take hell, I would use the Australians to take it and the New Zealanders to hold it"

Represent!

The reason I asked is I've been watching a lot of History Channel docos & have been intrigued by tank battles.

I even thought of joining the Army as a Tank Crewman. Unfortunately Australians have used tanks since Vietnam with the Centurions. They've been replaced twice with Leopards & now Abrams.

There was call recently by Opposition leaders for Gillard to use tanks in Afghanistan. Apparently an Officer said "We might as well use submarines...." :(
 

McLovin

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
33,899
The pub i go to has hot wiminz and an endless supply of beer...i wont stand a chance going sober...
 

Martli

Coach
Messages
11,564
Represent!

The reason I asked is I've been watching a lot of History Channel docos & have been intrigued by tank battles.

I even thought of joining the Army as a Tank Crewman. Unfortunately Australians have used tanks since Vietnam with the Centurions. They've been replaced twice with Leopards & now Abrams.

There was call recently by Opposition leaders for Gillard to use tanks in Afghanistan. Apparently an Officer said "We might as well use submarines...." :(

Right, yeah tanks are probably my favourite area man. They had their heyday in WWII, but in the modern era wars are generally no longer fought between two professional armies: it's generally a professional army vs. lose networks of guerilla fighters. Tanks are fairly useless in this scenario, you're better off using special forces for the actual fighting, the regular army equipped with mobile armoured vehicles for occupation and sending your main attack against the support networks that keep the guerilla's funded and active. Tanks are only really good in the state vs. state situation where it's masses of troops going up against each other and even then, Air superiority is still the main way to victory.

Australia is and should be primarily concerned with having a decent navy with a decent air strike force, much like Britain, because it's basically one large island (technically a continent). Germany on the other hand had completely different geography to deal with: it became good at mobile ground warfare and tactical air support in WWII because it has relatively little coast line and enemies on all its borders. The treaty of Versailles restricted the size of it's army so they concentrated on building their army and infrastructure so that it had the mobility to fight and beat Russia in the east and then France in the West if it ever had to: that's why tanks became a central part of the German army during WWII and why they make some of the best tanks during the Cold War. It was thought that Germany would be the centre of a massive battle between NATO and the USSR if the cold war was to ever erupt into a ground battle.

I'm guessing you watched the "Greatest tank battles" show or whatever it was? I've seen a few episodes of that, a good one is a tank battle between Israel vs. Syria in either the 6 day war or the Yom Kippur war (can't remember which one) where the Israelis took out huge amounts of Syrian tanks with relatively few of their own. Interesting stuff! And of course the classic tank battle was Kursk where the Russian t-34 started to show it's worth on the battlefield. That was a nice tank.
 

Martli

Coach
Messages
11,564
Guys, just a word of warning, please don't ask me any questions relating to WWII or tanks or anything that is semi-related to those topics because otherwise you will get giant posts like that. Cheers.
 
Messages
8,666
Right, yeah tanks are probably my favourite area man. They had their heyday in WWII, but in the modern era wars are generally no longer fought between two professional armies: it's generally a professional army vs. lose networks of guerilla fighters. Tanks are fairly useless in this scenario, you're better off using special forces for the actual fighting, the regular army equipped with mobile armoured vehicles for occupation and sending your main attack against the support networks that keep the guerilla's funded and active. Tanks are only really good in the state vs. state situation where it's masses of troops going up against each other and even then, Air superiority is still the main way to victory.

Australia is and should be primarily concerned with having a decent navy with a decent air strike force, much like Britain, because it's basically one large island (technically a continent). Germany on the other hand had completely different geography to deal with: it became good at mobile ground warfare and tactical air support in WWII because it has relatively little coast line and enemies on all its borders. The treaty of Versailles restricted the size of it's army so they concentrated on building their army and infrastructure so that it had the mobility to fight and beat Russia in the east and then France in the West if it ever had to: that's why tanks became a central part of the German army during WWII and why they make some of the best tanks during the Cold War. It was thought that Germany would be the centre of a massive battle between NATO and the USSR if the cold war was to ever erupt into a ground battle.

I'm guessing you watched the "Greatest tank battles" show or whatever it was? I've seen a few episodes of that, a good one is a tank battle between Israel vs. Syria in either the 6 day war or the Yom Kippur war (can't remember which one) where the Israelis took out huge amounts of Syrian tanks with relatively few of their own. Interesting stuff! And of course the classic tank battle was Kursk where the Russian t-34 started to show it's worth on the battlefield. That was a nice tank.

The Tiger tank was the best tank of WW2 imo
 

Martli

Coach
Messages
11,564
The Tiger tank was the best tank of WW2 imo

Depends how you define "best". The Tiger had a lot of firepower, but it took ages to make one. Even then the Panther was a bit stronger but also a lot more prone. The t-34 is the best in my opinion because it was easy to mass produce and was still relatively strong. It wasn't as strong as a Tiger, but when you can only produce a few hundred tigers a year then it's strength really counts for nothing. The Brits and americans had some nice ones near the end of the war as well but they didn't really see much action on the front lines because the war was basically over when they got in to action.

So yeah, the Tiger was one of the strongest tanks, but it was fairly useless because of its build time and the intricacy of all it's parts (easy to break down, ages to repair etc.)
 
Messages
8,666
Depends how you define "best". The Tiger had a lot of firepower, but it took ages to make one. Even then the Panther was a bit stronger but also a lot more prone. The t-34 is the best in my opinion because it was easy to mass produce and was still relatively strong. It wasn't as strong as a Tiger, but when you can only produce a few hundred tigers a year then it's strength really counts for nothing. The Brits and americans had some nice ones near the end of the war as well but they didn't really see much action on the front lines because the war was basically over when they got in to action.

So yeah, the Tiger was one of the strongest tanks, but it was fairly useless because of its build time and the intricacy of all it's parts (easy to break down, ages to repair etc.)

But The Tiger could take out the T34 before it could get close to it and thats what counts. Its firepower cancels out the fact it took so long to build
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top