"Deceptive Vehicle Destroyed Hitler's Tanks" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 24 Nov 2015 12:13 p.m. PST |
Cool! link Amicalement Armand |
Jemima Fawr | 24 Nov 2015 2:07 p.m. PST |
Not seen any photos of them without. They also needed that muzzle counterweight, just behind the muzzle brake, to balance the gun. |
wrgmr1 | 24 Nov 2015 2:48 p.m. PST |
Right at the beginning was a Hellcat. |
laretenue | 24 Nov 2015 3:21 p.m. PST |
Sloppy. An M-10 is a Wolverine not an Achilles (and even then only if you're a Brit or other Commonwealth). How many US TDs had the 17pdr? None, AFAIK. How many 17pdr M-10 were in service in 1943 …? Pure bubble gum. |
Patrick R | 24 Nov 2015 10:29 p.m. PST |
Always funny when people talk about Tank Destroyers as a complete failure or more positively as a deeply flawed design, but with the same breath will go on to praise the Marder as a marvel of German skill and ingenuity to wring every last ounce of combat capability out of a dated design. |
ScottWashburn | 25 Nov 2015 7:39 a.m. PST |
Well, it wasn't really the tank destroyers themselves that were failures, it was the entire concept of their role in US armor doctrine that was flawed. The idea that the Germans would obligingly send their tanks against our tank destroyers, leaving our under-gunned, under-armored tanks free to rampage around in the enemy rear was hopelessly optimistic at best. Inevitable, US tanks found themselves fighting superior German tanks and paid the price. The tank destroyers, when they were actually able to take on German tanks, did quite well. |
No longer can support TMP | 25 Nov 2015 9:24 a.m. PST |
What's even more telling is that the tank destroyers were used as tanks when there weren't any enemy tanks around (Canadians during the Scheldt campaign). At the start of the war, it made sense to have a mobile anti-tank vehicle because tanks at the time did not have a good dual purpose gun (anti-armour and anti-personnel). As the tank guns became larger, the tanks could be effective in both roles. Why have a specialist vehicle with a built in vulnerability when the tank can now do both jobs? |
|