If Hitler had died in the summer of 1939 how would he be remembered?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Lonestar

Hmmm....you sure? That sounds more like US Army doctrine(which resulted in tanks with weak AT capacity and lightly armored destroyers with, well, "better" AT capacity)

USA wasn't an exception.

[Heresson]

to think of it, if Hitler had died in late 1939, he would be remembered as a great friend and ally of the Soviet Union...

[Serb]

... and UK, France and Italy.

[Heresson]

Italy yes, UK and France - no. Muenchen is not the same as Ribbentrop-Molotov

[Saras]

To Serb it is.

[Patroklos]

Really? So Su-152 was nicknamed "Zveroboy" (beast killer) for nothing?

And how does that in any way not make it an assault gun? Tanks have turrents, the SU-152 did not. It is not a valid comparison, it should be compared to other assault guns.

In any case, as the combat record shows the Panther and Tiger each killed T-34s on orders of magnitude higher than their own losses. I never said that the T-34 was a comparable vehicle to a Tiger, simply that in the main the Tiger's most common opponent by far was the T-34 and many a Russian tanker lost their life because of that.

And do you honestly think whatevery you decide to nickname your equipment means anything? Those Iraqi RG divisions had some pretty fancy names

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Saras
To Serb it is.

To Serb, it was tah evil Poland that started ww2. His views, to say it very lightly, are not mainstream history.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saras
To Serb it is.

Almost. Munich was worse.

[Dinner]

The Finnish Defense Forces want to sell you a British Built Comet Tank.

http://tietokannat.mil.fi/data/2033/3

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Serb


Almost. Munich was worse.

What Britain was supposed to enter into an war 4 years before rearmanent was complete.

Munich was not signed because we thought Hitler was ok, it was signed to buy time, yes it was tough on the Czechs and if we were on the ball about Hitker earlier we would have been ready but to compare it to the Russian/german carve up that followed is ridiculous

I don't recall Britain sigining a secret clause in the Munich agreement that allowed us to invade another country

[Saras]

Originally posted by Serb


Almost. Munich was worse.

Sorry I forgot about the joint Anglo-French operation to invade Eastern Czechoslovakia...

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And how does that in any way not make it an assault gun? Tanks have turrents, the SU-152 did not. It is not a valid comparison, it should be compared to other assault guns.

SU-152 was a heavy assault gun, tank destroyer and self-propelled howitzer in one package. Sure it's wrong to compare it with tanks, but what is the point in tank vs. tank comparison? Tanks were not intended to fight tanks and it wasn't a tank main role to kill an enemy tank. The bulk of tank losses were due to enemy artillery, tank destroyers and close air support, not enemy tanks.

In any case, as the combat record shows the Panther and Tiger each killed T-34s on orders of magnitude higher than their own losses. I never said that the T-34 was a comparable vehicle to a Tiger, simply that in the main the Tiger's most common opponent by far was the T-34 and many a Russian tanker lost their life because of that.

Both Panter and Tiger were heavy tanks (according to our classification (mass), though Panter was medium according to German classification (main gun calibre). So, it's not surprising that losses of medium T-34 were greater than losses of heavy Panters and Tigers.

IS-2 vs. either Panter or Tiger is other case however.

And do you honestly think whatevery you decide to nickname your equipment means anything? Those Iraqi RG divisions had some pretty fancy names

Iraqi RG divisions recieved their designations when they were formed. SU-152 was just SU-152 (Self-Propelled 152mm) in all official papers. Later it was nicknamed by soldiers a "beast killer" for its outstading performance vs. heavy German tanks. It recieved its nickname for combat capabilities, not because of military clerks who think that "beast killer" is a cool name for a tank destroyer or "raptor" is a cool name for a fighter.

The SU-152 was produced throughout 1943. The 152 mm gun was a highly effective antitank weapon. It fired a very large shell, making it useful against infantry as well. It provided long-range fire support for tanks, particularly against German heavy tanks and strongpoints.
In the defensive phase of battle for Soviet forces SU-152s were utilized as powerful anti-tank weapons. Usually SU-152s were used to ambush German tanks. Another commonly used tactic was to amass SU-152 fire (very often direct, sometimes indirect) against the enemy. The power of the SU-152's large high-explosive shells allowed it to damage enemy armoured vehicles even without armour penetration. The 152.4-mm BR-540 armour-piercing round, with a total mass of 48.8 kilograms, devastated enemy vehicles. At closer ranges the kinetic and explosive energy of the shell could rip the turret off a tank. As a result, it was claimed that SU-152s managed to destroy at least seven German Elefant tank destroyers[1], which were unstoppable with any other antitank weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-152

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saras


Sorry I forgot about the joint Anglo-French operation to invade Eastern Czechoslovakia...

There was a joint German-Polish operation to invade Czechoslovakia instead.

Excuse me I forgot to add Poland to the list of Hitler's friends.

[Serb]

Originally posted by TheStinger


What Britain was supposed to enter into an war 4 years before rearmanent was complete.

Munich was not signed because we thought Hitler was ok, it was signed to buy time, yes it was tough on the Czechs and if we were on the ball about Hitker earlier we would have been ready but to compare it to the Russian/german carve up that followed is ridiculous

Oh, really? MRP WAS EXACTLY THE SAME - buying time after YOU, ONCE AGAIN - YOU refused to made a joint effort to stop Hitler. USSR was the only country who proclaimed it will fulfill its ally obligations in case of German attack vs. Czechoslovakia and you guys just betrayed Czechs and sold them without a sinle shot. Hitler had no chance in simultaneous war vs. UK, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia and USSR. If you and French stayed cool and ordered your Polish pet to give a right of passage to Red Army through Poland in case of German agression there would be no WW2 at all.
Instead you made Hitler stronger and just incited Germany to attack USSR. That was a backbone of British foreign policy for centuries: to encourage two greatest continental powers to weaken each other in war.

I don't recall Britain sigining a secret clause in the Munich agreement that allowed us to invade another country

1) You won't find a single word of permission of Soviet invasion to Poland in a secret clause of MRP. Not a single word.
2) You didn't need such clause in the Munich agreement. It was a betrayal "agreement". The whole point was to make Germany stronger and to turn its aggressive sight on the east towards Russia.
3) Poland didn't need a secret clause either when they attacked the USSR in 20's and captured those lands we returned in 1939. They attacked us and stole our lands, in 1939 we did the same to them and just returned what was righfully ours. They got what they deserved. Simple as that.

[Lord Avalon]

If a tank carries more AP than HE, it seems to me that it's probably going to be firing against tanks more than infantry.

That said, isn't the role of a tank to exploit a breakthrough in the enemy's defensive line?