combined warfare

**gunnut** · 29 Nov 11,, 20:23

Ever tried to explain the importance of combined warfare and logistics to someone who's obsessed about 1v1 performance?

**bigross86** · 29 Nov 11,, 20:52

Oooh! Send them here!!! Please????

**YellowFever** · 29 Nov 11,, 21:03

Yeah but seriously, the Flanker can do the cobra and the S-400 is supposed to be better than the Patriotso they're gonna win so any argument otherwise is just American arrogance...

**Albany Rifles** · 29 Nov 11,, 21:16

Gunnut, you need to remember the lesson about wrestling with a
Pig!

But if you must engage then smack them between the eyes a ballpeen hammer and say
"1v1 THIS!"

**USSWisconsin** · 29 Nov 11,, 21:22

While they're 1v1'ing with one element, the rest of the unit will come up behind them and ... Oh but thats not fair,,, Yep war is hell...

**bigross86** · 29 Nov 11,, 21:45

Remember: Arguing over the internet (excluding debating on WAB) is like participating in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still a well, you get what I'm trying to say here...

But seriously, please invite this guy over. We need a new good chew toy

**BD1** · 29 Nov 11,, 21:58

best explanation i´ve ever seen was by Chogy - was something like this: if two fighters (a´la F-15 & Su-27 or so) go one on one in dogfight is kind like two soldiers looking meaningfully each other eye to eye,nod, then drop their ACOG-equipped rifles, grenades,radios,NVG-s, and then draw their knives. kinda like Arnold vs. Bennet in Commando

**gunnut** · 29 Nov 11,, 22:15

Originally Posted by BD1

best explanation i´ve ever seen was by Chogy - was something like this: if two fighters (a´la F-15 & Su-27 or so) go one on one in dogfight is kind like two soldiers looking meaningfully each other eye to eye,nod, then drop their ACOG-equipped rifles, grenades,radios,NVG-s, and then draw their knives. kinda like Arnold vs. Bennet in Commando

I need to "let off some steam."

This is the thread I was talking about:

Engineering disaster:Shermans - World of Tanks official forum

**bigross86** · 29 Nov 11,, 22:53

What's your username over there?

**gunnut** · 29 Nov 11,, 22:56

Originally Posted by bigross86

What's your username over there?

Come on, that would be no challenge. You should be able to guess.

**bigross86** · 29 Nov 11,, 23:18

I haven't gotten round to reading the thread, I've instead spent my time actually reading the stuff I need to read for uni. Save me some brain cells, which one are you?

**Blue** · 30 Nov 11,, 04:32

Originally Posted by gunnut

Ever tried to explain the importance of combined warfare and logistics to someone who's obsessed about 1v1 performance?

No, I usually hit those people right in the head with anything handy and they seem to go right to sleep, but please tell us about it.

**zraver** · 30 Nov 11,, 11:17

Teddy bear.... is that like the rubber duck.....

It was the dark of the moon of the 6th of June in cloud bank over Caen, aC-47 with the green light on, ack ack and some Frogs... I said this heres the teddy bear....

LMAO

If you do not think so, look at the history of US and British tank development since June 1944. Someone evidently thought that the Sherman model was a failed model.

In the idiots defense the US did miss a modernization cycle on the Sherman. In 1942 the Sherman was technically (technology) superior to the PzIVG and T-34m42 in some ways inferior in others. In 1943 it and the T-34 began to fall behind with the introduction of the Panther. The Soviets had introduced the T-34/85 in numbers into combat by the beginning of Spring 44, about when the US began production of the (75) and (76) W versions. This delay did kill a lot of people in Normandy. Gun power aside, more wet stowage equipped Shermans means fewer brew ups and more live tankers...

When you say that a medium tanks purpose is not to fight other tanks you fail from the outset.

Ask him if he's take an M15/42 medium tank up against a SDKFz 171 Aufs D. medium tank... after according to him medium tanks are designed to fight tanks so it should be a fair fight.... snicker.

There is only 1..... I repeat only 1 tank designed from start to finish to fight other tanks in WWII that saw service in the West.... the SDKFz 171. Otherwise known as the Panther...

OK Teddy Ruxton,

perhaps you are referring to heavy tanks who are designed with tank on tank combat as its core design principle.

The Tiger and King Tiger maybe... the KV and Stalin tanks NO, the Pershing NO.... Heavy tanks were generally designed to act as assault units. That was the Tigers intended role, and why the Russians chose the slower firing and less anti-armor capable D-22 122mm gun over the D10 100mm.

Heavy tanks failed, they could not compete with the ease of production and versatility that medium tanks offered.

No they did not, they were simply born to early... By the end of WWII automotive technology had evolved to let the heavy tank come out of its cocoon as the MBT in the Pershing, Centurion and T-44. The true sub-35 ton mediums were gone from production.... only the heavies stuck around look at the weights for the Pershing, Centurion and T-44.