|
Post by Enderminion on Dec 19, 2017 10:33:57 GMT -6
they built 60cm mortars for attacking that kind of target, so it worked at least a little bit Are we referring to a French 60mm mortar, because they never were able to produce that mortar, they installed 50mm mortar that were already in production. That weapon did not have the range to nail a German 88mm gun. Please clarify, sorry. To All: I found a good site for the Maginot Line - themaginotline.info/index.phpthe Germans expended resources making weapons to defeat hardened targets (600mm Karl Mortar) so the line did cause the germans to build things they would not otherwise have done
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 19, 2017 12:25:53 GMT -6
Are we referring to a French 60mm mortar, because they never were able to produce that mortar, they installed 50mm mortar that were already in production. That weapon did not have the range to nail a German 88mm gun. Please clarify, sorry. To All: I found a good site for the Maginot Line - themaginotline.info/index.phpthe Germans expended resources making weapons to defeat hardened targets (600mm Karl Mortar) so the line did cause the germans to build things they would not otherwise have done I agree, that the Mortar was developed to attack the Maginot Line however, it also came in handy at Sebastopol and its fortifications. It was also used at Leningrad and helped in the suppression of the Warsaw Uprising. So its development was useful in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by bramborough on Dec 19, 2017 16:52:10 GMT -6
Are we referring to a French 60mm mortar, because they never were able to produce that mortar, they installed 50mm mortar that were already in production. That weapon did not have the range to nail a German 88mm gun. Please clarify, sorry. To All: I found a good site for the Maginot Line - themaginotline.info/index.phpI think enderminion is referring to the "Karl-Gerät" German ultra-heavy 60cm mortar, of which six or so were produced:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Ger%C3%A4t
Of course, none of them entered service until after the fall of France.
The remaining example, I note, is at the Kubinka tank museum. Just putting a plug in; if your travels ever take you to Moscow, then don't forego taking the trip out to Kubinka. Easily one of the most fascinating museums I've ever visited. One of the few regrets of my life is not having had a camera with me that day. One thing I came away from there with: I had seen thousands of WW2 photographs and read a lot about the Eastern Front. But actually seeing the tanks made a huge difference; I had never recognized just how much taller (i.e., bigger silhouette) the German armor was than the Russian. Not just the Tigers/Panthers; even the PzKpfw IV was a surprisingly large vehicle "in the flesh", compared to a T-34.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 20, 2017 19:12:18 GMT -6
I think enderminion is referring to the "Karl-Gerät" German ultra-heavy 60cm mortar, of which six or so were produced:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Ger%C3%A4t
Of course, none of them entered service until after the fall of France.
The remaining example, I note, is at the Kubinka tank museum. Just putting a plug in; if your travels ever take you to Moscow, then don't forego taking the trip out to Kubinka. Easily one of the most fascinating museums I've ever visited. One of the few regrets of my life is not having had a camera with me that day. One thing I came away from there with: I had seen thousands of WW2 photographs and read a lot about the Eastern Front. But actually seeing the tanks made a huge difference; I had never recognized just how much taller (i.e., bigger silhouette) the German armor was than the Russian. Not just the Tigers/Panthers; even the PzKpfw IV was a surprisingly large vehicle "in the flesh", compared to a T-34. I think it great to have recommendations for places to see the weapons of the past. As to the issue of a tanks silhouette, it is important. However, there are other more important characteristics like ergonomics of the interior, gun power, machinery reliability etc. Tank battles are won by the ability of the tank crew to act efficiently in spotting a target, and killing it. The turrets and bodies of German tanks were far more roomy and had three men in the turrets to increase the quickness and efficiency of the crew along with good radio communications. Their tanks were more reliable, their guns were more powerful and the only advantage the Russian tanks actually had was their better off-road mobility and numbers. They took terrible casualties throughout the war. That having been said, the T-34-76 and -85 were both leaders in the modern development of tanks with wider treads, sloped armor and large guns.
|
|
|
Post by bramborough on Dec 20, 2017 20:33:43 GMT -6
I have a different viewpoint; not entirely opposed, just different. I do not think the German tanks in 1941-1942 had better guns - most typically armed with 50mm or short-barreled HE-firing 75mm - than the T-34's 76mm (although the Germans certainly had better optics/sights). I also believe that the T-34 design was inherently simpler, more rugged, and more reliable. And of course the sloped armor. Solely from a design perspective, I see the T-34 as superior to the Panzer III/IV, its "peer competitor" (it would be rather unfair to compare it to the Panther, let alone Tiger...that would be somewhat akin to comparing a P-51 or FW-190 to an early Bf109 or Hurricane). Guderian and other German commanders (as well as the troops themselves) would seem to have agreed; they were happy to use captured T-34's whenever they could, despite the obviously elevated risk of mis-identification and friendly fire.
That said, where we agree is in radio comms, coordination, doctrine/tactics, training, and sheer leadership at the junior officer / NCO level, in all of which the Germans clearly outperformed the Soviets, particularly early on. Bottom line, in my view, the Red Army had the better tanks, but didn't use them well, while the Wehrmacht had the (much) better tankers. (note, I'm talking the 1941-43 T-34-vs-PzKpfw III/IV comparison...not post-Kursk with Panthers/Tigers vs T-34-85/JS1/JS2. I think that's a whole different discussion).
I do also agree with you on one aspect of the relative designs: turret/crew configuration. I think that cramped turret was by far the T-34's biggest Achilles' heel. I've often read about the Russian tank commanders' tendency to fight "buttoned-up", while their German counterparts often popped their heads out and generally had far better situational awareness. It's a valid observation as far as it goes...but I suspect it shouldn't be chalked up solely to poor training. It's not clear to me that a T-34 commander had much of a choice, being also the gunner. Even with better training/initiative, he could either operate the main gun OR wriggle around to stand up and look outside...but not both.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 20, 2017 21:24:10 GMT -6
I have a different viewpoint; not entirely opposed, just different. I do not think the German tanks in 1941-1942 had better guns - most typically armed with 50mm or short-barreled HE-firing 75mm - than the T-34's 76mm (although the Germans certainly had better optics/sights). I also believe that the T-34 design was inherently simpler, more rugged, and more reliable. And of course the sloped armor. Solely from a design perspective, I see the T-34 as superior to the Panzer III/IV, its "peer competitor" (it would be rather unfair to compare it to the Panther, let alone Tiger...that would be somewhat akin to comparing a P-51 or FW-190 to an early Bf109 or Hurricane). Guderian and other German commanders (as well as the troops themselves) would seem to have agreed; they were happy to use captured T-34's whenever they could, despite the obviously elevated risk of mis-identification and friendly fire. That said, where we agree is in radio comms, coordination, doctrine/tactics, training, and sheer leadership at the junior officer / NCO level, in all of which the Germans clearly outperformed the Soviets, particularly early on. Bottom line, in my view, the Red Army had the better tanks, but didn't use them well, while the Wehrmacht had the (much) better tankers. (note, I'm talking the 1941-43 T-34-vs-PzKpfw III/IV comparison...not post-Kursk with Panthers/Tigers vs T-34-85/JS1/JS2. I think that's a whole different discussion). I do also agree with you on one aspect of the relative designs: turret/crew configuration. I think that cramped turret was by far the T-34's biggest Achilles' heel. I've often read about the Russian tank commanders' tendency to fight "buttoned-up", while their German counterparts often popped their heads out and generally had far better situational awareness. It's a valid observation as far as it goes...but I suspect it shouldn't be chalked up solely to poor training. It's not clear to me that a T-34 commander had much of a choice, being also the gunner. Even with better training/initiative, he could either operate the main gun OR wriggle around to stand up and look outside...but not both. Actually, I do agree about the initial versions of the Mark III and IV. With the 37mm gun and short barreled 75mm L24 both tanks were behind even the French tanks with their 47mm guns. The best gunned tank they actually had the was the Czech Panzer 38(t) but it was not up to the standards of both Russia and France. The German doctrine, better training and other qualities that you have mentioned did counteract the difference in numbers.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 24, 2017 23:49:24 GMT -6
Well, another successful game as Japan. I won my first war against the French, very easy. Then my last war was against the Russians and they were no-shows, for six engagements then they quit... very strange. I ended up with four battleships, four armored cruisers along with four light cruisers and a nice collection of medium range submarines. It was my highest prestige score yet...45. Amazing. Well, its time to track Santa on NORAD Santa tracker.... like old times. I hope no one makes a mistake and takes a pot shot at him......
|
|
|
Post by bramborough on Dec 26, 2017 16:37:11 GMT -6
Well, another successful game as Japan. I won my first war against the French, very easy. Then my last war was against the Russians and they were no-shows, for six engagements then they quit... very strange. I ended up with four battleships, four armored cruisers along with four light cruisers and a nice collection of medium range submarines. It was my highest prestige score yet...45. Amazing. Just finished first Japan game myself. Pretty enjoyable...was first campaign I took all the way to 1950. Highest prestige yet, but unfair comparison because going so long; I should've marked what prestige was in Jan 1926. Not that it matters much...I view prestige as resource, sometimes to be built up in order to gain some budget from tension...other times to shed in order to avoid war with someone I really shouldn't be fighting. Was pretty happy with the fleet structure at the end. I didn't try for close copies of historical classes, but I did shoot for their 8BB/8BC force structure and got there, including a pair of 52,000t 18"-armed BB's, a pair of 17" armed BB's, and the remainder of the AF fleet sporting 16". It was fun playing til 1950, so as to actually have a chance to use some bigger better BB/BC's in battle, which doesn't always happen with the nominal 1925 end date. One thing I noticed: Japan starts economically small but apparently has a good growth modifier, and also loses that snarky shipbuilding penalty along the way. Even by 1925, Japan was chugging right along with lots of industry/productivity events and doing a lot better economically than most other countries I'd played. Overall, pretty fun nation to play. A caveat; I learned that if war is imminent, as Japan put the game on Captain's mode, or at least Rear Admiral. Watching AI destroyers muddle their way through a night surprise attack on full Admiral mode was just dreadful.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 26, 2017 19:51:48 GMT -6
Well, another successful game as Japan. I won my first war against the French, very easy. Then my last war was against the Russians and they were no-shows, for six engagements then they quit... very strange. I ended up with four battleships, four armored cruisers along with four light cruisers and a nice collection of medium range submarines. It was my highest prestige score yet...45. Amazing. Just finished first Japan game myself. Pretty enjoyable...was first campaign I took all the way to 1950. Highest prestige yet, but unfair comparison because going so long; I should've marked what prestige was in Jan 1926. Not that it matters much...I view prestige as resource, sometimes to be built up in order to gain some budget from tension...other times to shed in order to avoid war with someone I really shouldn't be fighting. Was pretty happy with the fleet structure at the end. I didn't try for close copies of historical classes, but I did shoot for their 8BB/8BC force structure and got there, including a pair of 52,000t 18"-armed BB's, a pair of 17" armed BB's, and the remainder of the AF fleet sporting 16". It was fun playing til 1950, so as to actually have a chance to use some bigger better BB/BC's in battle, which doesn't always happen with the nominal 1925 end date. One thing I noticed: Japan starts economically small but apparently has a good growth modifier, and also loses that snarky shipbuilding penalty along the way. Even by 1925, Japan was chugging right along with lots of industry/productivity events and doing a lot better economically than most other countries I'd played. Overall, pretty fun nation to play. A caveat; I learned that if war is imminent, as Japan put the game on Captain's mode, or at least Rear Admiral. Watching AI destroyers muddle their way through a night surprise attack on full Admiral mode was just dreadful. I have noticed that about AI destroyers, good advice and will try it next time.
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Dec 27, 2017 8:08:14 GMT -6
Concerning T-34 and other Russian weapons of WW II, I remember that I thougjt as a young guy: "What a crap".
But now I think completely different. The Russians accepted that with their level of education, training of troops, the weather and the ground conditions, they need cheap and easy to build weapons. They developed some masterpieces for that, the T 34, the 7,62 mm division gun, the Katjusha and the PPSh sub-machine gun. The weapons perfectly adopted the "state-of-art" in Russia, in the dust, the mud and the snow.
The German tanks after 1942 were products of the T-34-trauma and motivated by the fear to fall behind again. So they tried to develope heavier and heavier tanks without any sense. This ended in the Jagdtiger, which had a extremly slow firerate, low ammunition, was mechanical unreliable and consumed ocean of gasoline ... and the 2 Maus-prototypes.
I follow now a similar principle in RtW with Germany and focus more on numbers than quality with success.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 8, 2018 13:00:08 GMT -6
I am going to experiment in my next game as Japan. I am going to set the range on the ships to long based on Japan's geography,y cross your fingers.
|
|
|
Post by bramborough on Jan 8, 2018 17:27:38 GMT -6
I think that makes good sense for Japanese cruisers. It's difficult for other nations to blockade you...and for you to blockade them. So the raiding cruisers assume more importance. If the majority of your CA's and CL's have the Long Range configuration, that should help with both intercepting the enemy's and your own evading interception. I do think it would be a mistake to hamstring your capital ships and destroyers that way though. At least game-mechanic wise, the "L" designation seems to me significant primarily in the raider/anti-raider fight. In any other context it seems wasted (and expensive) tonnage.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 8, 2018 17:32:34 GMT -6
I think that makes good sense for Japanese cruisers. It's difficult for other nations to blockade you...and for you to blockade them. So the raiding cruisers assume more importance. If the majority of your CA's and CL's have the Long Range configuration, that should help with both intercepting the enemy's and your own evading interception. I do think it would be a mistake to hamstring your capital ships and destroyers that way though. At least game-mechanic wise, the "L" designation seems to me significant primarily in the raider/anti-raider fight. In any other context it seems wasted (and expensive) tonnage. I think you are correct. My next Japan game, I will just assign long range to the light and heavy cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 9, 2018 2:25:40 GMT -6
I think that makes good sense for Japanese cruisers. It's difficult for other nations to blockade you...and for you to blockade them. So the raiding cruisers assume more importance. If the majority of your CA's and CL's have the Long Range configuration, that should help with both intercepting the enemy's and your own evading interception. I do think it would be a mistake to hamstring your capital ships and destroyers that way though. At least game-mechanic wise, the "L" designation seems to me significant primarily in the raider/anti-raider fight. In any other context it seems wasted (and expensive) tonnage. I think you are correct. My next Japan game, I will just assign long range to the light and heavy cruisers. In this case I will suggest build slow heavily armored cost effective battleships. For battlecruiser may be opposite, expensive quality design which can last long. It could be done with low to moderate speed, heavy armor, low number but high caliber guns. For cruisers I suggest you can build a fleet of cheap 2100 cruisers as riders and deploy them through the whole globe in case of war. If they get damaged and internet it is not the issue as they should be cheap and lot of them. They can be backbone of your forces before submarines take this role.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 9, 2018 16:55:47 GMT -6
I think you are correct. My next Japan game, I will just assign long range to the light and heavy cruisers. In this case I will suggest build slow heavily armored cost effective battleships. For battlecruiser may be opposite, expensive quality design which can last long. It could be done with low to moderate speed, heavy armor, low number but high caliber guns. For cruisers I suggest you can build a fleet of cheap 2100 cruisers as riders and deploy them through the whole globe in case of war. If they get damaged and internet it is not the issue as they should be cheap and lot of them. They can be backbone of your forces before submarines take this role. Sorry, just noticed your post. I will definitely try your suggestion about cheap 2100 ton cruisers. I am not certain about deploying them around the world but nothing ventured nothing gained, as is said. Thanks a lot.
|
|