Shipbucket

- Afaik the US TO&E was based on Wehrmacht manuals, which were translated from german to english. After world war 1 it was forbidden for Germany to own tank, but the germans were fascinated by armored warfare and they thought in the 1920s and 1930s a lot about the use, the tactics and the organization of tanks. So when world war 2 started the Germans used their Panzer arm much more efficient as their western adversaries.

- I do also not agree that bigger tank battalions are an advantage. Smaller armored units are easier to command and are often much faster. In world war 2 sometimes advancing units beat eight time bigger units because they were able to strike faster and more often. It is no coincidence that many armies (like Wehrmacht, US Army and British Army) had at the end of world war 2 armored divisions with only seven main combat battalions. Compared to today, armored units were commanded quite fast. Armored battalions were sometimes able to counter attack within 25 minutes and in Operation Market Garden the German Forces in size of an army corps got the verbal the operation order for the counter attack in one and half hour and a written version in three hours). Armored Forces did also move quite fast. So an armored division in world war 2 advanced not slower then a armored division today even the vehicles itselves could move only half as fast as modern vehicles.

- The tank is the universal battle system for land combat, but it is not the best antitank system. Sturmgeschütze were in world war 2 much more efficent in destroying enemy tanks then tanks were. The Wehrmacht knew that fact very well.

Example, the Soviet armor was concentrated in huge formations before and thru first part of war. It was so inefficient in use that they remodel it in to much smaller but more elastic brigade system. Smaller units react faster, move faster, work faster... of course we can't go too far and create too small units.

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

Amen to all that!

Just to be clear, we're talking about the Nazi military? An organisation so poorly put together that it failed at every step of the logistical process from planning, through procurement to distribution. Whose operational planning were completely out of touch with reality. Who by the time the D-day landings took place were sending 16 year old boys with no training against an army with some of the most lavish training of any army in history. Those Nazis?

And on a side note, the biggest killer of allied armour was towed anti tank guns, not tanks or assault guns.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Thiel be nice... or I will send you to OKH quartermaster departament.

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

I think that it is important to distinguish between the higher command competing fiefdoms that Hitler created and mismanaged in his war, from the Field Units and their TO&Es and doctrine. When it comes down to things like Luftwaffe Field Divisions, which were a failure, mainly due to the determination of Goering to hold onto people, rather than surrender them to The Heer for retraining and re-equipping. (Personal Fiefdoms & power/prestige), then there were undeniable such failures which fortunately robbed the Nazis' of much of their power.
At the unit level however, they were streets ahead and no one who fought them disrespected that. While Hitler was well-served by his generals and soldiers they were not well served by Hitler and the Nazi elites. Something for which we should all be grateful.
While German anti-tank weapons and techniques were very effective and not just their ant-tank guns, but their tank-killer infantry accounted for a massive amount of Russian Tanks, Finally we need to bear in mind that at any one time roughly between 70 to 80% of the German Army was fighting on the Russian Front For which the Russians, among many, paid a horrendous cost.

Even during 1944, and on into Jan - Feb 1945, Allied soldiers and commanders
wrote and spoke about the toughness in combat of German units from the squad
level right up to the battalion, and even some larger units. Below Division level
German troops were well led and well armed. The typical German infantry company
had weapons as good as, or better, than the British Army - and only the American
M1 Garand rifle was better than the German Mauser. The main German failures in
equipment were only AM radios for communication, and not enough replacement
tanks, halftracks, and artillery (and prime movers) after June 1944.
If the German Army had received enough men and equipment to replace their
losses from the summer of 1944, the war would have lasted many months longer.
They threw away a large mobile reserve during the Battle of the Bulge, which could
have been used to slow down the Soviet Armies advancing on Berlin. If these
divisions had been used to stiffen the Defense of the Reich, Victory in Europe day
might have been some time in late July, or even August, rather than early May.

_________________
Worklist:
- Victorian Navy - LINK
- ROC/Taiwan - 中華民國空軍 / 陸軍航特部 / 海軍航空兵 - LINK
- RHKAAF / HKGFS - 皇家香港輔助空軍 / 政府飛行服務隊
- Gunbucket - LINK

天滅中共全黨死清光!

Great drawing!

The Mauser was a good rifle, but there was little to choose between it and the Lee-Enfield. I have fired both in competitive range conditions and accuracy is competitive. The thing that sets the Lee-Enfield apart however, is it's 10 round magazine and wonderfully quick smooth bolt action that allows you keep your eyes on the target while working the bolt. A well-trained rifleman could put off 15 aimed rounds in 60 secs. Combine this with the superb Bren with its 30 round mag with quick-change barrel (which I have also used in both .303 and 7.62mm) and you had a good combination. The US BAR with it's 20 round mag and lack of barrel change was a real limitation, without the Garand the Yanks would have been in real trouble. A 30cal Bren and Garand combination would have gone a long way to offsetting the incredible rate of fire and versatility of the MG 34 and MG 42, which were battlefield dominators in the right tactical conditions, or almost any condition for that matter.