User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 7:48:42 PM EDT
[#1]
I'd run nothing but Rattes for everything, from AAA to siege guns to anti shipping.
They were the real solution. Hell yes. And I'd put a brewery and biergarten on each one. ETA: and then I'd put Nazi's on the moon |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 7:49:42 PM EDT
[#2]
Tiger II, it looks sweet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 7:50:56 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryRight up to the point it breaks down.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 7:52:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Nope. Trust me.
Ratte.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 7:55:03 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope. Trust me. Ratte. http://theorderoftheironphoenix.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ratte-Tank.jpg Big target for a 500lb bomb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:02:13 PM EDT
[#6]
STUG III
Panthers Jagdpanther |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:02:36 PM EDT
[#7]
Knock it off with too fancy for their own good suspension and roadwheels.
More Stugs. Stugs with Christie suspension. Use manufacturing ability I saved to build trucks,lots and lots of trucks. Diesel engines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:03:55 PM EDT
[#8]
The one in the rear.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:05:47 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Big target for a 500lb bomb. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Nope. Trust me. Ratte. http://theorderoftheironphoenix.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ratte-Tank.jpg Big target for a 500lb bomb. Goering swears he'll protect them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:07:56 PM EDT
[#10]
I take it you mean from ww2. If not Leo 2's
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:08:34 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Knock it off with too fancy for their own good suspension and roadwheels. More Stugs. Stugs with Christie suspension. Use manufacturing ability I saved to build trucks,lots and lots of trucks. Diesel engines. I don't think a Pz III or IV chassis could be viable with all the interior hull space you'd lose with a Christie suspension. Unless you designed a whole new vehicle around the suspension, and end up right back at square one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:10:38 PM EDT
[#12]
Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:15:35 PM EDT
[#13]
This thread is relevant to my interests.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:17:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Panther G.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:18:15 PM EDT
[#15]
G model Panthers and Jagdpanthers, that's it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:19:17 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money. No need for Panthers or at least do the Panther program correctly. Could have just as easily killed bigger Soviet tanks with Jagdpanzer 4 or a Nashorn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:19:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Panthers, nothing but panthers.
On the same token, nothing but FW190's. Standardize. Everything else, even the "wonder weapons" - King Tiger, V1, V2, rocket and jet planes were a waste of resources for a country that was on the defensive. Pick weapons that are both effective and reliable and easy to produce and run with them...something the German couldn't never grasp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:24:36 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Panthers, nothing but panthers. On the same token, nothing but FW190's. Standardize. Everything else, even the "wonder weapons" - King Tiger, V1, V2, rocket and jet planes were a waste of resources for a country that was on the defensive. Pick weapons that are both effective and reliable and easy to produce and run with them...something the German couldn't never grasp. Jet planes were not a waste of resources. Hitler's chosen role for them made them a waste. If used as a pure fighter it would have caused a lot of problems for Allied air. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:25:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money. 1 on 1, a battle between a Pz IV and a Sherman basically resulted in who got the first shot on target. German tanks had the better optics, but versus each other their guns and armor were basically a wash. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:29:09 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Panthers, nothing but panthers. On the same token, nothing but FW190's. Standardize. Everything else, even the "wonder weapons" - King Tiger, V1, V2, rocket and jet planes were a waste of resources for a country that was on the defensive. Pick weapons that are both effective and reliable and easy to produce and run with them...something the German couldn't never grasp. Just playing a game of resources, which Germany was lacking |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:32:02 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1 on 1, a battle between a Pz IV and a Sherman basically resulted in who got the first shot on target. German tanks had the better optics, but versus each other their guns and armor were basically a wash. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money. 1 on 1, a battle between a Pz IV and a Sherman basically resulted in who got the first shot on target. German tanks had the better optics, but versus each other their guns and armor were basically a wash. Not a Sherman with a 75 mm gun, the 75 mm could not penetrate the PZ IV's frontal armor at normal combat range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:33:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Panther G. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:34:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Panthers. Lots of Panthers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:49:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not a Sherman with a 75 mm gun, the 75 mm could not penetrate the PZ IV's frontal armor at normal combat range. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money. 1 on 1, a battle between a Pz IV and a Sherman basically resulted in who got the first shot on target. German tanks had the better optics, but versus each other their guns and armor were basically a wash. Not a Sherman with a 75 mm gun, the 75 mm could not penetrate the PZ IV's frontal armor at normal combat range. No, not really. Post from another forum, from a guy way smarter than I am. 80mm fronts of Panzer IVs were never "proof" against either Russian 76mm or the Sherman M3 75mm. When the latter was using uncapped ammo it had comparable performance to the Russian 76mm, and both could be defeated by the 80mm flat plate on Panzer IV hulls and StuG fronts, beyond close range - about 400-500 meters. But at close range the 80mm front was not sufficient protection, and German accounts themselves state that 80mm front provided "no protection" from Russian tank guns inside 500 meters. With improved APCBC ammo in the late war, the performance of the Sherman 75mm improved considerably against these plates. The German armor was face hardened, but that provides little benefit against properly capped ammo. Sherman 75s with capped ammo could also defeat the Tiger I side, which was specified 80mm but frequently more like 82mm thickness and higher quality plate than that found on the more common Panzer IVs and StuGs. Similarly, Russian 76mm using BR-350B (capped but not ballistic capped, but an improvement over the early war BR-350A which wasn't capped at all) did defeat such plates at point blank range. The Russians also developed APCR (tungsten core "sub caliber") ammunition for their 76mm guns, fielded it in 1943 and abundantly in 1944. Which could readily penetrate 80mm flat plate to middling combat ranges. ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:56:55 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, not really. Post from another forum, from a guy way smarter than I am. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money. 1 on 1, a battle between a Pz IV and a Sherman basically resulted in who got the first shot on target. German tanks had the better optics, but versus each other their guns and armor were basically a wash. Not a Sherman with a 75 mm gun, the 75 mm could not penetrate the PZ IV's frontal armor at normal combat range. No, not really. Post from another forum, from a guy way smarter than I am. 80mm fronts of Panzer IVs were never "proof" against either Russian 76mm or the Sherman M3 75mm. When the latter was using uncapped ammo it had comparable performance to the Russian 76mm, and both could be defeated by the 80mm flat plate on Panzer IV hulls and StuG fronts, beyond close range - about 400-500 meters. But at close range the 80mm front was not sufficient protection, and German accounts themselves state that 80mm front provided "no protection" from Russian tank guns inside 500 meters.
With improved APCBC ammo in the late war, the performance of the Sherman 75mm improved considerably against these plates. The German armor was face hardened, but that provides little benefit against properly capped ammo. Sherman 75s with capped ammo could also defeat the Tiger I side, which was specified 80mm but frequently more like 82mm thickness and higher quality plate than that found on the more common Panzer IVs and StuGs. Similarly, Russian 76mm using BR-350B (capped but not ballistic capped, but an improvement over the early war BR-350A which wasn't capped at all) did defeat such plates at point blank range. The Russians also developed APCR (tungsten core "sub caliber") ammunition for their 76mm guns, fielded it in 1943 and abundantly in 1944. Which could readily penetrate 80mm flat plate to middling combat ranges. ... Reading comprehension really isn't your thing is it? Reread the part(s) in red and come back to me. The 75 mm had to get nut hugging close in terms of a tank battle to penetrate the Pnz 4's front armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 8:58:39 PM EDT
[#26]
Doesn't matter what your choices are. Your CEO is a raving lunatic, and he's calling the tune as to production priority and strategy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:00:10 PM EDT
[#27]
As many ME-262's as possible.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:02:44 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't matter what your choices are. Your CEO is a raving lunatic, and he's calling the tune as to production priority and strategy. Not really on board with the whole killing the Jews thing either, not meant to be super serious just a discussion about tanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:05:55 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Reading comprehension really isn't your thing is it? Reread the part(s) in red and come back to me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Reading comprehension really isn't your thing is it? Reread the part(s) in red and come back to me. Anyways, the turret front on a Pz IV only rated 50mm of armor, and that is not sufficient to combat the 75mm M3. Also, APCBC was showing up in quanity before the end of 1944 in the ETO anyhow. Fighting in 43' in Italy the average AFV combat engagement range was 350 yds(Zaloga) and that was well within the effective range for the Sherman 75. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:07:41 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope, I don't read anything I post. Anyways, the turret front on a Pz IV only rated 50mm of armor, and that is not sufficient to combat the 75mm M3. Also, APCBC was showing up in quanity before the end of 1944 in the ETO anyhow. Fighting in 43' in Italy the average AFV combat engagement range was 350 yds(Zaloga) and that was well within the effective range for the Sherman 75. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Reading comprehension really isn't your thing is it? Reread the part(s) in red and come back to me. Anyways, the turret front on a Pz IV only rated 50mm of armor, and that is not sufficient to combat the 75mm M3. Also, APCBC was showing up in quanity before the end of 1944 in the ETO anyhow. Fighting in 43' in Italy the average AFV combat engagement range was 350 yds(Zaloga) and that was well within the effective range for the Sherman 75. That's why the Germans added skirt armor to the turret as well as the sides. Where did most tank combat occur...give you one guess, it wasn't in Italy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:11:23 PM EDT
[#31]
Ferdinand FTW!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:14:47 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's why the Germans added skirt armor to the turret as well as the sides. Where did most tank combat occur...give you one guess, it wasn't in Italy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Reading comprehension really isn't your thing is it? Reread the part(s) in red and come back to me. Anyways, the turret front on a Pz IV only rated 50mm of armor, and that is not sufficient to combat the 75mm M3. Also, APCBC was showing up in quanity before the end of 1944 in the ETO anyhow. Fighting in 43' in Italy the average AFV combat engagement range was 350 yds(Zaloga) and that was well within the effective range for the Sherman 75. That's why the Germans added skirt armor to the turret as well as the sides. Where did most tank combat occur...give you one guess, it wasn't in Italy. You realize Schürzen were added to German AFV's to combat Russian ATR's right? Only then did they really find out they had an ancillary effect against HEAT warheads, against large caliber AP there were pretty much useless. Yes, I know most tank combat took place in Western Europe. However, by the time of the breakout in August '44, Sherman 76's were showing up in sufficient numbers, and improved AP ammo as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:22:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money. some Tiger units had a hell of a kill ratio, it did not hurt that half the time any german tank was spotted, Tiger was screamed sometimes or Tigre!! so it had that going for it to. Slow turret traverse kinda sucked for anything close. but at range it was a great tank, It may have broken down less than the panther and king tiger. One tiger tank took over 300 hits and while it's main gun was damaged it was able to drive off to get repaired. Not sure that could have happened in a lighter tank. Though I am sure that was the exception. I think production was only around 400+ without looking it up. and that Jagdtigers and Sturmtigers were made from destroyed Tigers that were retrieved. Could be mistaken. Though had the germans had the high velocity 50mm or 75mm in bulk at the start of Barbarossa things might have gone a bit different for the early encounters with the T-34 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:26:03 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As many ME-262's as possible. not demanding they drop bombs might have made a hell of a change to the air war. Most likely would have entered service a year or two earlier. Having one dedicated long range heavy bomber from the start of the war would seriously put Soviet Siberian factories at risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:37:55 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money. lol @ tigers waste of time but you want one of the most unreliable tanks of WW2 to be cranked out? (the panther) lmao I'd have: Upgraded Tiger 2's that were reliable Panther's that were reliable Pz4's with as big a gun as I could reliably stuff in them with upgraded/sloped armor Jagdpanther's that were reliable Elefants A few Jagdtiger's |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:42:15 PM EDT
[#36]
A whole bunch of P 1000s!
They would nazi them coming! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:44:17 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You realize Schürzen were added to German AFV's to combat Russian ATR's right? Only then did they really find out they had an ancillary effect against HEAT warheads, against large caliber AP there were pretty much useless. Yes, I know most tank combat took place in Western Europe. However, by the time of the breakout in August '44, Sherman 76's were showing up in sufficient numbers, and improved AP ammo as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Reading comprehension really isn't your thing is it? Reread the part(s) in red and come back to me. Anyways, the turret front on a Pz IV only rated 50mm of armor, and that is not sufficient to combat the 75mm M3. Also, APCBC was showing up in quanity before the end of 1944 in the ETO anyhow. Fighting in 43' in Italy the average AFV combat engagement range was 350 yds(Zaloga) and that was well within the effective range for the Sherman 75. That's why the Germans added skirt armor to the turret as well as the sides. Where did most tank combat occur...give you one guess, it wasn't in Italy. You realize Schürzen were added to German AFV's to combat Russian ATR's right? Only then did they really find out they had an ancillary effect against HEAT warheads, against large caliber AP there were pretty much useless. Yes, I know most tank combat took place in Western Europe. However, by the time of the breakout in August '44, Sherman 76's were showing up in sufficient numbers, and improved AP ammo as well. I didn't say it as the greatest thing since sliced white bread, I wouldn't call it useless against AP, it was a marginal stopgap. I never once argued the 76 mm didn't play hell on the Pnz 4's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:44:45 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol @ tigers waste of time but you want one of the most unreliable tanks of WW2 to be cranked out? (the panther) lmao I'd have: Upgraded Tiger 2's that were reliable Panther's that were reliable Pz4's with as big a gun as I could reliably stuff in them with upgraded/sloped armor Jagdpanther's that were reliable Elefants A few Jagdtiger's Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money. lol @ tigers waste of time but you want one of the most unreliable tanks of WW2 to be cranked out? (the panther) lmao I'd have: Upgraded Tiger 2's that were reliable Panther's that were reliable Pz4's with as big a gun as I could reliably stuff in them with upgraded/sloped armor Jagdpanther's that were reliable Elefants A few Jagdtiger's Well as long as we're fantasizing, then make my Panthers more reliable too.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:45:22 PM EDT
[#39]
IIRC, there were 1350 Tiger I / Pz VI E manufactured.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
some Tiger units had a hell of a kill ratio, it did not hurt that half the time any german tank was spotted, Tiger was screamed sometimes or Tigre!! so it had that going for it to. Slow turret traverse kinda sucked for anything close. but at range it was a great tank, It may have broken down less than the panther and king tiger. One tiger tank took over 300 hits and while it's main gun was damaged it was able to drive off to get repaired. Not sure that could have happened in a lighter tank. Though I am sure that was the exception. I think production was only around 400+ without looking it up. and that Jagdtigers and Sturmtigers were made from destroyed Tigers that were retrieved. Could be mistaken. Though had the germans had the high velocity 50mm or 75mm in bulk at the start of Barbarossa things might have gone a bit different for the early encounters with the T-34 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money. some Tiger units had a hell of a kill ratio, it did not hurt that half the time any german tank was spotted, Tiger was screamed sometimes or Tigre!! so it had that going for it to. Slow turret traverse kinda sucked for anything close. but at range it was a great tank, It may have broken down less than the panther and king tiger. One tiger tank took over 300 hits and while it's main gun was damaged it was able to drive off to get repaired. Not sure that could have happened in a lighter tank. Though I am sure that was the exception. I think production was only around 400+ without looking it up. and that Jagdtigers and Sturmtigers were made from destroyed Tigers that were retrieved. Could be mistaken. Though had the germans had the high velocity 50mm or 75mm in bulk at the start of Barbarossa things might have gone a bit different for the early encounters with the T-34 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 9:48:44 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well as long as we're fantasizing, then make my Panthers more reliable too.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money. lol @ tigers waste of time but you want one of the most unreliable tanks of WW2 to be cranked out? (the panther) lmao I'd have: Upgraded Tiger 2's that were reliable Panther's that were reliable Pz4's with as big a gun as I could reliably stuff in them with upgraded/sloped armor Jagdpanther's that were reliable Elefants A few Jagdtiger's Well as long as we're fantasizing, then make my Panthers more reliable too.
amen 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2013 10:55:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Without knowing the specific capabilities of every kraut panzer, I'll chose the fastest (Xcountry speed) that can be manufactured most easily.
I'm going to overwhelm you like buzzing bees. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2013 12:38:55 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Without knowing the specific capabilities of every kraut panzer, I'll chose the fastest (Xcountry speed) that can be manufactured most easily. I'm going to overwhelm you like buzzing bees. Same concept arrived at by U.S.A. and U.S.S.R: Sherman and T-34. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2013 3:40:46 AM EDT
[#43]
Tigers. I've read about every book ever written from Tiger crews and learned alot from their stories. Their tanks were highly thought of and very effective, especially when on the defense. The main problem was not enough were being manufactured, and replacement parts and equipment were hard to get. Luftwaffe was also in short supply with air cover.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2013 3:44:53 AM EDT
[#44]
Get a better commander for the Luftwaffe, and don't attack the Russians. There was no problem with the hardware Germany had.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2013 3:59:21 AM EDT
[#45]
Pz-III With a high velocity 50mm from day 1
Pz-IV with the 75L48 firing pull power rounds (Ammo was downloaded to 75L43 power after issues with PaK AT guns using 75L48 spec rounds) Get rid of the hull MG, and add applique armor to limit the shot traps. STuG III 75L43 and 105mm versions, as they were. No JgdPz-IV's. No Jagd-Tigers Panther - Tiger II spec transmissions, Panthers used straight cut gears, not bevel cut gears that are much stronger in the drivelines. Eliminate the hull MG Panther should be the highest production priority vehicle. Tiger I - Eliminate hull MG, applique armor to more effectively slope the upper glacis area. Tiger II - Eliminate hull MG Hetzer A workable diesel engine, appx 600 hp for Panther, Tiger I and Tiger II, along with bio-diesel production. Switch from front drive to rear drive, to eliminate the issues with having the driveline run the length of the vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2013 4:01:46 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2013 4:09:38 AM EDT
[#47]
Awww man... I read the title too fast. Very disappointed. I thought this was another German Tank Tread...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2013 4:13:17 AM EDT
[#48]
I would build a single P.1500. Game over.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2013 4:16:14 AM EDT
[#49]
If Germany doesn't attack Russia,it needs to build AT weapons and artillery like champs because the Russians are coming.
Of course,an argument can be made that had Stalin thrown his forces at Germany he might have shot his wad if they suffered Winter War levels of casualties. His generals didn't stage a coup because they had been invaded, they might have had they gone on the offensive and been routed. Regarding the jets,if they had put enough money and time in testing them and there hadn't been stupid political and company rivalries they could have had He-280s operational in late 41/early 42. They wouldn't have had enough range to loiter but would have been near untouchable doing fighter sweeps. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2013 4:37:59 AM EDT
[#50]
Build T-34's. Tens of Thousands of T-34's. Quantity has a quality all its own...... And shoot that Sonofabitch Corporal right between the eyes in 1934 and be done with the whole thing.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
