Western armor gets creamed by hand-held rockets

[harmonica]

Makes no difference whether it was Russian T-90. US M1 Abrams, or the feared German Leopards, all suffered massive defeats at the hands of rebels with missiles.

TOW missiles used by Syrian rebels blew holes through Russia's armored tanks.

The interconnected conflicts raging across the Middle East today have amounted to a dreadful human catastrophe with spiraling global consequence. One of their lesser effects has been to deflate the reputations of Western main battle tanks mistakenly thought to be night-invulnerable in the popular imagination.

Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent he capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.

We build these massive steel boxes to fight one another and they never face off. It makes no difference whether it’s the heavy stuff or APCs, missiles seems to nullify their very reason for being.

A whole lot more about this @ Russia's Tank Forces Got A Really Rude Awakening In Syria

The US military in WWII had it right.

American tanks were to be infantry support, not tank destroyers .

You knock out the enemy tanks with artillery and air power.

We lost Pershing tanks when they went one on one with heavier German tanks but at the end of the day we devastated Axis armor in Europe with that doctrine.

what?? that's how France lost with BETTER and MORE tanks

France lost because they got out "generaled". The never figured the Krauts would invade through the forest.

The US never had any intentions to produce a heavy tank somewhere in the US and ship it over to Europe and keep it maintained and fueled with Texas oil. They could produce two or more aircraft or more artillery for the same cost.

Most of the German armor on the Western Front was defeated by American (Allied) air power.

However, to be fair the Soviets took them on with their own heavy tanks and lots of air power and artillery.

The Germans were idiots with their heavy tank doctrine. By the time of Normandy the Germans usually only had 40-50% of them operating at any given time. Later in the war it was about 25%. Meanwhile the Pershing was very easy to keep operating.

....if the enemy has airpower, your airpower can't knock out the tanks
....tanks are designed to kill other tanks--not for infantry support

 

[harmonica]

Makes no difference whether it was Russian T-90. US M1 Abrams, or the feared German Leopards, all suffered massive defeats at the hands of rebels with missiles.

TOW missiles used by Syrian rebels blew holes through Russia's armored tanks.

The interconnected conflicts raging across the Middle East today have amounted to a dreadful human catastrophe with spiraling global consequence. One of their lesser effects has been to deflate the reputations of Western main battle tanks mistakenly thought to be night-invulnerable in the popular imagination.

Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent he capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.

We build these massive steel boxes to fight one another and they never face off. It makes no difference whether it’s the heavy stuff or APCs, missiles seems to nullify their very reason for being.

A whole lot more about this @ Russia's Tank Forces Got A Really Rude Awakening In Syria

The US military in WWII had it right.

American tanks were to be infantry support, not tank destroyers .

You knock out the enemy tanks with artillery and air power.

We lost Pershing tanks when they went one on one with heavier German tanks but at the end of the day we devastated Axis armor in Europe with that doctrine.

Persian War tank vs tank battles---the tanks were NOT used for infantry support

two hours, was considered by some sources the largest tank battle of the war

Battle of Medina Ridge - Wikipedia
Battle of 73 Easting - Wikipedia
ever hear of North Africa in WW2?? many tank battles
..there was a big tank battle called Kursk
..ever hear of the Hurtgen Forest?? tanks were assigned to support the troops--but to do that they had to kill TANKS!!
..Arab-Isreali Wars? many tank battles --while supporting the troops
..arty is not going to efficiently kill tanks--that's ridiculous

 

[harmonica]

Makes no difference whether it was Russian T-90. US M1 Abrams, or the feared German Leopards, all suffered massive defeats at the hands of rebels with missiles.

TOW missiles used by Syrian rebels blew holes through Russia's armored tanks.

The interconnected conflicts raging across the Middle East today have amounted to a dreadful human catastrophe with spiraling global consequence. One of their lesser effects has been to deflate the reputations of Western main battle tanks mistakenly thought to be night-invulnerable in the popular imagination.

Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent he capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.

We build these massive steel boxes to fight one another and they never face off. It makes no difference whether it’s the heavy stuff or APCs, missiles seems to nullify their very reason for being.

A whole lot more about this @ Russia's Tank Forces Got A Really Rude Awakening In Syria

The US military in WWII had it right.

American tanks were to be infantry support, not tank destroyers .

You knock out the enemy tanks with artillery and air power.

We lost Pershing tanks when they went one on one with heavier German tanks but at the end of the day we devastated Axis armor in Europe with that doctrine.

no shit we lost against them ....the US armor was outclassed by the enemy armor --so our tanks couldn't do that well against the Germans when the odds were even
..the Brits got massacred at Villers Bocage by ONE tank .....

 

[Flash]

[QU

....tanks are designed to kill other tanks--not for infantry support

Nope. Not in WWII.

The Pershing was designed to support infantry. Never was designed to go head to head with other tanks.

The Allies on both the Eastern and Western Front established and maintained air superiority. We established air superiority over the Japs.

Even during the Cold War when we did develop heavy tanks the main defense against Soviet armor in Europe was air and artillery. Our main Soviet tank killers were A-10s and Apaches, not our tanks.

 

[Flash]

Makes no difference whether it was Russian T-90. US M1 Abrams, or the feared German Leopards, all suffered massive defeats at the hands of rebels with missiles.

TOW missiles used by Syrian rebels blew holes through Russia's armored tanks.

The interconnected conflicts raging across the Middle East today have amounted to a dreadful human catastrophe with spiraling global consequence. One of their lesser effects has been to deflate the reputations of Western main battle tanks mistakenly thought to be night-invulnerable in the popular imagination.

Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent he capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.

We build these massive steel boxes to fight one another and they never face off. It makes no difference whether it’s the heavy stuff or APCs, missiles seems to nullify their very reason for being.

A whole lot more about this @ Russia's Tank Forces Got A Really Rude Awakening In Syria

The US military in WWII had it right.

American tanks were to be infantry support, not tank destroyers .

You knock out the enemy tanks with artillery and air power.

We lost Pershing tanks when they went one on one with heavier German tanks but at the end of the day we devastated Axis armor in Europe with that doctrine.

no shit we lost against them ....the US armor was outclassed by the enemy armor --so our tanks couldn't do that well against the Germans when the odds were even
..the Brits got massacred at Villers Bocage by ONE tank .....

They were "outclassed" because they were not designed to go head to head. It was not economical for us to build a heavy tank when we could build aircraft and artillery for less.

We destroyed Axis armor on all fronts. We won. Our strategy was better. Most of the German counter attack armor at Normandy was destroyed by air power. Once the sky cleared at the Battle of the Budge German armor was toast.

We don't have bragging rights for head to head tank battles but who gives a shit?

 

[harmonica]

Makes no difference whether it was Russian T-90. US M1 Abrams, or the feared German Leopards, all suffered massive defeats at the hands of rebels with missiles.

TOW missiles used by Syrian rebels blew holes through Russia's armored tanks.

The interconnected conflicts raging across the Middle East today have amounted to a dreadful human catastrophe with spiraling global consequence. One of their lesser effects has been to deflate the reputations of Western main battle tanks mistakenly thought to be night-invulnerable in the popular imagination.

Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent he capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.

We build these massive steel boxes to fight one another and they never face off. It makes no difference whether it’s the heavy stuff or APCs, missiles seems to nullify their very reason for being.

A whole lot more about this @ Russia's Tank Forces Got A Really Rude Awakening In Syria

The US military in WWII had it right.

American tanks were to be infantry support, not tank destroyers .

You knock out the enemy tanks with artillery and air power.

We lost Pershing tanks when they went one on one with heavier German tanks but at the end of the day we devastated Axis armor in Europe with that doctrine.

no shit we lost against them ....the US armor was outclassed by the enemy armor --so our tanks couldn't do that well against the Germans when the odds were even
..the Brits got massacred at Villers Bocage by ONE tank .....

They were "outclassed" because they were not designed to go head to head. It was not economical for us to build a heavy tank when we could build aircraft and artillery for less.

We destroyed Axis armor on all fronts. We won. Our strategy was better. Most of the German counter attack armor at Normandy was destroyed by air power. Once the sky cleared at the Battle of the Budge German armor was toast.

We don't have bragging rights for head to head tank battles but who gives a shit?

..so we purposely designed a tank that was worse''???!!!!

...wrong wrong wrong--we won because we had naval/air/manpower and LOGISTICAL superiority
..the Germans were just as good, if not better
the Germans beat not one --but 2 countries --quickly in the Battle of France

"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."

But none has yet faulted Dupuy's conclusion that on almost every battlefield of the war the German showed best:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ur-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/
...they lost because the US and Russia had by themselves 200 million population vs Germany's 80 million ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..the US alone had over 2 times the warmaking potential of Germany AND Japan combined
Grim Economic Realities
..etc etc
...

 

[Flash]

Makes no difference whether it was Russian T-90. US M1 Abrams, or the feared German Leopards, all suffered massive defeats at the hands of rebels with missiles.

TOW missiles used by Syrian rebels blew holes through Russia's armored tanks.

The interconnected conflicts raging across the Middle East today have amounted to a dreadful human catastrophe with spiraling global consequence. One of their lesser effects has been to deflate the reputations of Western main battle tanks mistakenly thought to be night-invulnerable in the popular imagination.

Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent he capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.

We build these massive steel boxes to fight one another and they never face off. It makes no difference whether it’s the heavy stuff or APCs, missiles seems to nullify their very reason for being.

A whole lot more about this @ Russia's Tank Forces Got A Really Rude Awakening In Syria

The US military in WWII had it right.

American tanks were to be infantry support, not tank destroyers .

You knock out the enemy tanks with artillery and air power.

We lost Pershing tanks when they went one on one with heavier German tanks but at the end of the day we devastated Axis armor in Europe with that doctrine.

no shit we lost against them ....the US armor was outclassed by the enemy armor --so our tanks couldn't do that well against the Germans when the odds were even
..the Brits got massacred at Villers Bocage by ONE tank .....

They were "outclassed" because they were not designed to go head to head. It was not economical for us to build a heavy tank when we could build aircraft and artillery for less.

We destroyed Axis armor on all fronts. We won. Our strategy was better. Most of the German counter attack armor at Normandy was destroyed by air power. Once the sky cleared at the Battle of the Budge German armor was toast.

We don't have bragging rights for head to head tank battles but who gives a shit?

..so we purposely designed a tank that was worse''???!!!!

...wrong wrong wrong--we won because we had naval/air/manpower and LOGISTICAL superiority
..the Germans were just as good, if not better
the Germans beat not one --but 2 countries --quickly in the Battle of France

"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."

But none has yet faulted Dupuy's conclusion that on almost every battlefield of the war the German showed best:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ur-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/
...they lost because the US and Russia had by themselves 200 million population vs Germany's 80 million ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..the US alone had over 2 times the warmaking potential of Germany AND Japan combined
Grim Economic Realities
..etc etc
...

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

We never designed a heavy tank to go head to head with German heavy armor.

We would have had to build the tank in the US then transport it across the ocean and then keep it running in the supply line. It just wasn't worth it. It was much more economical to produce other assets. After all it is logistics that wins wars. Good military people know that. The Germans in Europe with much shorter supply lines had a hellva time keeping their heavy armor operational. We let them be that stupid without falling into the same trap.

Our armor was design to support infantry, not defeat enemy armor. We had airplanes and artillery to attack enemy armor and we did that very well. We destroyed almost all of the German heavy armor that chose to do battle. Of course by the time the Germans surrendered very few of them were operational because they were so hard to maintain. Many of them had been stripped of parts to keep the few remaining operational. Dumb Krauts!

Our brave Pershing tank crews went up against superior armor on occasion and usually suffered losses when they did but that was bravery, not doctrine.

 

[harmonica]

Makes no difference whether it was Russian T-90. US M1 Abrams, or the feared German Leopards, all suffered massive defeats at the hands of rebels with missiles.

TOW missiles used by Syrian rebels blew holes through Russia's armored tanks.

The interconnected conflicts raging across the Middle East today have amounted to a dreadful human catastrophe with spiraling global consequence. One of their lesser effects has been to deflate the reputations of Western main battle tanks mistakenly thought to be night-invulnerable in the popular imagination.

Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent he capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.

We build these massive steel boxes to fight one another and they never face off. It makes no difference whether it’s the heavy stuff or APCs, missiles seems to nullify their very reason for being.

A whole lot more about this @ Russia's Tank Forces Got A Really Rude Awakening In Syria

The US military in WWII had it right.

American tanks were to be infantry support, not tank destroyers .

You knock out the enemy tanks with artillery and air power.

We lost Pershing tanks when they went one on one with heavier German tanks but at the end of the day we devastated Axis armor in Europe with that doctrine.

no shit we lost against them ....the US armor was outclassed by the enemy armor --so our tanks couldn't do that well against the Germans when the odds were even
..the Brits got massacred at Villers Bocage by ONE tank .....

They were "outclassed" because they were not designed to go head to head. It was not economical for us to build a heavy tank when we could build aircraft and artillery for less.

We destroyed Axis armor on all fronts. We won. Our strategy was better. Most of the German counter attack armor at Normandy was destroyed by air power. Once the sky cleared at the Battle of the Budge German armor was toast.

We don't have bragging rights for head to head tank battles but who gives a shit?

..so we purposely designed a tank that was worse''???!!!!

...wrong wrong wrong--we won because we had naval/air/manpower and LOGISTICAL superiority
..the Germans were just as good, if not better
the Germans beat not one --but 2 countries --quickly in the Battle of France

"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."

But none has yet faulted Dupuy's conclusion that on almost every battlefield of the war the German showed best:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ur-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/
...they lost because the US and Russia had by themselves 200 million population vs Germany's 80 million ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..the US alone had over 2 times the warmaking potential of Germany AND Japan combined
Grim Economic Realities
..etc etc
...

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

We never designed a heavy tank to go head to head with German heavy armor.

We would have had to build the tank in the US then transport it across the ocean and then keep it running in the supply line. It just wasn't worth it. It was much more economical to produce other assets. After all it is logistics that wins wars. Good military people know that. The Germans in Europe with much shorter supply lines had a hellva time keeping their heavy armor operational. We let them be that stupid without falling into the same trap.

Our armor was design to support infantry, not defeat enemy armor. We had airplanes and artillery to attack enemy armor and we did that very well. We destroyed almost all of the German heavy armor that chose to do battle. Of course by the time the Germans surrendered very few of them were operational because they were so hard to maintain. Many of them had been stripped of parts to keep the few remaining operational. Dumb Krauts!

Our brave Pershing tank crews went up against superior armor on occasion and usually suffered losses when they did but that was bravery, not doctrine.

hahahha--so we built a worse tank because of transport/etc COST!!!!??????
hahahahahhahahaha
...no, we built the tanks we did because that was our technology/design then
...we didn't build them bigger because at that time we were not aware of the Germans bigger tanks

...so, who is supposed to kill the German tanks when the US is attacking?

.., it was a tank that finally stopped the Villers Bocage massacre--airpower is not easy to coordinate..airpower cannot be on station all the time at the right time....the Battle of the Bulge is a perfect example.....

.....you are a shallow thinker..the Germans were good and had good weapons/tank/etc

 

[harmonica]

Makes no difference whether it was Russian T-90. US M1 Abrams, or the feared German Leopards, all suffered massive defeats at the hands of rebels with missiles.

TOW missiles used by Syrian rebels blew holes through Russia's armored tanks.

The interconnected conflicts raging across the Middle East today have amounted to a dreadful human catastrophe with spiraling global consequence. One of their lesser effects has been to deflate the reputations of Western main battle tanks mistakenly thought to be night-invulnerable in the popular imagination.

Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent he capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.

We build these massive steel boxes to fight one another and they never face off. It makes no difference whether it’s the heavy stuff or APCs, missiles seems to nullify their very reason for being.

A whole lot more about this @ Russia's Tank Forces Got A Really Rude Awakening In Syria

The US military in WWII had it right.

American tanks were to be infantry support, not tank destroyers .

You knock out the enemy tanks with artillery and air power.

We lost Pershing tanks when they went one on one with heavier German tanks but at the end of the day we devastated Axis armor in Europe with that doctrine.

no shit we lost against them ....the US armor was outclassed by the enemy armor --so our tanks couldn't do that well against the Germans when the odds were even
..the Brits got massacred at Villers Bocage by ONE tank .....

They were "outclassed" because they were not designed to go head to head. It was not economical for us to build a heavy tank when we could build aircraft and artillery for less.

We destroyed Axis armor on all fronts. We won. Our strategy was better. Most of the German counter attack armor at Normandy was destroyed by air power. Once the sky cleared at the Battle of the Budge German armor was toast.

We don't have bragging rights for head to head tank battles but who gives a shit?

..so we purposely designed a tank that was worse''???!!!!

...wrong wrong wrong--we won because we had naval/air/manpower and LOGISTICAL superiority
..the Germans were just as good, if not better
the Germans beat not one --but 2 countries --quickly in the Battle of France

"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."

But none has yet faulted Dupuy's conclusion that on almost every battlefield of the war the German showed best:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ur-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/
...they lost because the US and Russia had by themselves 200 million population vs Germany's 80 million ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..the US alone had over 2 times the warmaking potential of Germany AND Japan combined
Grim Economic Realities
..etc etc
...

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

We never designed a heavy tank to go head to head with German heavy armor.

We would have had to build the tank in the US then transport it across the ocean and then keep it running in the supply line. It just wasn't worth it. It was much more economical to produce other assets. After all it is logistics that wins wars. Good military people know that. The Germans in Europe with much shorter supply lines had a hellva time keeping their heavy armor operational. We let them be that stupid without falling into the same trap.

Our armor was design to support infantry, not defeat enemy armor. We had airplanes and artillery to attack enemy armor and we did that very well. We destroyed almost all of the German heavy armor that chose to do battle. Of course by the time the Germans surrendered very few of them were operational because they were so hard to maintain. Many of them had been stripped of parts to keep the few remaining operational. Dumb Krauts!

Our brave Pershing tank crews went up against superior armor on occasion and usually suffered losses when they did but that was bravery, not doctrine.

...jesus christ ----at the Hurtgen Forest they did have P47 anti-tank sorties--but they didn't knock out many tanks .....
page 308 from Three Battles by MacDonald and Mathews:
'''The [ P47 ] squadron reported engaging a concentration of more than 15 vehicles and claimed ONE armored vehcile destroyed and two damaged''''
German tanks blew the crap out of some units in the Hurtgen--arty and air couldn't help
..you must be watching war movies on Netflix

 

[harmonica]

Makes no difference whether it was Russian T-90. US M1 Abrams, or the feared German Leopards, all suffered massive defeats at the hands of rebels with missiles.

TOW missiles used by Syrian rebels blew holes through Russia's armored tanks.

The interconnected conflicts raging across the Middle East today have amounted to a dreadful human catastrophe with spiraling global consequence. One of their lesser effects has been to deflate the reputations of Western main battle tanks mistakenly thought to be night-invulnerable in the popular imagination.

Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent he capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.

We build these massive steel boxes to fight one another and they never face off. It makes no difference whether it’s the heavy stuff or APCs, missiles seems to nullify their very reason for being.

A whole lot more about this @ Russia's Tank Forces Got A Really Rude Awakening In Syria

The US military in WWII had it right.

American tanks were to be infantry support, not tank destroyers .

You knock out the enemy tanks with artillery and air power.

We lost Pershing tanks when they went one on one with heavier German tanks but at the end of the day we devastated Axis armor in Europe with that doctrine.

no shit we lost against them ....the US armor was outclassed by the enemy armor --so our tanks couldn't do that well against the Germans when the odds were even
..the Brits got massacred at Villers Bocage by ONE tank .....

They were "outclassed" because they were not designed to go head to head. It was not economical for us to build a heavy tank when we could build aircraft and artillery for less.

We destroyed Axis armor on all fronts. We won. Our strategy was better. Most of the German counter attack armor at Normandy was destroyed by air power. Once the sky cleared at the Battle of the Budge German armor was toast.

We don't have bragging rights for head to head tank battles but who gives a shit?

..so we purposely designed a tank that was worse''???!!!!

...wrong wrong wrong--we won because we had naval/air/manpower and LOGISTICAL superiority
..the Germans were just as good, if not better
the Germans beat not one --but 2 countries --quickly in the Battle of France

"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."

But none has yet faulted Dupuy's conclusion that on almost every battlefield of the war the German showed best:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ur-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/
...they lost because the US and Russia had by themselves 200 million population vs Germany's 80 million ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..the US alone had over 2 times the warmaking potential of Germany AND Japan combined
Grim Economic Realities
..etc etc
...

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

We never designed a heavy tank to go head to head with German heavy armor.

We would have had to build the tank in the US then transport it across the ocean and then keep it running in the supply line. It just wasn't worth it. It was much more economical to produce other assets. After all it is logistics that wins wars. Good military people know that. The Germans in Europe with much shorter supply lines had a hellva time keeping their heavy armor operational. We let them be that stupid without falling into the same trap.

Our armor was design to support infantry, not defeat enemy armor. We had airplanes and artillery to attack enemy armor and we did that very well. We destroyed almost all of the German heavy armor that chose to do battle. Of course by the time the Germans surrendered very few of them were operational because they were so hard to maintain. Many of them had been stripped of parts to keep the few remaining operational. Dumb Krauts!

Our brave Pershing tank crews went up against superior armor on occasion and usually suffered losses when they did but that was bravery, not doctrine.

as stated before:

When World War II began in 1939, the United States lagged far behind the major European states in the development of tank technology and armoured warfare doctrine. The fall of France in May 1940 awoke and alarmed the United States. The German army had defeated France in a matter of weeks through the use of a new operational doctrine based on fast-moving, massed armoured formations supported by air power. America’s leaders became convinced that the U.S. Army needed a new main battle tank at least equal to that employed by the Germans and that it had to adopt German operational doctrine

Sherman tank | Description, History, & Facts

 

[harmonica]

Makes no difference whether it was Russian T-90. US M1 Abrams, or the feared German Leopards, all suffered massive defeats at the hands of rebels with missiles.

TOW missiles used by Syrian rebels blew holes through Russia's armored tanks.

The interconnected conflicts raging across the Middle East today have amounted to a dreadful human catastrophe with spiraling global consequence. One of their lesser effects has been to deflate the reputations of Western main battle tanks mistakenly thought to be night-invulnerable in the popular imagination.

Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent he capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.

We build these massive steel boxes to fight one another and they never face off. It makes no difference whether it’s the heavy stuff or APCs, missiles seems to nullify their very reason for being.

A whole lot more about this @ Russia's Tank Forces Got A Really Rude Awakening In Syria

The US military in WWII had it right.

American tanks were to be infantry support, not tank destroyers .

You knock out the enemy tanks with artillery and air power.

We lost Pershing tanks when they went one on one with heavier German tanks but at the end of the day we devastated Axis armor in Europe with that doctrine.

no shit we lost against them ....the US armor was outclassed by the enemy armor --so our tanks couldn't do that well against the Germans when the odds were even
..the Brits got massacred at Villers Bocage by ONE tank .....

They were "outclassed" because they were not designed to go head to head. It was not economical for us to build a heavy tank when we could build aircraft and artillery for less.

We destroyed Axis armor on all fronts. We won. Our strategy was better. Most of the German counter attack armor at Normandy was destroyed by air power. Once the sky cleared at the Battle of the Budge German armor was toast.

We don't have bragging rights for head to head tank battles but who gives a shit?

..so we purposely designed a tank that was worse''???!!!!

...wrong wrong wrong--we won because we had naval/air/manpower and LOGISTICAL superiority
..the Germans were just as good, if not better
the Germans beat not one --but 2 countries --quickly in the Battle of France

"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."

But none has yet faulted Dupuy's conclusion that on almost every battlefield of the war the German showed best:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ur-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/
...they lost because the US and Russia had by themselves 200 million population vs Germany's 80 million ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..the US alone had over 2 times the warmaking potential of Germany AND Japan combined
Grim Economic Realities
..etc etc
...

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

We never designed a heavy tank to go head to head with German heavy armor.

We would have had to build the tank in the US then transport it across the ocean and then keep it running in the supply line. It just wasn't worth it. It was much more economical to produce other assets. After all it is logistics that wins wars. Good military people know that. The Germans in Europe with much shorter supply lines had a hellva time keeping their heavy armor operational. We let them be that stupid without falling into the same trap.

Our armor was design to support infantry, not defeat enemy armor. We had airplanes and artillery to attack enemy armor and we did that very well. We destroyed almost all of the German heavy armor that chose to do battle. Of course by the time the Germans surrendered very few of them were operational because they were so hard to maintain. Many of them had been stripped of parts to keep the few remaining operational. Dumb Krauts!

Our brave Pershing tank crews went up against superior armor on occasion and usually suffered losses when they did but that was bravery, not doctrine.

and:

The Army fought World War II with the M4 Sherman as its primary tank. The Sherman was optimized for infantry support, reliability, and ease of manufacture, while the Army relied upon the unproven concept of purpose built tank destroyers to fight enemy Armor. In combat, the Sherman quickly found itself overmatched by German panzers designed for fighting other tanks. After investing in a flawed concept, the Army had to adapt tactics to counter superior German tanks with the Sherman.

the flawed concept was the Sherman being used as infantry support
M4 / M4A1 5.56mm Carbine

 

[Flash]

[QU

hahahahahhahahaha
...no, we built the tanks we did because that was our technology/design then
...we didn't build them bigger because at that time we were not aware of the Germans bigger tanks

...so, who is supposed to kill the German tanks when the US is attacking?

.., it was a tank that finally stopped the Villers Bocage massacre--airpower is not easy to coordinate..airpower cannot be on station all the time at the right time....the Battle of the Bulge is a perfect example.....

.....you are a shallow thinker..the Germans were good and had good weapons/tank/etc

Yep, you are confused.

We chose not to compete against the Germans with heavy armor because it was uneconomical to do so. Good thing you weren't in charge of the military in WWII because we would have probably lost. Logistics win wars.

We had better technology than the Germans in many areas like radar and submarine detection and destruction. We had better bombers and fighters. The only area the Germans was ahead was in rocket and jet technology but neither one of those technologies was significant. The rockets were weapons of terror but had no military value. The jets never were never significant.

Then there was the nuclear weapons, that the Germans never got to experience because our conventional army, with help from our commie buddies, won before the nukes were needed in Europe.

The M-1 Garand was the best small arm of the war. The M-1 Carbine was also very good. So good that the Germans used them whenever they were captured.

The German MG-42 was a better infantry infantry machine gun but it used ammo so fast that quite often the German troops broke off contact quickly because they ran out of ammo.

The Germans were more experienced than our troops and quite often better led but an American infantry unit was better equipped than the counterpart German.

The light Pershing tanks over ran the German infantry because they were easy to maintain and produced in great numbers. German heavy tanks were either destroyed, stripped or abandoned all over the European theater while the Pershings rolled into Germany.

You should read the book "Citizen Soldiers" by Steven Ambrose. He detailed the strength and weakness of the American Army v the German Army.

 

[Flash]

The US military in WWII had it right.

American tanks were to be infantry support, not tank destroyers .

You knock out the enemy tanks with artillery and air power.

We lost Pershing tanks when they went one on one with heavier German tanks but at the end of the day we devastated Axis armor in Europe with that doctrine.

no shit we lost against them ....the US armor was outclassed by the enemy armor --so our tanks couldn't do that well against the Germans when the odds were even
..the Brits got massacred at Villers Bocage by ONE tank .....

They were "outclassed" because they were not designed to go head to head. It was not economical for us to build a heavy tank when we could build aircraft and artillery for less.

We destroyed Axis armor on all fronts. We won. Our strategy was better. Most of the German counter attack armor at Normandy was destroyed by air power. Once the sky cleared at the Battle of the Budge German armor was toast.

We don't have bragging rights for head to head tank battles but who gives a shit?

..so we purposely designed a tank that was worse''???!!!!

...wrong wrong wrong--we won because we had naval/air/manpower and LOGISTICAL superiority
..the Germans were just as good, if not better
the Germans beat not one --but 2 countries --quickly in the Battle of France

"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."

But none has yet faulted Dupuy's conclusion that on almost every battlefield of the war the German showed best:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ur-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/
...they lost because the US and Russia had by themselves 200 million population vs Germany's 80 million ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..the US alone had over 2 times the warmaking potential of Germany AND Japan combined
Grim Economic Realities
..etc etc
...

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

We never designed a heavy tank to go head to head with German heavy armor.

We would have had to build the tank in the US then transport it across the ocean and then keep it running in the supply line. It just wasn't worth it. It was much more economical to produce other assets. After all it is logistics that wins wars. Good military people know that. The Germans in Europe with much shorter supply lines had a hellva time keeping their heavy armor operational. We let them be that stupid without falling into the same trap.

Our armor was design to support infantry, not defeat enemy armor. We had airplanes and artillery to attack enemy armor and we did that very well. We destroyed almost all of the German heavy armor that chose to do battle. Of course by the time the Germans surrendered very few of them were operational because they were so hard to maintain. Many of them had been stripped of parts to keep the few remaining operational. Dumb Krauts!

Our brave Pershing tank crews went up against superior armor on occasion and usually suffered losses when they did but that was bravery, not doctrine.

...jesus christ ----at the Hurtgen Forest they did have P47 anti-tank sorties--but they didn't knock out many tanks .....
page 308 from Three Battles by MacDonald and Mathews:
'''The [ P47 ] squadron reported engaging a concentration of more than 15 vehicles and claimed ONE armored vehcile destroyed and two damaged''''
German tanks blew the crap out of some units in the Hurtgen--arty and air couldn't help
..you must be watching war movies on Netflix

The Hurtgen Forest was the biggest US fuck up of the war in Europe. US generals really made some dumb decisions that caused tremendous American deaths. Estimates of 50,000 Americans killed. We went through an area that was completely zeroed by German artillery. My father was in that hell hole. He blames the generals for being dumbasses.

By the way, the Germans used very little armor in that battle. German artillery defeated American armor (and infantry) just like American artillery would defeat German armor in other battles.

 

[harmonica]

no shit we lost against them ....the US armor was outclassed by the enemy armor --so our tanks couldn't do that well against the Germans when the odds were even
..the Brits got massacred at Villers Bocage by ONE tank .....

They were "outclassed" because they were not designed to go head to head. It was not economical for us to build a heavy tank when we could build aircraft and artillery for less.

We destroyed Axis armor on all fronts. We won. Our strategy was better. Most of the German counter attack armor at Normandy was destroyed by air power. Once the sky cleared at the Battle of the Budge German armor was toast.

We don't have bragging rights for head to head tank battles but who gives a shit?

..so we purposely designed a tank that was worse''???!!!!

...wrong wrong wrong--we won because we had naval/air/manpower and LOGISTICAL superiority
..the Germans were just as good, if not better
the Germans beat not one --but 2 countries --quickly in the Battle of France

"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."

But none has yet faulted Dupuy's conclusion that on almost every battlefield of the war the German showed best:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ur-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/
...they lost because the US and Russia had by themselves 200 million population vs Germany's 80 million ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..the US alone had over 2 times the warmaking potential of Germany AND Japan combined
Grim Economic Realities
..etc etc
...

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

We never designed a heavy tank to go head to head with German heavy armor.

We would have had to build the tank in the US then transport it across the ocean and then keep it running in the supply line. It just wasn't worth it. It was much more economical to produce other assets. After all it is logistics that wins wars. Good military people know that. The Germans in Europe with much shorter supply lines had a hellva time keeping their heavy armor operational. We let them be that stupid without falling into the same trap.

Our armor was design to support infantry, not defeat enemy armor. We had airplanes and artillery to attack enemy armor and we did that very well. We destroyed almost all of the German heavy armor that chose to do battle. Of course by the time the Germans surrendered very few of them were operational because they were so hard to maintain. Many of them had been stripped of parts to keep the few remaining operational. Dumb Krauts!

Our brave Pershing tank crews went up against superior armor on occasion and usually suffered losses when they did but that was bravery, not doctrine.

...jesus christ ----at the Hurtgen Forest they did have P47 anti-tank sorties--but they didn't knock out many tanks .....
page 308 from Three Battles by MacDonald and Mathews:
'''The [ P47 ] squadron reported engaging a concentration of more than 15 vehicles and claimed ONE armored vehcile destroyed and two damaged''''
German tanks blew the crap out of some units in the Hurtgen--arty and air couldn't help
..you must be watching war movies on Netflix

The Hurtgen Forest was the biggest US fuck up of the war in Europe. US generals really made some dumb decisions that caused tremendous American deaths. Estimates of 50,000 Americans killed. We went through an area that was completely zeroed by German artillery. My father was in that hell hole. He blames the generals for being dumbasses.

By the way, the Germans used very little armor in that battle. German artillery defeated American armor (and infantry) just like American artillery would defeat German armor in other battles.

please STOP posting and linking so much evidence
hahahahhahahahhahahhah

 

[harmonica]

[QU

hahahahahhahahaha
...no, we built the tanks we did because that was our technology/design then
...we didn't build them bigger because at that time we were not aware of the Germans bigger tanks

...so, who is supposed to kill the German tanks when the US is attacking?

.., it was a tank that finally stopped the Villers Bocage massacre--airpower is not easy to coordinate..airpower cannot be on station all the time at the right time....the Battle of the Bulge is a perfect example.....

.....you are a shallow thinker..the Germans were good and had good weapons/tank/etc

Yep, you are confused.

We chose not to compete against the Germans with heavy armor because it was uneconomical to do so. Good thing you weren't in charge of the military in WWII because we would have probably lost. Logistics win wars.

We had better technology than the Germans in many areas like radar and submarine detection and destruction. We had better bombers and fighters. The only area the Germans was ahead was in rocket and jet technology but neither one of those technologies was significant. The rockets were weapons of terror but had no military value. The jets never were never significant.

Then there was the nuclear weapons, that the Germans never got to experience because our conventional army, with help from our commie buddies, won before the nukes were needed in Europe.

The M-1 Garand was the best small arm of the war. The M-1 Carbine was also very good. So good that the Germans used them whenever they were captured.

The German MG-42 was a better infantry infantry machine gun but it used ammo so fast that quite often the German troops broke off contact quickly because they ran out of ammo.

The Germans were more experienced than our troops and quite often better led but an American infantry unit was better equipped than the counterpart German.

The light Pershing tanks over ran the German infantry because they were easy to maintain and produced in great numbers. German heavy tanks were either destroyed, stripped or abandoned all over the European theater while the Pershings rolled into Germany.

You should read the book "Citizen Soldiers" by Steven Ambrose. He detailed the strength and weakness of the American Army v the German Army.

and you don't know WTF you are talking about
..please post evidence for your babbling !!!!!!!
.....please post evidence that we chose [ hahahahah ] not to compete with Germans in heavy armor = Panther or Tiger
..I'm very interested in see THAT

 

[harmonica]

[QU

hahahahahhahahaha
...no, we built the tanks we did because that was our technology/design then
...we didn't build them bigger because at that time we were not aware of the Germans bigger tanks

...so, who is supposed to kill the German tanks when the US is attacking?

.., it was a tank that finally stopped the Villers Bocage massacre--airpower is not easy to coordinate..airpower cannot be on station all the time at the right time....the Battle of the Bulge is a perfect example.....

.....you are a shallow thinker..the Germans were good and had good weapons/tank/etc

Yep, you are confused.

We chose not to compete against the Germans with heavy armor because it was uneconomical to do so. Good thing you weren't in charge of the military in WWII because we would have probably lost. Logistics win wars.

We had better technology than the Germans in many areas like radar and submarine detection and destruction. We had better bombers and fighters. The only area the Germans was ahead was in rocket and jet technology but neither one of those technologies was significant. The rockets were weapons of terror but had no military value. The jets never were never significant.

Then there was the nuclear weapons, that the Germans never got to experience because our conventional army, with help from our commie buddies, won before the nukes were needed in Europe.

The M-1 Garand was the best small arm of the war. The M-1 Carbine was also very good. So good that the Germans used them whenever they were captured.

The German MG-42 was a better infantry infantry machine gun but it used ammo so fast that quite often the German troops broke off contact quickly because they ran out of ammo.

The Germans were more experienced than our troops and quite often better led but an American infantry unit was better equipped than the counterpart German.

The light Pershing tanks over ran the German infantry because they were easy to maintain and produced in great numbers. German heavy tanks were either destroyed, stripped or abandoned all over the European theater while the Pershings rolled into Germany.

You should read the book "Citizen Soldiers" by Steven Ambrose. He detailed the strength and weakness of the American Army v the German Army.

....I don't need to read anything --I've been reading and researching WW2 for longer than you have been alive

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Makes no difference whether it was Russian T-90. US M1 Abrams, or the feared German Leopards, all suffered massive defeats at the hands of rebels with missiles.

TOW missiles used by Syrian rebels blew holes through Russia's armored tanks.

The interconnected conflicts raging across the Middle East today have amounted to a dreadful human catastrophe with spiraling global consequence. One of their lesser effects has been to deflate the reputations of Western main battle tanks mistakenly thought to be night-invulnerable in the popular imagination.

Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent he capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.

We build these massive steel boxes to fight one another and they never face off. It makes no difference whether it’s the heavy stuff or APCs, missiles seems to nullify their very reason for being.

A whole lot more about this @ Russia's Tank Forces Got A Really Rude Awakening In Syria

The US military in WWII had it right.

American tanks were to be infantry support, not tank destroyers .

You knock out the enemy tanks with artillery and air power.

We lost Pershing tanks when they went one on one with heavier German tanks but at the end of the day we devastated Axis armor in Europe with that doctrine.

Persian War tank vs tank battles---the tanks were NOT used for infantry support

two hours, was considered by some sources the largest tank battle of the war

Battle of Medina Ridge - Wikipedia
Battle of 73 Easting - Wikipedia
ever hear of North Africa in WW2?? many tank battles
..there was a big tank battle called Kursk
..ever hear of the Hurtgen Forest?? tanks were assigned to support the troops--but to do that they had to kill TANKS!!
..Arab-Isreali Wars? many tank battles --while supporting the troops
..arty is not going to efficiently kill tanks--that's ridiculous

Persian War???????????

That was 2500 years ago.

 

[westwall]

USA 20 mm Phalanx Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) - NavWeaps

C-Wiz, is great, but it is getting old. We need a new system.

That's cute....

It's factual. The B-52 can only fly where we have air supremacy. Introduce a SAM to the theater and the 52s are toast.

necessary changes: Vary the inbound routes and altitudes, eliminate the PTT and use a straight-ahead “feet-wet” exit out to the Gulf of Tonkin. Although angry at being bypassed, his Eighth Air Force commanders sent a “we agree” message to Meyer, who quickly ordered the changes. (Sullivan must have understood he’d fallen on his sword; despite his leading role in winning the war’s decisive battle, he was denied a second star and retired two years later.)

after they changed tactics, they did much better --mission accomplished in a SAM area
Operation Linebacker II: The 11-Day War

Technology has marched on. And now there are optically guided SAMs to contend with.

 

[Flash]

[Q

....I don't need to read anything --I've been reading and researching WW2 for longer than you have been alive

I have been alive since 1947. You were reading war books in 1947?

You are pretty damn ignorant to claim that you have ever read anything about WWII.

 

[harmonica]

[Q

....I don't need to read anything --I've been reading and researching WW2 for longer than you have been alive

I have been alive since 1947. You were reading war books in 1947?

You are pretty damn ignorant to claim that you have ever read anything about WWII.

...please stop posting so many links and proof !!!!!!!
hahahhahahahahaahha