Реклама | Adv
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
Сообщения форума
Реклама | Adv

How Widespread was "Gold Ammo"

Дата: 29.01.2015 01:00:36
View Postblackfalconjc, on Jan 28 2015 - 22:47, said:   And I agree with all that! :D   US tanks did/were used to destroy enemy tanks, but I fear it's a bit of a misnomer to say their primary role was to seek and engage enemy armor. US TD forces were a bit of an odd duck to say the least. Most accounts I've seen suggest that US military leadership was obsessed with finding a counter to German Blitzkrieg tactics and studied the battles in '41 France and '43 Africa to help inform the best response to this threat...   As such, US TD forces were designed to be held at the battalion or division level as support (to be committed to the fight as need arose) while yet being fast and mobile to support the doctrine of "defense in depth" with this was supposed to counter Blitzkrieg if it ever was used against US forces. This doctrine blanketed US forces equipment in many ways, Bazooka's providing basic anti-armor support at a squad level, battalions being assigned AT guns and/or TD forces, fighter bomber wings running anti-armor patrols. The best example I can find of this would be what occurred during the Battle of the Bulge. When the initial wave of German assaults hit the line, the US practice of defense was tested. They used their superior mobility to reposition forces and draw up reserves for defense of key locations, defenders were expected to hold as long as they could against the attack, and available TD units were used to "nip" along the flanks of the assault until it quite literally stalled out because of stiffening US defense and lack of fuel. To your point, Patton's 3rd army (and heavy armor) was then used to force the salient back and eventually press the attack forward to Germany, but the TD forces went with them to help engage and destroy tanks as they they popped up on the battlefield.   Heck, I seen this used in game. A turtle strategy almost always fails because you surrender 3/4 of the map and most of the maneuvering to the enemy. If you want to play defense, then great, post out 1/3 of the way in a fairly defensible position with good cover and visibility, see where the push is developing and then use local numerical superiority to quickly destroy/blunt the main assault. Don't overextend or they might draw you back into a trap...  

The_Chieftain:   OK, we are on points in agreement. The problem is that in general discussion there is a focus on the use of assets on a type basis. "Tanks fight infantry, tanks fight tanks, TDs fight tanks, TDs act as artillery", when, as we all know on the battlefield, such a nice division of combat does not exist. Tanks were to be primarily used offensively, to break through enemy lines consisting of whatever defensive forces were present, be they tank, armor, AT guns, infantry, in conjunction with other friendly forces such as infantry, air, artillery. Nothing in the Armored Force manual talks about engagement exclusivity, but does mention target priority. (Priority #1: Tanks).   The reality is that tanks were supposed to be able to engage and defeat other tanks that they met, as evidenced both by doctrine, and by the equipment that they tried to give the tanks. (i.e.. High velocity cannon, before there was any evidence that the 75mm was insufficient)

Реклама | Adv