Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 10

 

2007-05-13 02:32:40
Vernedead
Cossack
+21|6658|Albion

The_Mac wrote:

Yeah, but the French really didn't have the right ideas about warfare. They always believed in heavy = the best. Their tank was the heaviest tank in the war, (at the start, it was really only rivaled by the Tiger models).
its a bit of an unfair comparison, the early panzer models where ridiculously light.

https://www.wwiivehicles.com/france/tanks_medium/b1/char_b1_01.jpg

32 tonnes, 60 mm armour, a 47 and 75 mil cannon

a single char b attacked and destroyed 13 panzer's and 2 anti-tank guns, its armour showed 140 hits of various calibres causing only cosmetic damage.

the real issue is a single man turret, the french tanks were awesome fighting vehicles but poorly designed to exercise the command and control functions crucial to mobile warfare.
2007-05-13 02:34:29
Vernedead
Cossack
+21|6658|Albion

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

Yeah, but the French really didn't have the right ideas about warfare. They always believed in heavy = the best. Their tank was the heaviest tank in the war, (at the start, it was really only rivaled by the Tiger models).

Not to change the subject, but does anyone else find the C-22 Osprey interesting?
Its an amazing concept, and what interests me is that the CH-46, the predecessor of this bird was deemed obsolete in 1980, but they kept with it because they didn't really have a choice.  Then this aircraft becomes a reality, it goes faster, farther, and with heavier payloads.

USMC tacticians think the C-22 is the next step in their new tactics and all that good stuff. But its critics argue about its low armament--there's only one m240 on the rear ramp.
Solution for future aircraft? Stick a cobra m197 3 barreled 20mm gatling on a turret and stick it on the nose!
Oh man, I saw something about the Osprey being replaced with a better model, but I can't remember if it's true or not.
the x-hawk?
https://www.roadabletimes.com/images/Citihawkhover.jpg
2007-05-13 07:28:38
seymorebutts443
Ready for combat
+211|7020|Belchertown Massachusetts, USA
The Hawker Tempest


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/Hawker_Tempest_V_JN729_-_Langley_-_1943.jpg

This fine aircraft as quoted by a Me 262 pilot "The Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest—extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-manoeuvrable and heavily-armed."—Hubert Lange, Me 262 pilot.

perfect description. The Tempest carried 4 20 MM short barrel Hispano cannons in the wing, it had a top speed of 435 MPH at 17,000 feet, (700 K/MH at 5000 m) and could climb at about 4700 Feet per minute, faster than the 262 surprisingly. It also had a longer range (almost 500 miles more). It's tactics for downing 262s consisted of the Tempest flight patrolling near the 262s base of operations and downing them as they came in for landings. the germans countered this by setting up 150 quad barrel 20mm guns along the coming out from the landing strips. The top scoring tempest ace had 12 kills by the time he was shot down in 1945.
2007-05-13 07:55:12
The_Mac
Member
+96|6650
Damn, the Hawker Tempest is a beast. That I guess is the descendant of the Hawker Hurricane. Did this thing replace the Spitfire too?
2007-05-14 15:58:55
seymorebutts443
Ready for combat
+211|7020|Belchertown Massachusetts, USA
no, they went hand in hand, the spitfire was more produced than the tempest, the tempest did show up until later in the war and the most produced version of the tempest was the Mark V second series with 800 made, a total of maybe 900-1000 tempests were produced for the war, compared to the Spitfires 20,000 some odd created and used.
2007-05-16 11:30:41
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7139|US
So, what is your opinion on mobile warfare?  Does it really work?  Was WWII the first was a latter war the first that successfully used Blitzkrieg tactics, if at all?
2007-05-16 12:02:35
Vernedead
Cossack
+21|6658|Albion
it does really work provided you have a communications control and command structure that is a match for your mobility.

the issue is blitzkreig isn't well defined outside of propaganda circles and even their it has more than one meaning. certain formations adopted tactics based around their high mobility, but no sucessful operational blitzkreig ever occured during the war, the invasion of russia which is the first and final major attempt to apply blitzkreig thinking to operational level was a failure. i think mabye your looking at the six day war as the first conflict where an army, organizationally equipped for blitzkreig and with a clear defined doctrine of mobile warfare acheived significant results. even then fast forward 5 years and Yom Kippur forces a radical rethink.
2007-05-17 16:27:48
The_Mac
Member
+96|6650
The problem with the blitzkrieg as I see it, was that everyone was unprepared. The British were milling about, the French were sticking heads in sand and the Germans attacked too fast or too unexpectedly in the wrong places.
If these forces were prepared, the blitz would have failed. Which is the problem with surprise. The Allied Surprise attack, the"Operation Market Garden" went wrong for two reasons:
1)disorganization
2) prepared enemy

What do you think of Byzantine defense tactics of the 8th and 9th centuries?
2007-05-19 15:24:50
The_Mac
Member
+96|6650

Souls wrote:

The most feared is the Su-37?  What about the F-22. The F-22 has supercruie, stealth, thrust vectoring, and whats call "First Look First Kill". Its a data link where one F-22 and can use another F-22s radar to shoot its missiles.  The shooter can remain stealthy and leave his radar off and close with the enemy, while the F-22 that has his radar on remains outside of missile range but hands off the radar picture to the steathy shooter.
Thats true, but the Su-37 can detect the lockon and because of its amazing maneuverability, it can break the lockon. What I meant by most feared was most feared foreign aircraft.

The EuroFighter Typhoon also looks very impressive.
2007-05-19 18:05:19
acEofspadEs6313
Shiny! Let's be bad guys.
+102|7117|NAS Jacksonville, Florida

Vernedead wrote:

it does really work provided you have a communications control and command structure that is a match for your mobility.

the issue is blitzkreig isn't well defined outside of propaganda circles and even their it has more than one meaning. certain formations adopted tactics based around their high mobility, but no sucessful operational blitzkreig ever occured during the war, the invasion of russia which is the first and final major attempt to apply blitzkreig thinking to operational level was a failure. i think mabye your looking at the six day war as the first conflict where an army, organizationally equipped for blitzkreig and with a clear defined doctrine of mobile warfare acheived significant results. even then fast forward 5 years and Yom Kippur forces a radical rethink.
If the Germans had taken Dunkirk before Operation Dynamo, that would've shown how Blitzkrieg would've worked.

However, the German commander (who I'm forgetting right now. However, I'll find it later) of some divisions over-extended his supply lines in the race to the Channel during Fall Gelb. If he hadn't over-extended and shown that weakness in Blitzkrieg, then that could've been a time when it worked.
2007-05-20 01:49:21
Vernedead
Cossack
+21|6658|Albion
probably not, theres a world of difference between fighting a mobile battle on a broad wide front, and taking on the french and british forces in the narrow compact beachhead around dunkirk.
2007-05-20 03:34:54
Arcano-D.E.S
Member
+13|6971
The problem with an argument on Blitzkrieg is that you never actually see it performed nor can you properly judge whether it could have succeeded. The doctrine was developed to fit the needs of an army that was greatly diminished because of Versailles and was prone to the "Ideal Circumstance" thinking that plague most doctrine innovators. There has to be enough equipment, the weather needs to be ideal, the enemy has to do this or that, the General staff will have to listen to me and only me. Blitzkrieg fell prey to all of the above it just happened that they fought a cavalry army and then an incredibly incompetent one. When they turned it on Russia and the same issues reappeared it was a catastrophic failure. That is how I see it. Military doctrines tend to fail because they can't make the leap from theoretical to practical and even when this does happen it really depends on the genius who can fit the doctrine to the situation. Ie Manstein and Eisenhower.

I believe the German Commander mentioned above was Rommel and that was an attack out of Arras by the Brits which got massacred by 88's. But the way to defeat Blitzkrieg by attacking its weak flanks had been around for a long time it was just more decisive against the deep thrusts of the German armour.
2007-05-20 16:18:17
The_Mac
Member
+96|6650

Vernedead wrote:

probably not, theres a world of difference between fighting a mobile battle on a broad wide front, and taking on the french and british forces in the narrow compact beachhead around dunkirk.
What would you say the best British execution of tactics and strategy was during WW2?
2007-05-20 18:41:40
acEofspadEs6313
Shiny! Let's be bad guys.
+102|7117|NAS Jacksonville, Florida

Arcano-D.E.S wrote:

The problem with an argument on Blitzkrieg is that you never actually see it performed nor can you properly judge whether it could have succeeded. The doctrine was developed to fit the needs of an army that was greatly diminished because of Versailles and was prone to the "Ideal Circumstance" thinking that plague most doctrine innovators. There has to be enough equipment, the weather needs to be ideal, the enemy has to do this or that, the General staff will have to listen to me and only me. Blitzkrieg fell prey to all of the above it just happened that they fought a cavalry army and then an incredibly incompetent one. When they turned it on Russia and the same issues reappeared it was a catastrophic failure. That is how I see it. Military doctrines tend to fail because they can't make the leap from theoretical to practical and even when this does happen it really depends on the genius who can fit the doctrine to the situation. Ie Manstein and Eisenhower.

I believe the German Commander mentioned above was Rommel and that was an attack out of Arras by the Brits which got massacred by 88's. But the way to defeat Blitzkrieg by attacking its weak flanks had been around for a long time it was just more decisive against the deep thrusts of the German armour.
Yeah, it was Rommel.

As for the failure in Russia, it did fail after a short time, and was one of the major downfalls of holding and taking key positions in the East. Instead of listening to the Generals, Hitler still stuck with the "hold every inch of ground" idea, which pretty much made it so Blitzkrieg became a horrible plan whenever you were hit on your flanks and surrounded.
2007-05-21 03:28:08
Vernedead
Cossack
+21|6658|Albion
it had already stalled by that point, mainly because, unlike the brits and the frenh, the russians suprised the germans by not surrendering the troops caught in the pockets continued to fight back and attempted to break out/filter back through the german lines. ironically it was actually the doctrine of holding every inch of ground, or at least a fear inspired reluctance to surrender, that thwarted them.
2007-05-21 07:22:37
ProudLimey
Member
+3|6861

The_Mac wrote:

What do you think of Byzantine defense tactics of the 8th and 9th centuries?
When my last exam finishes on Thursday I'll be sure to discuss this one with you. The real golden age of Byzantine military doctrine came in the 9th and 10th centuries, with some classic examples apparent during the reigns of Nikephorus Phokas and John Tzimiskes in the mid- C10th. Defence tactics I'm not so strong on, but as you listed earlier the history of the Cataphract (and its vatations) is pretty fascinating. Anyway, I will come back to this soon. No doubt it will be flooded with a million other aircraft models by then^^

Last edited by ProudLimey (2007-05-21 07:25:21)

2007-05-21 07:41:14
ShowMeTheMonkey
Member
+125|7127
I don't think pictures show off the MiG-29s flight dynamics enough:

2007-05-22 19:52:29
The_Mac
Member
+96|6650

ProudLimey wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

What do you think of Byzantine defense tactics of the 8th and 9th centuries?
When my last exam finishes on Thursday I'll be sure to discuss this one with you. The real golden age of Byzantine military doctrine came in the 9th and 10th centuries, with some classic examples apparent during the reigns of Nikephorus Phokas and John Tzimiskes in the mid- C10th. Defence tactics I'm not so strong on, but as you listed earlier the history of the Cataphract (and its vatations) is pretty fascinating.
Yeah, it was quite something, the interesting thing is the Byzantines never had a pure version of the Cataphract. From what what I read, the Byzantine Cataphractoi was more of a heavily armed lancer than the Parthian or Samaritan Cataphracts of the classical era. The Kiliphanaroi or however its spelled was brought back by Nicephorous I believe, but they were dropped because they were expensive as hell.
Heraclius' army used heavily armed cavalry and infantrymen in joint operations and were both used offensively. The first few front ranks were men clad in heavy chain mail, and light lamellar or leather plating became common towards the back.
2007-05-23 08:42:17
bigdroo
Member
+7|6851|Yooahss-ayy!
Just a side note...

I've seen here several mentions of the F-22's and F-35's thrust vectoring mentioned in the same sentence as Steath. Well, that's not it's main purpose. Thrust vectoring is used more for the maneuverability of the aircraft. An F-22 can make a much sharper turn in a dogfight than a fighter with conventional thrust, such as a MiG-29. Assuming the pilot can handle the Gs, thrust vectoring gives him an ENORMOUS advantage over his advisary.

As far as super-cruise is concerned, its not a new idea. The original F-15 concept was supposed to be capable of super-cruise until it was modified with its raised bubble cockpit and incresed number of hardpoints for external weaponry and fuel tanks. Then there was the F-16XL (XL came from the golf balls that "fly further"), which was a semi-full-delta winged concept of the F-16. It was capable of super-cruise but was never built. I think the F-22 is the first to accomplish it though.

Being located next to Langley AFB, I see F-22s flying overhead every day. Very interesting design. I read that in its first mock dogfight versus trained, honcho-piloted, F-15Es, it acheived a kill ratio of 11-1.

Now if you want to talk best bang for the buck in modern aircraft, you'd have to include the F-20 Tigershark. It was a heavily modified F-5 with an incredibly powerful single engine that easily could outclimb any aircraft to date. Imagine reducing the time it takes for your defense to get into the air to meet the enemy by as much as 2 full minutes. They were CHEAP and very easy to maintain. Taiwan was one of the main considerations for export but no one wanted to buy them since the United States didn't feel like replacing their F-16 with them. Well, hey, if it's not good enough for the US, why would I want one? lol

Last edited by bigdroo (2007-05-23 08:48:46)

2007-05-23 10:11:50
Vernedead
Cossack
+21|6658|Albion
mig-29 has vector thrust. you can see it in the vid.

Vectoring.
2007-05-23 11:35:37
bigdroo
Member
+7|6851|Yooahss-ayy!
Well... yes it does have limited thrust vectoring. I stand corrected, but it's not to the same extent. It's a hell of a plane, no doubt, but it's not going to outmaneuver an F-22 in a dogfight unless the pilot blacked out.

Now of course you could probably buy at least 3 MiG-29's for 1 F-22. Those odds are a little rough for the F-22, but 1 on 1? You have to take the F-22.

Last edited by bigdroo (2007-05-23 11:43:54)

2007-05-23 13:24:54
Vernedead
Cossack
+21|6658|Albion
not really a fair comparison is it though? it would be better to match it to the eurofighter or the su-47.
2007-05-23 13:54:17
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7139|US
The main point to a stealth fighter is not to have dogfights.  Granted, dogfights will remain a strong possibility for the foreseeable future.  The idea with the F-22 is that the pilot can kill the enemy at about the time the enemy realizes their being attacked or even slightly before.

I would still take the F-22 over the Eurofighter or Su series, especially considering the DERA(?) report.
2007-05-23 15:26:41
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6925|so randum
Mig 29 may look the job in that previous vid, however the Eurofighter is capable of a hell of a lot more.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2007-05-23 16:45:31
The_Mac
Member
+96|6650

Vernedead wrote:

not really a fair comparison is it though? it would be better to match it to the eurofighter or the su-47.
Su-37 more like it. Su-47 won't be out for a while, I think.

Personally, if I was using NATO aircraft, at the moment I would use the EuroFighter, its fast and its incredibly manuverable at high speeds, due to the new anti G suits.

Last edited by The_Mac (2007-05-23 19:06:10)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard