Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Russell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipant
At Waterloo, why didn’t Napoleon just ignore Hougoumont?
At least some histories seem to think that the attack on Hougoumont was only intended as a diversion. That seems to be debated, though, and I’ve never seen a definitive answer.
Russell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantOperations Research conducted in the 1980s demonstrated that dedicated AT weapons (even those identical to tank mounts) are at least twice as effective as tank mounted weapons in destroying enemy armour. Yet NATO was sold the myth that the most effective AT weapon was another tank,
I may be wrong, but I always thought the “best anti-tank weapon is another tank” thing was based on a more holistic view, rather than just the simple effectiveness against armour. A MILAN firing post might be more effective at killing T-64s than a Chieftain, but the Chieftain has other advantages: it’s more mobile, gives arguably better protection (I say arguably because it’s harder to hide a Chieftain 😉 ), and is generally useful, whereas the MILAN is only useful against armour.
Russell PhillipsParticipantAs Tim says, if there is any disappointment, it was about US Tank Destroyer doctrine, largely as they were misused as tanks. Everybody else’s tank destroyers got on with destroying tanks. The doctrine is still in use today, albeit implemented by attack helicopters.
Same with battle cruisers, heavy cruisers misused as battleships. When used in their intended role (Armoured cruiser killers) as at The Falklands, they worked very well.
That was my understanding, although I was slightly confused for a moment as I couldn’t remember any battle cruisers being present at the Falklands in 1982 🙂 (It’s early, and I haven’t finished my first coffee yet).
the concept was to be able to outgun anything smaller, and run away from battleships
I seem to recall the German WWII pocket battleships had the same basic concept. They do say there is nothing new under the sun.
Russell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantcould you picture yourself being content living in the sustainatopia described above, specifically in a way that entails a greater involvement in the wargaming hobby and/or other comparable hobbies, in exchange for quite severely curtailed purchasing power?
I think I could, yes. My whole family (me, wife, two kids) play board games. We never seem to have enough time to play as many as we’d like, so more time to do so would be great. We have a collection of over 100 games, some of which we haven’t played yet, so I don’t think the reduction in money would be a huge issue, as long as we were still able to pay bills etc.
Russell PhillipsParticipantI am already a sponsoring member and I appreciate the trial…but it does seem to freeze the page for several seconds while it does its thing! Regardless of that hiccup, thank you!
Interesting. It seems ok on my laptop but does indeed freeze my phone a treat. What are you on?
It seems to take a while to do its thing on my work machine, too. Didn’t freeze it or anything, but it took several seconds to register the “like”.
Russell PhillipsParticipantMuch better.
I’ve been wondering if it’s possible to become a sponsoring member twice concurrently.
Mike, would it be possible to set up several types of membership, with different costs? Even if they all had the same benefits, it would make it easy for
idiotsnice people like Rhoderic to give you more money.Russell PhillipsParticipantI was a teenager in the 1980s. The conventional wisdom at the time seemed to be that Soviet soldiers wouldn’t be willing to fight a war of aggression, and NATO technology would win out over Warsaw Pact numbers. I wasn’t convinced by either of these arguments.
For the first, I always assumed that if the Soviet Union did initiate a war, the Soviet people (and especially the soldiers) wouldn’t know that. Their media would be full of stories about how the Western Imperialists had attacked again, just as they had in 1941.
Secondly, I saw parallels with the later years of the Second World War. German equipment and vehicles are generally considered superior to Allied equivalents, but the Allies had numerical superiority. There were other reasons for the Allied victory, of course, but that parallel made me uneasy.
I still think the first point is one that many people don’t give enough consideration. My brother-in-law was convinced that the footage of the Tiananmen Square protests would lead to an uprising that would bring down the Chinese communist party. I pointed out that the Chinese would see very different news coverage. I don’t know why the uprising didn’t happen, but I’ll bet very few Chinese saw the iconic footage of the man that blocked tanks.
Russell PhillipsParticipantIf you correctly and sensibly TAG a topic it can easily be found regardless of which forum it is in.
Is there anywhere that all tags are listed, rather than just the most-used ones?
Russell PhillipsParticipantI’m currently using Pz8 for 3mm Cold War games.
I’ve tweaked weapons to differentiate a little more because they were a little too generic for my taste.
I’ve added rules for things not covered, like combat engineering. Pz8 is only two pages, so can’t cover everything.
I’ve also re-written them to use hexes. That was mostly translating ranges.
01/08/2017 at 00:16 in reply to: Why Missiles (e.g. Katyusha, Nebelwerfer)? Plus Other Questions #68973Russell PhillipsParticipantI believe one reason the Soviets used rockets in WWII was because it was relatively easy to set up manufacturing facilities after half the country got over-run by the Germans. During the Cold War, when Khrushchev was in charge, another reason was that it was easier to get funding/approval for development and manufacture of rockets and missiles. Khrushchev thought rockets and missiles were the future, so would back them over guns.
As for rules, I’ve seen at least some rule sets give multiple rocket launchers a larger area of effect than standard tube artillery.
Russell PhillipsParticipantIt helps, but it’s one factor among many, so I’m not sure how much it influences my decisions.
On the other hand, sometimes I go to a trader’s website because of how they act on forums etc, and am then disappointed to find they don’t cover periods/scales that I’m interested in :/
Russell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantIt never comes up in games does it
No, but there are probably lots of odd quirks of various weapon systems that are ignored or not directly handled in rules.
Russell PhillipsParticipantAnd a possibly even stupider question, is the gun removed for rail transport?
I’ve seen modern tanks with their turret rotated to the rear when on rail cars, probably because it’s easier to get on/off without a long gun sticking out the front. If you’re referring to tank destroyers without rotating turrets of course, that won’t be an option.
I found this image of a Jagdtiger on a railway car, with gun in place:
SourceAlso this (ISU-152?):
SourceRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantWould you use airdrops or switch it to airmobile forces?
I’ve never got close enough to making it a reality to really consider that question. I’d probably have paratroopers at Arnhem and helicopter forces at the others.
Russell
Russell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantThe Anti-Tank Platoon of a Motor Rifle Battalion (BTR) had two of them, with each being allocated a BTR-60PB for transport.
I think I knew that, and knowing they had a wheeled carriage, assumed they were towed rather than carried inside. Thanks, it’s always good to get better information.
Russell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantRussell PhillipsParticipantI find myself wondering if this began with GW. From what I remember of Warhammer 40K, rust and the like would be entirely fitting on at least some vehicles (orks, for instance, probably wouldn’t put much effort into vehicle maintenance).
Mostly, though, I’m of the opinion that if the owner is happy, that’s all that really matters.
Russell PhillipsParticipant -
AuthorPosts