Thread: Like Butter!
View Single Post
  #51 (permalink)  
Old November 30th, 2007, 11:00 PM
FramerT's Avatar
FramerT FramerT is offline
WW2F Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,567
Salute!: 0
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
FramerT Is actually quite decentFramerT Is actually quite decent
Default Re: Like Butter!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seadog View Post
I have always considered the tank best as an infantry support vehicle. There is no need to sacrifice one tank against another if the use of artillery, traps, or aircraft can accomplish the same desire. With air superiority, the trick is weather and locating the target. Without air superiority, what use can having the best tanks be? It becomes a question of attrition. Can you get enough tanks to push the enemy forces back before they get destroyed? During WWII, the lack of ability to fly in bad weather was the only time that the Germans had an advantage in large scale tank attacks, but bad weather can work both ways.


What about Kursk? Air power,more or less equal. The Germans put their "best" tanks[Tigers] forward to take out the PAK fronts. How long would Shermans hang around
attacking such a front?
The 'toughest' defence line the Allies faced was a makeshift West Wall. IMO, breaking
through the opponents front and taking out his artillery and communications would come before supporting the infantry.
Reply With Quote