Quote:
|
I believe none of them to be up to the task of taking on a German BattleGroup and hoping to win without extreme superiority(there are exceptions to this), just look at the formation of Shermans, one being the Firefly only supposed to take on Tigers, while the other shermans would try to encircle it and hit it in the engine. During the Nomrandy invasion the allies enjoyed complete air superority and were able to knock of German heavy tanks and prevent movement, which lead to the British to have the upper hand in tank movments.
|
Firstly a Kampfgruppe is not a standarised formation. And in 1944 they would be 'overs' from what had not been blown to bits by the RAF, USAF and the Royal Artillery.
As for the vivid description of a Firefly shooting at long range whilst the smaller cousins are trying to get a flanking shot is not common reading in the war diaries I've read. Sounds a bit like the old 5:1, 6:1 Shermans against a Tiger on a flat one dimentional battlefield Wiki rubbish.
It seems strange to me that the British and Commonwealth forces get stick for fighting asymetrical.
Look at the Aussies at Tobruk. The Germans 88's, 75mm mark IV, and the ever present MG's makes life hard for the troops. What do they do?
They fight at night when the Germans main advantage is nullfied.
I am impressed at the Allies who managed to come up with brilliant
tactical solutions to a hardware problem.
It brings to mind the USSR officer that was asked about the respose to the F-18 Hornet. Would it be a new generation of USSR fighters?
The reply was:
'A T-72 on an Ameriacn airfield'
Getting back to the thread.
I'd go for the Comet too.