Stefan, it almost sounds like you are advocating that it's better to fight with nothing because your enemy is trained to deal with whatever you can come up with. I realize that whatever you can build can be destroyed by your enemy, but then again, I would feel much better about my odds if I'm behind anything with some kind of protection then if I was just out in the open.

Also, what would be the reaction of the enemy when they see some sort of improvized armoured vehicle being used against them. It's got to have some kind of demoralizing effect.

__________________
Please give the Combined Fleet the chance to bloom as flowers of death. This is the navy’s earnest request. RADM Tasuku Nakazawa prior to the Battle of Leyte Gulf
It is the function of the Navy to carry the war to the enemy so that it will not be fought on U.S. soil. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

Actually no not in present years anyway...Most were destroyed while approaching sangars or barracks or patrols only a few years ago in dear old blightyland... The moral of the troops was actually quite high when they got the chance to blow them from here to eternity.

But I suppose we are talking ww2 and there may be a difference in the perception over history.

Sorry, you miss my point, it isn't a question of whether it is better to fight but whether you are able to fight. It was suggested that US partisans would build armoured vehicles, which is fine but if they rapidly go from 'armoured vehicles' to 'funeral pyres' then how long is such resistance going to last and how much is it going to achieve?

I am with Urqh on the latter part, I imagine morale would be pretty high as the feared partisans rumble from the woods in an armoured ford truck and are engulfed in flames.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

This talk reminds me of "technicals" and the SAS.

I can imagine many of these around in the US to conduct fast surprise raids, etc.

But didnt your guys hammer them in downtown Mogadishu?

Yeah, they were mostly annihilated by our helicopter gunships, etc..

But technicals have some use in Africa against low tech armed foes, and I assume the 1940s would be a different environment. The SAS had good success in North Africa with their technicals against axis bases.

Long Range Desert Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was to state:
"The LRDG caused us more damage than any other unit of their size."[1]

I think all this is irrelevant to TA's point, which was that basically, Americans tend to be better equipped with the kinds of equipment and materials which can facilitate armed resistance.

Of course an improvised armored vehicle isn't going to be a match for a regular tank or armored car, or even well trained infantry. Certainly, it wouldn't be something that partisans would arm themselves with as a routine.

But if a partisan unit had some raid or mission that called for more firepower or a specialized type of attack, it might, under the right circumstances, give them an edge. Say, for example, the partisans needed to attack an isolated, but fortified enemy outpost and had to get some heavy firepower in close, an armored tractor might be ideal for taking down a door or gate. Of course, it would be abandoned after the mission was accomplished.

Partisans don't win by attacking the enemy's strength, they win by attacking where the enemy is weak. When the enemy advances, they retreat, when the enemy retreats they advance. It's all a matter of applying force where the enemy is at a disadvantage, and avoiding battle where the enemy is strong. Americans proved pretty good at this sort of thing during the American Revolution (there was, of course, a learning curve), and there is no reason to believe things would be different in the 1940's. The sheer immensity of the country would make occupation a very challenging matter for any army, and the partisans ability to cobble together weapons, equipment, vehicles, and ammunition would greatly complicate the problem.

But if a partisan unit had some raid or mission that called for more firepower or a specialized type of attack, it might, under the right circumstances, give them an edge. Say, for example, the partisans needed to attack an isolated, but fortified enemy outpost and had to get some heavy firepower in close, an armored tractor might be ideal for taking down a door or gate. Of course, it would be abandoned after the mission was accomplished.

Exactly the same mission used for with IRA many times and all failed. Well one nearly succeeded but ultimately like the rest failed. Many isolated army posts were attacked in exactly this way.

My response may be irrelevant to TA's point, but it was made in direct response to another poster afterwards.

My only response to TA is on how many Europeans know any???? to which my response was plenty.

But thats irrelevant.

But if a partisan unit had some raid or mission that called for more firepower or a specialized type of attack, it might, under the right circumstances, give them an edge. Say, for example, the partisans needed to attack an isolated, but fortified enemy outpost and had to get some heavy firepower in close, an armored tractor might be ideal for taking down a door or gate. Of course, it would be abandoned after the mission was accomplished.

Exactly the same mission used for with IRA many times and all failed. Well one nearly succeeded but ultimately like the rest failed. Many isolated army posts were attacked in exactly this way.

My response may be irrelevant to TA's point, but it was made in direct response to another poster afterwards.

My only response to TA is on how many Europeans know any???? to which my response was plenty.

But thats irrelevant.

Well, I can't address the failures of the IRA, but I will say poor planning or unrealistic expectations in target selection would naturally play a part. I have to assume that the IRA was attacking targets that were simply too strong for their tactics. That doesn't mean there won't be targets that would be vulnerable to tactics that included an improvised armored vehicle, one just needs to be realistic about how strong the enemy really is.

And I really don't see any logical argument against the idea that well equipped (in terms of tools, vehicles, and materials) partisans will naturally be more effective against an occupying army than partisans who have little or no equipment.

I have no argument with that statement. Seems reasonable.

Well, maybe they have the "mobile Alamo" mentality going there. You know, if the occupiers won't come to the Alamo, then the Alamo must go to the occupiers....

__________________
On the Plains of Hesitation
lies the blackend bones of countless millions
who, at the dawn of victory sat down to rest,
and resting died....
(author unknown-I wish it was me)

And would it take 5 Shermans to take it out?

__________________
On the Plains of Hesitation
lies the blackend bones of countless millions
who, at the dawn of victory sat down to rest,
and resting died....
(author unknown-I wish it was me)

where would you station the american troops

__________________
at the end of the night i wont be reaching for the brass ring i'll be reaching for your wwe championship
jeff hardy

How thick does armor have to be to withstand a 20mm round?

Depends on the nature of the round. I'd be more worried about all the PanzerFausts and so on that would probably be kicking around.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

The discussion on armor is somewhat misleading. In order to wipe out or even seriously threaten a resistance movement the Germans would have to go places where no one would be operating armor. Places like West Virginia or most of Western and Central Washington and Oregon, and Idaho, etc.

As for anti armor I'm not sure I would be issuing many panzerfaust if I were the Germans. To easy for the resistance to use captured ones and the Germans have a lot more worthwhile targets than the resistance.

Hmm, I'm not so sure, if they are facing armour you issue them the equipment to deal with it.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

I've read suffer descriptions of anti-partisan operations in the Eastern front, and the German "initial" response was often some sort of fast truck/armored car mounting 20mm guns to be brought in to quickly support the anti-partisan troops.

The Panzerfaust is a tricky issue, as one has to get very close (often suicidally).

Panzerfausts were issued in huge number to German troops in the last year of the war- every German infantry section carried 2 or 3 or them to augment their firepower (not only against armor)

Hardened proper armor plate? About an inch.

Mild steel? Two half inch sheets seperated by two sheets of 3/4" plywood and a thick 1/8 - 1/4" sheet of rubber.

The alternate might be 2 1/4" sheets of steel seperated by 8" of concrete or highly compacted dirt.

20-mm AA/AT Guns
Penetration performance of German 20mm AA/AT gun

AP Shell

Muzzle velocity 2,625 f/s
Weight of projectile .327 lb

Range Thickness of armor in mm

(yds) 30° Normal
100 31(1.22 in) 48 (1.89 in)
200 29 (1.14 in) 44 (1.73 in)
300 27 (1.06 in) 41 (1.61 in)
400 25 ( .98 in) 38 (1.50 in)

Penetration Performance of Antitank Guns, WWII Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 17, January 28, 1943 (Lone Sentry)

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

On a somewhat different tack:

In 1940 the United States owned 70% of the world's motor vehicles, 53% of the telephones, half the radios. Six million homes had refrigerators.
By comparison to the rest of the world, US citizens lived near opulent lifestyles.

When the US entered the war the Office of Civil Defense (OCD) was set up under James M. Landis. Eventually, $52 million in equipment came under the OCD's control along with about 11 million volunteer and paid workers.
One of the failures of the OCD was trying to set up "Block Captians" to run local civil defense. These "Block führers" as they widely became known were basically ignored and dispised much like overbearing HOAs are today. Their attempts at orgainzing and controlling various aspects of people's lives met with both contempt and resistance. In the end the program was a massive failure.
You can tell an average American what you want or expect but don't expect the average American to respond in the way you wanted or expected.....

An offshoot of the OCD was the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). This enlisted private aircraft and pilots to perform various quasi-military and government functions. It did things like tow targets for various military commands, patrol remote stretches of railway and power lines against sabatoge, or make life saving flights to deliver medicine to outlying areas.
At least one pilot in the CAP, Frederick J. Lyon, 64, of the Connecticut patrol wing actually managed to spot a U-boat and direct US Navy aircraft to its location for an attack.

The point here is that the US government was at least aware that a Home Guard of some sort might be necessary and took steps to put an orgainzation in place right from the start. That that orgainzation largely failed has more to do with the average citizen realizing that the threat from Japan or Germany was minimal does not belie that it was at least there.

I dont get where this is going anymore....Must be in the detail

No one can say that the American nation would have not put up a fight for its own soil in any different way than my own nation thinks we would.

Other nations put up a fight, maybe got defeated but a few with the support of many carriied on the fight in some way or means.

I have no doubt Americans would have done nothing different in an attempt to defend their own.

The question is though immaterial, as in similar what ifs, as America never ever ran the risk of an invasion on the scale needed to implement such things.

Britain, being only a short sea lane away from the darkness was more likely to have faced this, and we all agree in the main and the proof is in the pudding because it never happened here eiter, that the fight for both homelands would have been in a similar vein.

Just watched tonight a program on the British auxilleries mentioned myself a few years ago and in pzrjgrs thread of recent weeks, I have no doubt that America would have had its own men and women who would have performed these tasks even when behind the advancing armies if it happened. They scare the hell out of me even now even the age they may be now.

It is not realistic to say that Germany could have invaded America. They would first have capture Great Britain. Then they would come into contact with U.S. submarines in the Atlantic and it would be a reversal on the Germans. The KM doesn't even compare to the USN even with the Bismarck,Tirpitz,Graf Spee, Scharnhost, Prinz Eugen etc.........An invasion would be not a logical option.

We had a debate over on warships1.com about a scenario where Germany knocks out the UK by sub warfare in WW1 and is then aligned with Mexico. I think some of the data from that thread could even apply here.
Now as far as good reading on the subject read Holger Herwig's "The Politics of Frustration, German War Plans and the United States ,1885-1941" .

High Seas Fleet Vs USN - Battleship Vs Battleship - NavWeaps Discussion Boards - NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board - Yuku