Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"S.o.B.", Son of Barbarossa

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    minor point but wasnt the much maligned 3.7cm PAK more than enough to deal with 50 % or so of the russian tanks like BT=5/7 and T-26 ? so it many ways it was a underrated weapon which in the early stages could we have knocked out a huge % of russian tanks
    Yes and no : the Germans lost in 1941 3392 PAK 3.7 while the Soviets lost 13405 tanks (German sources) or 20500 tanks (Soviet sources), but , there are no informations about the number of tanks lost by PAK 3.7 or the number of PAK 3.7 lost by tanks .The only thing we know is that both figures (if they would be known) would be only a small minority of the total number of PAK 3.7 and tanks that were lost .

    It is also so that the PAK could deal with the T 34 tanks , or that infantry could deal with these tanks : you don't need PAK to deal with tanks and you don't need tanks to deal with PAK .

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
      This must have a lot to do with why we win.
      IIRC, that also had a lot to do with why the Union won, back in the ACW.

      The Americans took a hell of a beating in the Revolution and 1812 by being poorly equipped, even in the early Indian campaigns this was a crippling defect. We learned and have different priorities than, for example, the Prussian Army that became the German Army.
      remember the US was still building its infrastructure. Which meant we had a lot of people thinking how to do things easier and knowledge how to do build things

      Comment

      Latest Topics

      Collapse

      Working...
      X