-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
How were the late model (long-barrelled) Pz IVs faring against the Shermans and T-34 anyway?
Like die Deutchen are just the Dutch in another state
Unless they are speaking Schwizerdütch... because in that case they are Swiss and not Dütch.
As I said before, France doesnt need to send its whole fleet into the Baltic, just the submarines. Aircraft without radar or sonar wont find the subs, and I dont think there's a submarine net in the world big enough to cover the entire straights of Denmark. Mines might work, but didnt Germany already mine most of the Baltic, and yet the Soviet submarines still broke out into the Baltic in 1945. As for the neutrality of Sweden, it depends, doesnt Germany have to bring the ore back home using its own ships? If thats the case then its just a matter of sinking them, Sweden wont care once the product leaves their borders.Steel production was of course critical for the Navy, nobody can argue that, and the longer the war goes on the more the lack of Swedish ore will tell for all the other services, yes.
But I think assuming that France could cut off the Baltic routes is a actually bit of stretch, Denmark would presumably declare herself neutral and bar warships of both sides from crossing, not doing so would almost certainly result in a German invasion that she cannot repel. Secondly, what ships of shallow draft did France have to send via that route? Nothing large is going through with ease, any of those may have to slowly maneuver through the straits via the Great Belt only, and for unfamiliar pilots there is a high risk being unexpectedly grounded, they would be sitting ducks for bombers and e-boats launching torpedos, and carefully placed mines.
The Germans of course have the Kiel Canal so can enter and exit at will regardless of Denmark's status. In WW1 the mad genius of the Royal Navy, Jackie Fisher, produced a special class of Battlecruiser with an extremely shallow draft so it could enter the Baltic sea to support an invasion. They were never used for their intended purpose for many reasons, but one of which, in the tactical sense, was that it was near suicidal to attempt to enter, and the experience of attempting to force a narrow strait where batteries, minelayers and such delights awaited was amply demonstrated to pretty much everyone's satisfaction by the Turks. On a strategic note, Germany would simply invade Denmark then you are also facing shore batteries with no room to maneuver and have just stranded a fleet..
Anyway lets say you do get your fleet into the Baltic, are you now proposing to tell Sweden it cannot export its ore to Denmark? Or are you going to tell Denmark and Sweden that they cannot engage in trade under the barrel of your guns? That is a violation of their neutrality, you may create two allies for Germany this way.
And if you do manage to bring a fleet through, it's going to cost, it would not be too difficult to close the straits behind them with aerial mine drops or u-boats and the u-boats in the Baltic would have a field day when they come in, and as they attempt to leave, and your fleet would attempt to leave at some point because they need fuel to continue their operations. Ships will be lost and damaged and they will use a lot of fuel in inefficient low speed maneuvers. Do you think you will be able to dictate trade terms to Sweden and Denmark and ask them at the same time to 'fill 'er up'? Filling up might also be very difficult as most of their ports are deep enough only for shallow draft vessels and could not allow a large ship to dock.
Also you would be facing a not inconsiderable German Fleet capable of entering the Baltic Sea or the North Sea, the Kiel Canal gives them total flexibility, cutting you off on the other side of the belts and destroying you at their leisure as you slowly make your way through the belts. And they will know you are coming and be in a good disposition to cause the maximum possible effect.
There is a very good reason the Royal Navy never tried this in two world wars. You might find if you want to cut off ore supplies that you need to look more closely at what the allies did try, which is to buy up the stocks of ore with cold hard cash.
Now for Maignot, yes you are quite right it would be obvious in our hindsight that the Germans will feel the southern section is the weak point, in Hoi Terms, 'just' a Level 10 vs the insane L12 of the northern line.
It still has great advantages, the telephone network for the forts and blockhouses is connected with buried armoured cables, so a cohesive response to breakthrough attempts is possible. Getting past this is going to be extremely costly. But it is not 1916, the Germans will almost certainly take control of the air quicker than in our war, as they will be facing the French Air Force alone, and here is where we begin to see the downside of French doctrines and equipment.
- France has very good planes, most have no radios
- France has some excellent tanks, most have no radios
- France has some excellent fighting men, yet her HQ uses runners, riders and carrier pigeons as in 1914 rather than radios or telephones.
- France has Gamelin, need I say more.
Firstly getting to the line.
We are going to want to chop down every tree in sight and block any trails to hinder and prevent their advance.
But Gamelin.
Petain once said the Ardennes was impassible, which people remember and laugh at, but he finished his sentence with the words 'provided special measures are carried out' and his intention was to fell every tree that needed to be chopped to block all the pathways and trails or anything that looked remotely navigable. Under Gamelin's watch this was specifically not carried out so the Cavalry could use it to advance, because one of the most basic lessons of 1914-1918 had been forgotten.
Anyway, I would see that piercing the Line costs Germany extremely dear in blood, but not on a Verdun scale, because the Luftwaffe will have free reign for a while at least to carve up units that are supporting the line. France will need to put her best units right in the firing line, or risk her A (and especially) B grade reserves breaking under the bombardments as they historically did leaving a huge gap, but this is also going to prove very costly in terms of her own best soldiers. The world class French Artillery is going to need protecting from the Stukas to perform its deadly mission and there is a big shortage of anti-air and fighter coverage.
Our next option, as I see it, is to prepare for a defense in depth behind the line, multiple lines of forward facing fortifications cut into every hill side, and defilade pill boxes on every slope and fall back slowly in a controlled retreat with each line retreating to behind the next and into a new line, so that for Germany every step of the journey into France is an assault on the Maginot line. This way we maximize the chance the German Army mounts a coup and kills Hitler and his inner circle because of the horrible losses, whilst Reynaud and Deladier drink a nice bottle of wine in a pretty Cafe by the Seine.
But Gamelin.
This cretin and his staff are still thinking of a 'continuous front' will they pull back the manpower needed to build such defenses? If they do what quality will they be? Sedan and the Maignot extension, gives us a reason to suspect that there will be very serious problems in this regard. The Maisons Fortes built around the Meuse lacked their steel doors and blast shields, which left these fortifications easy prey for the German tanks. Maj. Sarraz-Bournet, one of Gamelin's staff, found that many bunkers built by civilian contractors did not have embrasures facing the right way, he wondered if it was sabotage or simply sheer incompetence, he also found that the barbed wire that had been lain out was done so in such an appallingly shoddy fashion he concluded the men who laid it had never been trained to do so and almost certainly had not been supervised whilst they did their work.
So let us put aside statistics and such for a moment, the Line gives France a chance here. She needs to be up to the job of absorbing the initial extremely heavy blow, then turn every step for the German soldiers into a graveyard. And she is going to suffer mightily herself to do so. It is not impossible to imagine she can slow the progress of any German spearhead to such an extent that it begins to cause the Army to think about snuffing out Hitler, but we are probably talking about being willing to accept Verdun scale casualties on her own side to inflict them on the Germans in order to achieve this.
Based on the performance of her leaders, and her entire military command right down through the chain, her civilian workforce and her general will to fight, this is not an easy ask.
Now on to the Maginot line. Your idea of defense in depth is a good one, and ill admit Maurice Gamelin mad mistakes. But you have to understand, the Rhine river is a pretty big river. Getting across it on rafts, while under machine gun fire and artillery fire, is no easy task..even with air superiority. Remember how much trouble the allies had getting across the Rhine in 1945, and that was with a collapsing Germany...here France is defending the river, with manned fortifications, and is still fresh into this war.
The 75L48 gun (note that the "48" refers to the length-to-caliber ratio of the gun: 75mm diameter, 48x75mm long) on the Panzer IVG and IVH was effective against both (the IVF2 used a 75L43, and all previous models through IVF1 used the short 75L24), and was also used on various tank destroyers such as the StuG IV and Hetzer to good effect. It was inadequate against the JS series of Soviet tanks and a few of their heavier Self-Propelled Guns beyond point-blank range, however, whereas the 75L70 on the Panther or the 88L56 on the Tiger were somewhat capable of penetrating the heavier armor at normal engagement ranges.
The problem that Germany ran into with the Panzer III and IV series was that the old tank designs had been upgraded repeatedly, had increased in weight to the point where the drivetrains were already strained, and there was no room remaining to squeeze in a larger engine or larger drive components. A larger gun and more armor wasn't an option. It became apparent that a new tank was going to be needed for the late war if it didn't end quickly, but the Panther was not the "cheap and effective" solution with available materials that Germany needed at the time. The III was discontinued, and production halted on the IV until it became obvious that Germany couldn't build enough Panthers to replace them, or afford to run the much heavier Panthers with the meager quantities of fuel that were available.
Since Germany had the habit of giving its newest toys to new formations, rather than upgrading its existing divisions, many of the veteran tankers were still using the Panzer IV until the end of the war, and from what I recall reading, racked up a decent enough record with them on the few occasions where Allied tanks were encountered, substantially better than the rookies struggling to operate their new Panthers. I don't have any examples or statistics on hand.
The problem is that it's a big river in length as well as width. France can't mass troops at every spot at once, and an attack can be made at any point along it at any time. A short, heavy artillery barrage, followed by dense smoke rounds, and you don't know whether you're facing an attack across the river or just another diversion and false alarm until the invaders cross the river and engage at fairly close range. Granted, the butcher's bill would be steep for the Germans, but even the strongest fortifications can be, and have been, taken by assault.
Last edited:
Germany had its greatest success when it was using stuff like Pz II as its main tank. But yes Germany would completely chanceless against USA who had something like 2-4 times its industrial productivity and could very well defeat all 3 major axis Power alone. The Sherman pretty much outclassed all German tank designs but then USA could produce more Thompsons than Germany could produce MP-40s, even though Thompson was a much more expensive sub machine gun, also US had semi automatic rifles as standard issued.
And that did not stop USA from having pretty much the best artillery during the war, best airforce and best navy as well as probably the best army. So a German startegy that in some way end up in a war with USA will see Germany destroyed if USA put its effort into it, it is not even a Contest since USA basically outdid Germany in every way, the only chance Germany have in such conflict is to deny a beachhead for USA which is very difficult to do since German navy is so weak and USA have so many possible staging areas to choose from.
The Baltic is a rather small and shallow sea and for the French with a very narrow access. Submarine losses would be heavy, the question is if they could do enough damage to be worth it. I have my doubts.
Is it true that the Panther's gun was better at penetrating armor than the Tiger, due to its higher velocity? And that the Tiger was better against infantry, due to its larger shell?
Would you agree that one trait Germany should have focused on in new tanks would be fuel efficiency?
I heard that one before, the newest toys being given to new, untrained formations. Any idea why the hell this was done? Wherever I read it before claimed concerns that only now giving veteran formations new equipment would somehow be bad for their morale, though it doesn't explain how letting them fight one with old one would be good for it.
As others have mentioned with Submarines there is going to be losses, on a clear day there is a fair chance they could be spotted from the air, and they wont have support facilities they are not going to have much fuel for such an expedition, so best expectation is they enter and sink a handful of ship and run hog wild for a week maybe two. Then as they look to exit the Baltic so they can go home and refuel, they get bombed in the shallows. And nobody needs to net or mine the whole lot, the parts navigable are quite narrow, particularly if you intend on staying submerged for the whole journey.
Consider the German problems with getting their submarines past Gibraltar and into the Med, it's a real tough problem to solve.
Then 1945 is not 39, you don't have the majority of the Reich's scant remaining airforce mostly trying to intercept bombers, and its fleet is fully intact.
And they have hydrophone setups used in their Submarines already for several years by this point. Its a fairly simple issue to transfer that technology to their destroyers and whilst it will not be nearly as advanced as the British ASDIC system, it's going to lead to heavy losses for subs operating in the Baltic, and if the submarine peril persists research and improvements will be done until it doesn't.
But put that aside. Are French submarines going to torpedo whoever they see, France declare unrestricted submarine warfare in the Baltic? Sink 'Neutral' traffic? Danish, Swedish, Finnish and Russian ships leaving German ports?
It's all very problematic from a diplomatic point of view. In any given alt-hist type scenario of this kind this I like to think of one big change. You've proposed Britain stays out and Germany respects the neutrality of her smaller neighbours. That's a starting condition I'm trying to play within.
However, to assume that the neutral countries, whatever their sympathies with France might be at the opening of the scenario, would happily give up trade when it would mean huge unemployment and even a real threat of invasion is a stretch to far, they will work around any proposed blockade.
And if Subs do get in the Baltic and stop trade to one degree or another, and the neutrals don't reroute their trade, as with say Denmark or the USSR or Estonia or Latvia suddenly discovering a huge need for Iron ore for their German speaking minority... Germany will invade Denmark and invade Sweden and possibly Norway for good measure in order to secure these resources, and historically in 39/40 none of these countries would have been able to put up much of a fight, and to go further they had significant business interests in common with the Germans and plenty of National Socialist sympathizers to act as 'Quislings'.
Again consider why the allies did not do this historically, despite planning on fighting a defensive war until 41-42 when they planned to be fully re-armed and ready to go on the offensive. (Gamelin's plan) It would have made total sense to do it if it was doable. (Instead Gamelin and Deladier sat around planning an intervention to help Finland and to push the Germans and Russians into an open alliance. The world was only saved from the unbelievable stupidity of this idea by the Finns surrendering.)
I don't see Submarine in the Baltic as a viable war winning strategy, a nuisance and problem yes, but nothing that will lead to a collapse of the Third Reich, and probably won't prevent Gustav and Dora being built.
And there is our second problem, if we say an invasion of the southern Maignot stalemates, and the German government does not fall, then Heavy Gustav and Dora are brought up and crack open the fortresses of the Northern sector like a child taking the top off an egg before dipping his soldiers in. Because once France loses the air war, she is unlikely to recover and regain the initiative in the air ever again and without the power to bomb these monster rail guns and disrupt their firing the line will be broken and again it's going to take a new Verdun to keep the German army out.
France in '39 does not have the reserves of gold Britain had to keep buying fighters from the USA or Britain, and Britain ran out of money pretty fast regardless of her wealth once war started in earnest and she'd lost her heavy weapons at Dunkirk.
If you are looking at a 1939 scenario with a Democratic France, fighting Nazi Germany alone, I think you have to look realistically at all her strengths and manifold weaknesses. What pressures will cause the armaments factories to move to a 6 day week quicker than Reynaud managed in 1940? Can you get all the tank factories producing the best variants?
With planes, can production line techniques be put into practice? Can the military command structure be reformed to allow the use of more modern C3i techniques? Can Reynaud fire Gamelin as he historically wanted to do, without Deladier bringing down the government.
Gamelin didn't just make mistakes Sunforged, he was unbelievably inept, uniformed and backwards, willfully so. Yet all the time creating an aura of a man who know exactly what he was doing and was just about to act.
I'd argue the sooner Gamelin is gone and Weygand returns the better France's chances are even if the wall is penetrated.
The tactics he put in place historically weren't successful, but they actually weren't bad, just hopeless, as France had no mobile reserve at this point to relieve his hedgehogs.
Despite being a staff officer he really was a smart fellow, tactically astute and knew how to lead the French soldiers and fill them full of fight, he didn't deserve to be given command when the situation was already broken beyond repair. You have Weygand in '39 (and to be fair did have occasional mad ideas of his own), then despite all her numerous problems I give France a ~60% chance of turning the war into a bloodbath for Germany that may end in a stalemate, and to do that you need Deladier gone sooner and Reynaud in power without the risk of Deladier pulling the rug from under him to defend Gamelin, again that's more than one big change from our starting point (and a fairly massive political problem to see solved by late 30's France). Then and only then do you have a good chance of stopping poor old Petain from having to become the sacrificial lamb for all the Third Republic's failings.
- 1
It's definitely there and one of the reasons I left WoT after playing quite a bit, joining a high-ranking clan, etc. (the main reason was it's just not as fun with made-up tanks at high tiers). The lack of maps where Soviet tanks do poorly is generally where it comes in, but Soviets are usually better at their tier than others more consistently, with unrealistic bounce angles as well.
I left WoWS much earlier, unfortunately. The torpedofest it became made it rather unfun for someone who like driving BBs around, what with invisible DDs and insane reload times, and CV fighters able to pull off turns that would shred the plane and pilot to pieces with the Gs in real life.
Fine. The biggest difference in tank battles, as determined by Allied studies during and after the war, was who shot first. Not the penetration, not the barrel length, not the armor width, who shot first.
You don't have to ship it all the way to the front with the risk of partisan attacks, breakdown, air raids, etc. while shipping back the old equipment, risking leaving formations at or near the front without necessary equipment because of delays or other issues. It makes more sense.
Plus, a lot of "new" formations were just old ones being reformed or using cadres of experienced troops as a base. It's more complex.
- 1
Depends on range. The higher velocity 75L70 rounds were more effective in close, but the speed fell off rapidly with distance. The 88L56 had a heavier shell, which suffered less drop-off over distance, and was therefore better at long range. The 88 was also significantly better for delivering High Explosives, due to the larger shell.
That might of helped a bit, along with a tank that was actually easy to manufacture. The Panther with about 5t less armour would have been a good start as well as dropping all the wacky extras like the sealed engine compartment to make it better able to ford rivers (the sealed engine got too hot and leaked oil - the main reason the early models kept burning out).
You have two options with a new piece of equipment like a tank:
1. Give to a new formation. Train them to use it and then dispatch them with it to the front line.
2. Take an existing, desperately needed, veteran unit from the front line, train them to use the new tanks in one of your two tank schools (preventing you from training more desperately needed tank crews) then dispatch them for the front line while you now train your new crews with the old tanks left behind by your veterans and then hope that you do not need to retrain this new unit in 6 months time when they have burnt through the old equipment they inherited and need re-equipping. Also, there will be a noticeable drop off in the veteran unit's performance for a few weeks after returning while they figure out how to get the best from their new toys.
I think you meant; then and only then do have have a good chance of stopping treasonous old Petain from undermining democratic France to advance his own reactionary fantasy.
- 1
Fair comment maybe but he was going senile when he returned in ‘40, Churchill and his team noticed it, and getting worse as time went on. There were plenty of younger men there who could have took that burden and let the cantankerous old Marshall who was retreating into a weird fantasy world retire, but they didn’t, they wanted a figure head but not for it to be them. I find Laval in particular far far worse.
I wait for the day when the actually turn on the US radar and tie it into the incredibly visible tarreting systems installed on each US ship. The moment they do that, the game is simply over. But as you said, paper beats steel every time in the imagination of the developers. Still, a good game despite its flaws imho.
Exactly, command and control of the tank first and the unit second by allowing actual tank commanders the time to do what tank commanders do. Those who can get their vehicles turned, aimed and fired quickest frequently wins. And that involves a radio and friends in all those other tanks around you.
Oh, I am just handed this note. "Having a world class tank gunner in the cupola beside you when you cut those orders seems to be a big help", writes in M. Wittman from the cemetary at Villers-Bocage.
You're just salty because my Minsk sailed up to your Bismark at 48 knots with its vodka powered engines and accurately shelled you with so much HE that you were covered in fires. Then I released torpedoes that obliterated you while your secondary guns flailed around and missed me.
(Yeah, it's weird that the Russian fleet has such great ships.)
You're just salty because my Minsk sailed up to your Bismark at 48 knots with its vodka powered engines and accurately shelled you with so much HE that you were covered in fires. Then I released torpedoes that obliterated you while your secondary guns flailed around and missed me.
(Yeah, it's weird that the Russian fleet has such great ships.)
My absolute favorite is the ability fo Russian radar to outmatch paltry American radar at every turn. Oh, and America has trouble making targeting systems. Stupid western capitalists.
I have played off and on since release and have Montana, Legenadary Des Moines, Legendary Worcester, and about 80% of a Gearing buildup on Fletcher in my bag of tricks. After this, my next shopping trip is straight up the Russian CL line!
Question, is the vodka fuel something I get at the Armory or the Premium Shop?
My absolute favorite is the ability fo Russian radar to outmatch paltry American radar at every turn. Oh, and America has trouble making targeting systems. Stupid western capitalists.
I have played off and on since release and have Montana, Legenadary Des Moines, Legendary Worcester, and about 80% of a Gearing buildup on Fletcher in my bag of tricks. After this, my next shopping trip is straight up the Russian CL line!
Question, is the vodka fuel something I get at the Armory or the Premium Shop?
Vodka is the fuel for the missile age... unlike (modern) whisky which is going damage the engine due to the impurities contained. No wonder that the Russians have an edge.
Never played WoWS or WoT, but I can remember how formidable Russian planes and especially how excellent their AI pilots were in Sturmovik
What about a third option?
Take a veteran unit that is rotated out of the frontline and hand them the new toys. I do not see the need to outright send them back to tank school, they are being retrained from one tank to another tank, they aren't ordered to begin flying. Also, I would argue that you do need to (and should not) replace all the tanks at once, start with some exemplary vehicles and replace as time goes by.