Nope, just a design.
If the Russian had manage to build it they would have conquered the world by 1917 and we would be speaking russian now........
-
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.
Nope, just a design.
If the Russian had manage to build it they would have conquered the world by 1917 and we would be speaking russian now........
how do you figure that siege? lol i think we could destroy that with a couple 155mm howitzers easily... its so big and so slow
Originally posted by Siegebreaker
Nope, just a design.
If the Russian had manage to build it they would have conquered the world by 1917 and we would be speaking russian now........
Actually, they built two prototypes, but funding for the project was terminated in 1916 as it was becoming blatantly obvious that the tank was extremly vulnereable to artillery fire.
The best evidence of skirt's origin is the fact that none were ever fitted on Tigers or captured tanks - these were immune to 14.5mm AP shells of PTRD/PTRS.
Piekalkiewicz's "Wojna Pancerna" (dunno english title), Lajak's "Niemieckie Wojska Pancerne 1939-1945" (no english title
And finally Combat Mission forum, the guys out there know the stuff...
ok, at first i thought they actually used that silly metal creature. lol
YEAH, the whole "wheels are bigger than a barn" doesnt exactly make it have a defensible profile
YEAH, the whole "wheels are bigger than a barn" doesnt exactly make it have a defensible profile
Originally posted by Siegebreaker
Nope, just a design.
If the Russian had manage to build it they would have conquered the world by 1917 and we would be speaking russian now........
If they could avoid shooting their own wheels off...
I wonder why my "built" showed up in red? Odd.
Originally posted by Warden
Actually, they built two prototypes, but funding for the project was terminated in 1916 as it was becoming blatantly obvious that the tank was extremly vulnereable to artillery fire.
Is it my idea or this one is smaller than the design..........
Maybe the should have made it bigger........
Originally posted by Warden
Actually, they built two prototypes, but funding for the project was terminated in 1916 as it was becoming blatantly obvious that the tank was extremly vulnereable to artillery fire.
BAH! Ugly, remove it from my eyes... Pls pls plsssssss...
Damn, that one sure HAS to be ineffective.
Rofl, spoked bicycle wheels!Originally posted by Siegebreaker
check out the Tzar Tank........
And who here can say a Panther, T34, or a Sherman with an 85mm gun (the Firefly IIRC?) isn't puuurty?
But replying to the topic:
The best way to counter an armored thrust is by keeping your troops dug in and play gunner with your AT guns. Meanwhile, counterattack the flanks with your own tanks, if possible. That's the textbook way to defeat blitzkrieg. It worked for the Americans and Brits 44-45, and the Russians sometimes. Of course, this assumes that your troops haven't alread run away, surrender, or both.
can't we discuss the thread topic?
All these pictures are nice, but should be discussed at other threads!
Anyone comments on how repulsing armoured threats (see my previous post in this thread)?
All these pictures are nice, but should be discussed at other threads!
Anyone comments on how repulsing armoured threats (see my previous post in this thread)?
Originally posted by Spruce
can't we discuss the thread topic?
All these pictures are nice, but should be discussed at other threads!
Anyone comments on how repulsing armoured threats (see my previous post in this thread)?
It depends on what method of defense is ordered and/or practical.
IIRC the more effective armored strategy was to attack from the flank so as to create a battle of movement instead of one of attrition that one would get with a direct attack. One of the tenets of Blitzkreig was to avoid the enemy's strongpoints and create pockets of isolated formations. If the enemy didn't have the means to releave such isolated forces, those forces were forced to either to hold without suppy or to break out on their own. Either way, the defender's strength is reduced due to supply problems or having left prepared positions in an attempt to restore lines to the rear.
The way to counter the blitz is to have some combination of mobile forces, operational reserves, and effective AT/artie capacity so as to wear down an exploiting armored force and its follow on support and supply formations.
As to how Hoi will model this, the ability to add AT and artie to divisions gives the player to react to a nation that fields a large armored force. Also I suspect that how we form our task forces will have an impact on their effectiveness against tank heavy formations and the such.
Your right mweisner, I'd just add that the key was to deal with the tanks and the infantry separately. If the tanks bypass your infantry and isolate it, the follow up infantry still need to deal with the pocket. If they can't then it's the Blitzer that going to be isolated and easy meat for your AT guns. In short defend in depth.
It will be interested to see how HOI deals with this, will you be able to give armies operation orders like defend in depth, blitz, assault, counter attack, ect..?
It will be interested to see how HOI deals with this, will you be able to give armies operation orders like defend in depth, blitz, assault, counter attack, ect..?