-
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.
- Status
Pretty much, and what they planned to use as LCT was hastily converted civilian craft. I would dare to say that a fluvial barge carrying a couple of Tigers, especially with a...(how do you call in English ferry-style doors and landing ramp ?) bolted on would have been quite unstable in anything than perfect weather.
Yes, Germany simply had a massive material and manpower disadvantage.
Talking about Panther and Tiger so much is pretty silly because both started fighting in 1943, when the war was already lost. If talking about "what-if" Germany victories what matters is discussing 1939-1941 - MAYBE 1942. Once the front was stalled and US joined it was not a matter of if, but when.
I was under the impression they planned to fit the tanks with air hoses, and dump them over the side of the ship to drive ashore along the sea bed?
. . . Did they actually test such a thing?
Why not skip the landing craft altogether and just drive under the channel with air hoses attached to buoys?
EDIT:
Poes law strikes again! This is sarcasm.
Why not skip the landing craft altogether and just drive under the channel with air hoses attached to buoys?
EDIT:
Poes law strikes again! This is sarcasm.
Last edited:
The submersible tank was a project (a desperation project, should I add) that was tested alongside various ways to bring tanks.
It's worth nothing that Axis landing methods were a bit parochial : the planned landings at Malta would have involved using mules
It's worth nothing that Axis landing methods were a bit parochial : the planned landings at Malta would have involved using mules
Even if this were desireable it would
Be
If this was a serious question I'll answer it, but I assume this was sarcasm?
Eaven if their navy have had no losses had an German invasion no chance to succeed, it had become a disaster.Maybee they could have surprice landed soldiers on the beach,but the Germans had
been doomed when R.N. had cut their suplies.
Near shore? sure. To go straight under the channel from end to end? not possible.
Oh, that was not considered, no. It was considerd for depths up to 40 meters, however. (Once again, we are left wondering how they would had found volunteers for driving such tanks)
Not 40 metres but 4 metres deepwading for the Tiger and 15 metres or 49 feet for the specialized "Tauchpanzer"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_wading
I think the Tiger deep wading system was conceived to cross rivers, which showcase a stupendous lack of thought about the problems a tank could face in the field.....
Ironically, the British dedicated an entire Division (and it was the largest armoured division) to ensuring that armour could be used to its maximum within all terrain. I think that its fair to say that the 79th Armoured Divisions naval assault and river assault vehicles had a tremendous impact if only by virtue of reducing the number of lives lost.
I meant that a tank that require submersion/deep wading to cross any river even if there is a bridge able to support most trafic imaginable still standing is problematic for operations in Europe...
Actually it's quite useful. After all everyone knows where the key bridges are - you and the enemy. And they will be defended, wired to blow, or at least guarded/watched Being able to cross over with usable forces where it's not expected can be a huge deal.
They thought about it. I don't know if they ever thought they could pull it off successfully, but they devoted some time to deciding how best it could be done.
If you are to conduct operations on the other side of the river, you will need a bridge regardless, or you'll quickly run out fuel and ammo. If you want to cross elsewhere, that's what the engineering corps is for. Like how the Germans did it at Kiev.
- Status