Jump to content

seahawk

Members
  • Posts

    9,864
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About seahawk

  • Birthday April 14

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.seahawkgfx.de

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The land where time stands still

Recent Profile Visitors

2,107 profile views

seahawk's Achievements

Crew

Crew (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. The first problematic version would be the Pz IIIL, which is in production by 1942. The 50mm front armour is within the capability of the 37mm below 500mm. So only the 80mm versions of the Pz III would be largely immune from the front. And this makes sense as reports from the field only pointed out the obsolescence of the 37mm by early 1943.
  2. It is happening all over Europe. But we still pay for the survival of the corrupt state. It would be so much better for normal people if Russia took control.
  3. What Panzer do we meet? Only the newest versions of Pz III and Pz IV would be a problem for the 37mm, but their own guns would face equal problems with the M3.
  4. It is much more convenient to let the US citizens pay for that. The UK even cut the defence expenditure last year: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britains-defence-cuts-outlined-and-explained/
  5. They can always go back to fully state controlled economy like in the Soviet union. This would solve the problem.
  6. Well, the only other option would have been the M2A1 with just the 37mm or no medium tanks at all, as the 75mm turret would have to be developed.
  7. Again why should the US prepare for a war in Europe, they have a whole ocean between them. In fact is peace not threatened by NATO aggression and uncontrolled extension into Russia?
  8. I still fail to see the benefit for the US to keep wasting money on NATO. If the US leaves NATO tension with Russia will automatically reduce.
  9. Still I fail to see the mistake. The US 37mm was powerful for a 37mm and it could penetrate everything the Germans fielded by 1940 and probably most things the Germans defeated in 1940. And if the 37mm would not do they had the 75mm as a backup. But in the end the M3 gave them (by 1940 standards) a tank which was among the best in anti-armour work and at throwing HE. Also with decent frontal armour and a quick production ramp up. For a gap filler, that is pretty good imho. The full 75mm tank was coming anyway and there they even thought of a 105mm HE throwing version. If you look at the starting point for US armour in 1938, I would say they made few mistakes.
  10. But was the lesson from the fall of France not that the more agile and operational fast tank would beat the slow and heavy tank? And the US 37mm had a respectable amount of more penetration than the German 37mm.
  11. Why do you think you are paying so much taxes. Now think about the lax levels and Europe and how corrupt those states must be.
  12. That is an assault gun. But probably not what the US saw as needed. The 37mm could still punch holes in all tanks fielded in numbers by summer 1940. It was okay and even later there were enough Halftracks, trucks and vehicles to use the 37mm on.
  13. Gap filler. Either have the M2 Medium with just the 37mm or make the M3 a 75mm only assault gun - that were the choices. M4 was not ready - the only tank ready with a decent gun around 75mm was the T-34 which saw the start of series production only in September 1940.
  14. It is all a play of the left. Destroy the foundations of a conservative and healthy society.
  15. A beautiful kill. Nice skill by the operators of the drones.
×
×
  • Create New...