Mk 1

No, that's probably not how must of us remember FDR. I would suggest that is a decisively minority viewpoint. Even Friedman, in the first minute of the video of the link you provided, suggests that perhaps 9 out of 10 bankers would not remember FDR that way. Truman was selected as the unflavored ticket mate. He was the least common denominator, the man no one objected to primarily because no one really knew him, or if they did, what he might stand for in terms of national policy. He was a nobody from nowhere. Wallace had been FDR's VP. He was rather farther to the left than FDR. He was also less hawkish. The prospect of Wallace somehow ascending to the Presidency is one of the interesting what-ifs of the late war period. He was unlikely to make it there through the general election process (he wasn't even popular enough for the "designated funeral attendee" on the ticket by 1944), but if he had held that post through the Democratic Convention, he would have been the guy to rise to the job on FDR's demise. Whether he would have authorized the use of the A-Bombs on Japan is one possible change in this what-if. I don't think it would have mattered too much, except to the poor sods who would have stepped off the boats to a different reception in Japan (and their families). Perhaps more intriguing is the likely impact on the post-war world, including the early stages of the Cold War. Wallace was reputedly more sympathetic to the Soviets than even FDR, and certainly more than Truman was. He had indicated support for a plan provide a massive infusion of funds to help the Soviets rebuild their infrastructure after the war. Some, including Oliver Stone (and yes, I know how that name generates an almost universal chorus of oohs and aahs here) have posited that there might not have been a Cold War if Wallace had been VP in 1945. I don't quite agree, and would suggest that it is the height of hubris to say that Stalin's policies of the last 1940s and early 1950s were of US manufacture. To my mind, giving billions to a megalomaniac will not be likely to produce a peace-loving lambikins so much as just producing a stronger megalomaniac. But it makes for an interesting what-if. -Mark (aka: Mk 1)

I wouldn't own or use any Remington, but most certainly not a 700. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/popular-remington-700-rifle-linked-to-potentially-deadly-defects/ https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/08/remington-under-fire-the-reckoning.html https://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/remington-700-controversy.354816/ Nope, not for me. Too much blood on their hands. And on mine. And in my hair, and my eyes and nose and ears, and all over everything. And pieces of muscle and other flesh. And a best friend who needed 8 surgeries to get minimal function back in his left arm (now 2 inches shorter than it used to be) and hand. And a lifetime of not being able to ride in convertibles because of the flashbacks of the ride to the hospital trying to hold the pieces together. Got to wonder why anyone would want to buy a product from that company ever again. Nope, no Remington 700s for me. -Mark

Indeed. Another pic from that same day ... yes Jacques was a very gracious host, and an active friend to tanknet. And he was also not shy to recruit volunteers to break track from time-to-time. More than a few TankNetters got the opportunity to know that Panther. Both inside... and out... The Panther was, an is, a fascinating subject for anyone interested in military history. The next time I happen to be chatting with Steve Zaloga and Michael Greene I'll be hard-pressed to have a more interesting topic. Unless it's a Sherman. And even then, it is almost impossible to discuss the Sherman tank without adding Panther in the conversation somewhere. Yes, I can honestly say that I have stared down the barrel of a Panther from the turret of a Sherman. Although it was notably less of a "significant emotional event" in my life than in the lives of my father's generation. -Mark (aka: Mk 1)

Thought this might be an appropriate bit of remembrance for this thread: TankNetters with Jacques Littlefield at the local burger joint. From left to right around the table, I see the roster as: Ken, Vlad (yak_v), Jacques (the man himself), Colin, Jimmy (JWB), Mike (MasterBlaster), Carey (CG Erickson), and yours truly. Alas I can not recall who else was present with back turned. Hope I got it all correct -- and fully expect to be told if I didn't! We were later told that it was this same day that Jacques and family decided, in consultation with his doctors, to stop his cancer treatments and just live out what time was left to him. None of that was evident to us on the day as we enjoyed some suds and talked some tanks. -Mark (aka: Mk 1)

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_military_brothels_in_World_War_II Caption: Łapanka, 1941 kidnapping raid in Warsaw's Żoliborz district. Selected young women were later forced into military brothels -Mark (aka: Mk 1)

Agree in general with the differing game-play of the national DD lines. Japanese have the consistent torp-sniping potential from Tier V on up, that is rare in any other national line. Russians are indeed generally gunboats, although with their speed Russian DDs offer a different twist on the torpedo-boat in confined waters (around dense sets of islands). US DDs also can be remarkable gunboats, given fast reload times, good accuracy within their range, and long-lasting smoke. They also retain the second-side torpedo barrage up through Mahan (excepting the Nicholas), which provides a VERY useful threat when closing in for decisive action. As to the Pan-Pacific, I find much less of a consistent national style. The boats vary greatly from one tier to the next. So far, the Fushun is my favorite in this line. Like a Gnevny that's had it's motors de-rated a bit, in exchange for 8km torps with bigger warheads, and more smoke. OK, I'll take that trade, you betcha! I am also enjoying the Aigle quite a bit. I view it as a better gunboat than a Tier VII Russian, but at Tier VI. Oh, and the smoke lasts longer, and you get longer-range torps. What's not to like with that package?? I find the DDs to be particularly effective in division/team play. Two or three DDs that are working together and communicating throughout the game can REALLY tilt the odds for success. I play DDs more than anything else. There are 4 Russians, 4 Japanese, 4 American, 2 Pan-Asian and my "premium" RNZS and French DDs that I consider to be keepers so far. Not that I don't like my Cleveland, my Iowa, my Fiji or my Hosho. I do. But the DDs are just always there calling my name... -Mark (aka: Mk 1)

Agree on the "start with a Langley..." view. But not just for development of tactics. As others have said the very basics of how you manipulate aircraft on a pitching deck needed to be developed. It's the block-and-tackle issues. Sure, we can hypothesize about how Swordfish and Martletts would have managed against Me-109Ts (a variant of the -109E). But ... who cares? Those -109Ts would have been rolling off the sides of the ship, crashing into the island, and chopping off the limbs of the deck hands at such alarming rates that there was about 0% chance of getting that ship out on a wartime patrol for it's first 5 years or so after deploying it's first crew. I would predict that the -109T would never have been deployed as a combat aircraft. Why? Two reasons. First, as others have mentioned, the landing gear were a real problem. Less the narrow track -- even that Martlet mentioned above had narrow-tracked landing gear. But the Martlet (Wildcat) gear wheels were straight-up vertical when down and locked. The -109 gear were not. Any differential in pressure on the two wheels caused the plane to veer off to one side. Maybe that's OK on a big square grass field (most German airfields in 1940/41). But that's a really big problem on a hard-surfaced, shockingly narrow, pitching and rolling surface that's crowded with other things like planes and crewmen and AA guns and ... Still, assume them Germans are clever folks and after some time at sea doing exercises they develop the skills and methods for dealing with this characteristic. But ... what planes are left by the time they've learned? That's the second issue - that "some number" of -109Ts that they built was all of 10 through mid-1940! The next 60 were not completed until the end of 1940 (by which time the GF construction was called off, so they were completed without carrier-specific kit). With only 10 planes to work up your techniques from, and maybe eventually 70 planes total (including the first 10) built by the time of your first wartime deployment, you have to do all your training, supply your ship, re-supply after any losses ... how many aircrews are we talking about training up, and how many aircraft can we afford to lose in training? Let us recall that more -109s were lost in landing and take-off accidents than in combat, and that was on big, stable airfields! Double or triple the loss rate for carrier ops, and what are you left with? That's before we ask the question of how many requirements will have been missed in the designs the ship's plane handling gear, and the ship itself. We have the histories of many navies to look at to examine how naval aviation skills develop. Look at the British, the Americans, the Japanese. Not enough? Look at the French, the Russians or the Chinese! The Germans in 1940 would have faced the same issues the Chinese face today. And there was no body of YouTube videos for the Germans to refer to in 1940 to see how everyone else who already had carriers did things. The USN had the Langley to experiment with and work stuff out on. By 1940 the USN also had another two training carriers floating on the great lakes to train up thousands of pilots on protected inland waters using proven docile deck-handling planes, making use of deck management techniques that had already seen ~ two decades of development. And still new fighter squadrons had to work-up on their carriers in protected waters before sailing for combat zones. The Germans would be trying to figure out all their methods and techniques on their one-and-only carrier, with their only combat fighters for that carrier, in combat zones like the Baltic and North Sea. And still the Ranger, the first purpose-built carrier of the USN, was considered a flawed design with inadequate aircraft handling facilities. Nope. Before you get to shoot down any Stringbags, you got to figure out how to avoid planes mashing into each other, chopping up deck crew, and going off the side of the ship. And that ain't gonna happen if your program is to start working on it while sailing out on your first combat deployment. I'd think it would be obvious to this group of chatnicks. Start with the human issues -- the skills, the doctrine, the training. The shiny toys are not the place to start if you want a combat effective force. At least that's my read of it. -Mark (aka: Mk 1)

I'm not sure I get this. If the playerbase is all dumbies, that makes it easy to stand out as a consistent over-performer, right? Perhaps I'm one of the "mouthbreathers". But I find that I win some, and I lose some. Win more than I lose, but still ... My observation is that the playerbase is not uniformly anything. It's a mixed bag. And the "special ed" players come in many shapes and sizes. - Some players simply don't know how to cooperate on a team. Or maybe they just don't want to. The team will discuss and settle on a plan, and 2 or 3 will wander off to do random things. - Some players seem almost unaware they even HAVE team mates. I've had team mates fire torps at the enemy THROUGH my smoke screen -- my smokescreen full of ME. Sometimes it can be dismissed as tunnel vision. Haven't we all had a teammate who collides with us, and continues blasting away at the enemy without wondering why he is getting that "DO NOT FIRE AT YOUR ALLIES" message on every salvo. - Some players ignore planning communications, yet expect coordinated play. I have messaged that I will go deep down the edge of the map with my DD, and then, 8 minutes later when I am closing on a CV, I am strongly criticized for not scouting behind an island on the opposite side of the map. No one bothered to suggest my deep penetration was not a good idea, or that the rest of the team needed me to do something else, but now I'm clearly the idiot for being out of place when they want me to do something they did not suggest they needed done. - Some players just don't seem to be able to understand a plan, no matter how clearly it is communicated. Several on the team suggest and endorse a focus on A. I announce that I agree with the focus, that I suggest every else go to A, but as a lower-tier (lower-value) fast DD with good concealment on the opposite side of the map, I will rush C, start capping to see if I can draw some of the enemy team away, but that I will not stand and fight. I go, I start capping, 3 enemy cruisers and a BB show up, I scamper away, and 2 team mates drive their cruisers right into the face of the enemy and get shot to pieces. Now because my plan worked, we're down 2. - Some players believe there is only one way to play. Maybe one way to play a class of ships, or one way a team should play on a class of map. Anyone who even suggests, much less demonstrates, another approach is immediately ignored, lambasted, or worse yet fired upon. Yes, I've had team mates launch torps at my NoCar for holding back from a cap to provide fire support without exposing my flanks, or shoot at my Mahan for not marching boldly into open ocean to spot targets for them. To say they are all "special ed" though would be wrong. It ignores the obvious differences between players. Part of the game ... part of ANY game that puts you on randomly assembled teams, is learning how to succeed in leading or following teams of widely varying player skills and capabilities. There are structures to separate the mouthbreathers from those who are really trying, though. First is divisions. You think you are better than the rank and file? You are dismayed at the quality of your teammates? Find some players who play well (with your style of play), and go into games together as a Division. Even a 2 ship division, if they play as a coordinated team, can change the character of a game. Play as a DD, and smoke your division mate's BB. Watch him score and score again. Take a Cleveland or an Atlanta into battle with your CV. Suddenly you are immune to enemy air counter-strikes and DD sneak-attacks. Two DDs working together can completely dominate half of a map, between drawing focus one way as the other gets within torp range, or smoking and re-smoking the same strip of sea. Second is ranked battles. The only way to advance in rank is to win games. You improve your ranking with each win. You lose rank with each loss. Individual scores, kills, damage, etc. are meaningless to the ranking process. You need wins, which means you need your team. Once you get past about level 10, the games change. You get a lot more consistent teamwork. You get a lot more consistent proficiency. You still get variety -- variety of playing styles, variety of communication styles. You'll get some players pushing for very conservative plans, others that want to drive hard and fast. You still get some cowboys, but not too many. You still get those with very rigid tactical notions, but not too many. I've read that so many times. I have a lot of fun playing CVs. It's not easy to do well, and my performance can vary widely depending on how my team and the other team plays. But that's what the game SHOULD be doing, isn't it? I will admit that there are some problems. Higher tier, I'd say there are just too many ships with overwhelming AA capability. Fly towards them and all your planes are swatted out of the sky, period. Nothing you can do as a CV driver except avoid those ships. And sometimes the tactical situation does not allow that. And the USN CV airgroup options make no sense at all. You have to cripple your airgroup size to get both fighters and torpedo bombers on the same ship -- why??? The idea of an airgroup with no fighters just seems so random. And then there is that bloody Saipan. It just seems so WAY OP vs. other USN CVs. A competent (not even a star) Saipan driver seems to have a magic wand in A2A combat with the break-off-and-strafe capability combined with more, smaller fighter groups. But overall, I find CV combat up to about tier 7 to be interesting and challenging. OMG. I must just be a dinosaur. Has the world really gotten to the point where real adults can't stand 12 to 15 minute activities, even for the sake of amusement? Does the whole world really need to devolve into 2 minute speed dating? Does your total lack of attention span allow you to cook anything more than eggs? Must be difficult when you don't have the patience to actually go to a store to buy groceries. Even ordering a pizza is out of reach for you, huh? Best stay away from banks or post offices. But at least your bathroom won't be cluttered up with magazines ... -Mark

I received the Bellepheron, Orion, and Iron Duke (the RN Tier 3, 4 and 5 BBs), with dock spaces, as part of the upgrade. This was a surprise to me. Didn't know we'd be getting them. Did everyone else get all 3? Has anyone read the terms on which we get them (ie: Are they a "try 'em for 3 days" kind of deal?). I could not get into a match with the Belle. 55 BBs in queue. Wasn't going to wait my turn. Had no troubles getting into matches with Iron Duke. I found the AP rounds to be about 3 degrees Kelvin (close to absolute zero) in terms of utility vs. the various tier 6 BBs I faced (Bayern, New Mex, Warspite), and to be inconsistent against tier 5s I faces (New York, Texas, Kongo). The HE on the other had produced pretty impressive and consistent results. Against cruisers, of course, the AP was the star performer. One would think it would be a new "happy time" for Derzki and Clemson drivers. But that's not what I found. It was easy to get into tier 3 games in my Derzki. There were 5 or 6 BBs out there to hunt in each match. Derzki is my favorite mount for seal clubbing. My torp reload time is less than 20 seconds - far faster than BB gun reload times. The torps have ridiculously short range, but careful use of islands helps, and even without the islands I can't be spotted at more than 6km, and with a fast approach in a small boat getting into 4km range, particularly if I am ahead of an advancing BB, is not too challenging. And sure the torp warheads may be small, but hey, quantity has a quality all its own. Few joys compare to launching off a 10 torp spread, twisting and turning a bit, and firing off a second 10 torp spread. Just as my opponent is congratulating himself on surviving the first spread ("Good think I put my rudder hard-over. I only took 4 hits! I'm still alive!") he is confronted by the second spread when his direction is committed. Or just as fun, just as opponent 2 relaxes a bit, convinced I have focused all my attention on opponent 1, he discovers how easy it is for me to share my greetings. Typically if I get fewer than 2-3 BB kills in a Derzki mission, it's because there weren't enough BBs out there. But now the map is full of other experienced players, some in low-tier BBs, others with similar seal clubbing ambitions in various DDs. Here's a new insight: it ain't seal clubbing just because it is a low tier match. If the other boats are full of experienced players, it's the seals who may be holding the clubs. My first few "seal clubbing" forays last night were disastrous. 5 or 6 BBs out there, to be sure. But they played smart, concentrating fire with priority on DDs, and with a lethal shield of DDs in front of them (and perhaps a few seal-driven cruisers wandering about). Had to revise my thinking and play it like a high-tier game to bag any of those big juicy tier 3 BBs. -Mark (aka: Mk 1)

As Harold says, the "positioning" is indeed rough-and-tumble brawlers up to tier 6, and beyond that less armor but better concealment. Best damage control, and enhanced HE are also in the claims. Better concealment than other BBs means they can be within range of a reasonably accurate first salvo before they are spotted. Against other BBs it's pretty much only a first salvo advantage. Then you have the problem of weaker armor. But against cruisers it can be decisive. Nelson (offered as a premium before the rest of the line came out) has been pretty rough on cruiser players. Often the first you know of its presence is when the guns fire. You're shooting it out with some opponent, and then you get the audio alert that you've spotted a BB so you glance at your mini-ma WHAM! You just caught three or four 16 inchers and suddenly things ain't going so well. At least that's been my experience. -Mark (aka: Mk 1)

The notion that you can put a larger gun (or heavier armor) on the same chassis if you don't put it in a turret is true. And it can lead to a useful second life for an obsolete / undersized chassis. But this is all largely an ex post facto rationalization. These vehicles were not designed the way they were because someone said "How can we get a bigger gun on this chassis?" or "How can we keep this older smaller chassis in production?". They were designed the way they were because that's what the specs called for. The StuG was not an attempt to put a 75mm gun on a Pzr III chassis. It was an attempt to put a 75mm gun on a mobile and armored platform, so that the artillery could offer close support to the infantry. Alkett chose to use the Pzr III chassis for their proposal because that was what they had. And it was accepted because it worked well in the role envisioned. The question of whether it was or wasn't a bigger gun than could be fit into a Pzr III turret never entered into the conversation. Yet to the point of the OP, was the turret really necessary? If we look at the stats, the StuG was one of the most successful "tanks" of the war. At least in the armor-vs-armor role, it had a better kill ratio than any of the German medium tanks, and StuG formations, as a general rule, did better than Panzer formations. So we could just look at that and say perhaps yes, the turret was not necessary. But then the US TD formations also had better kill ratios than US Armored formations. The M10 did better in the armor-vs-armor role than the M4, or even the M4 76mm. So we could also say from this that turret roof armor, power traverse, and hull or co-ax MGs were also not necessary. (And interestingly the original StuG design was also open-topped, and had no MG, co-ax or other.) In either case I think we would be drawing the wrong conclusion from the stats. German StuG and US TD formations had different training and different tactics than tank formations. When used according to their training they did well in the armor-vs-armor role. They were more specialists, with higher levels of training on gunnery. That's a useful lesson to draw from the stats. But they were not as successful when used as ersatz tanks, when commanders used them for the same missions, in the same ways, that tanks were used, or when the crews (in the case of StuGs) were trained the same ways and in the same tactics that the armored formations used for other tanks. If you upgrade the gunnery training, and use turreted tanks as ambush hunters, or use them as follow-up gun support for infantry advances, then they too achieve better armor-vs-armor stats. But if you want some armor to be out in front leading the attack, or leading an offensive maneuver into the enemy's depth, pursuing the traditional "shock value" of armored formations (and the heavy cavalry that preceded them) then you will be much better off if that armor can fire to the left or right without turning the whole vehicle to the left or right. (And you'll be better off with a turret roof and a co-ax MG.) I think this is pretty well evidenced by the nearly universal adoption and retention of these features by all armies that have the ability to specify and obtain their own requirements. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) p.s. Hiya boyz. Been a while since I posted. d.s.

As I recall our late great King Sargent observed that there is virtually no case in history of a land based force defeating a carrier fleet, while conversely there are numerous cases of carrier fleets defeating land-based defenses. It seems to me that the ability to move an entire airfield (or better yet 3 or 4 or 6 or 12 entire airfields) over the horizon in an hour's time is hard to beat for siezing the initiative or concentrating forces in space and time. -Mark 1

Leo: I agree 100%. Your comment matches exactly my own experience. Except that I was not quite so much a lad, but a young adult in my early 20's when I first read the Hornblower series. I loved the Hornblower books. Bought and read them all. I remember playing "Sail" 'til all hours on our VAX computer at work -- a networked multi-player computer game implementation of the board game "Wooden Ships and Iron Men" that had a whole set of scenarios based on the Hornblower books. Every summer for several years I would begin again at Mr. Midshipman and read my way back through the series. When our puppy (long since grown old and passed on) chewed up a couple of my early Hornblower books my wife bought me replacements. Didn't even take any prompting on my part -- she knew how much I loved those books. I read the Aubrey/Maturin series about 10 years ago. Read the whole series through 2 or 3 times since. Now I loan them to my father-in-law a few at a time, giving him a new stack or 2 or 3 at every family holiday get together. Picked up the Hornblower books again a year or so back. I was really looking forward to re-reading the set after so many years (decades?). Read my way through the first 2 or 3. Just wasn't the same. I could hardly work my way through them -- they just don't stand up to my fond memories after reading O'Brien's books. -Mark 1

My Secret Sam decoder ring came up with a zero on that one. Did I miss one of the expansion packs? -Mark 1