Difference between revisions of "User:Patriotic_Iguana"
m (Tag: Visual edit) |
m (Edits.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| − | Will defend legacy of M4 to a point, especially 105mm model. Revisionism reacted against nonsense narrative spread by Death Traps, but it swung too far in the opposite direction in some areas. Medium tanks are expendable frontline tools and often the | + | Will defend legacy of M4 to a point, especially 105mm model. Revisionism reacted against nonsense narrative spread by Death Traps, but it swung too far in the opposite direction in some areas. Medium tanks are expendable frontline tools and often the illegitimate child of logistics, limitations, and compromise, and the inexperience of the AGF and OD in tank development left much to be desired. Recent trends in discussion of the M4 in some circles seem to deny all of that, as though the M4 was the most perfect AFV to ever exist. It wasn't. The US did just fine with it and it fit US needs to a point, but it was *not* perfect. |
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| − | -The only reason the Sherman catches as much | + | -The only reason the Sherman catches as much "flak" as it does is because it was expected to do everything. If the US had had a heavy tank going into D-day (i.e. a tank designed for breakthrough actions against heavily fortified enemies) then people would see the Sherman as simply another tool in the arsenal. In other words, the T-34 is judged by one standard because it operated in a system with KV and JS/IS heavy tanks and monstrous assault guns like the ISU-152. It was a component. But in the minds of many, the Sherman *was* the US system (tank destroyers are, as always, completely forgotten) and it's sadly judged by a far different standard. |
-If the fact that in 1940 the US was building all of its tanks with aircraft engines isn't a statement about the US's interwar geopolitical interests, I don't know what is. | -If the fact that in 1940 the US was building all of its tanks with aircraft engines isn't a statement about the US's interwar geopolitical interests, I don't know what is. | ||
Latest revision as of 10:41, 28 June 2019
Playing since January of 2015. Played US WW2 planes until realized the game was rigged from the start. Mains tank destroyers and assault guns. Has more time in the M18, M10, and M36 than the entire Soviet tech tree. Finds US medium tanks exceptionally boring. Is one of tens of players who still plays top tier naval. Will rabidly defend the Omaha-class light cruiser. Can often be found sitting in the rear of a map with an M4(105) or T30 lobbing HE rounds over hills just for the US arty vibes
Will defend legacy of M4 to a point, especially 105mm model. Revisionism reacted against nonsense narrative spread by Death Traps, but it swung too far in the opposite direction in some areas. Medium tanks are expendable frontline tools and often the illegitimate child of logistics, limitations, and compromise, and the inexperience of the AGF and OD in tank development left much to be desired. Recent trends in discussion of the M4 in some circles seem to deny all of that, as though the M4 was the most perfect AFV to ever exist. It wasn't. The US did just fine with it and it fit US needs to a point, but it was *not* perfect.
Random thoughts:
-had the M26 arrived in December of '44, it wouldn't have gotten nearly as much flak as it did.
-the "too little, too late" argument used against the Pershing doesn't make sense when the perspective of early 1945 US commanders is considered. Against all expectations of a dead Germany, they launched a major offensive, throwing all major projections of when the German war machine would be totally defeated out the window. An invasion Japanese mainland was still expected, for which the US was projected to suffer massive casualties. So was the 20 Pershings in theater a major contribution? No. But it's hard to ignore that from the perspective of Barnes and the rest of the OD in early '45, the Pershing was *expected* to participate in some major fighting. It's only by good luck that the Pershing didn't get its full deployment. For a point of comparison, it's like if the war ended a month after the IS-2 was introduced.
-The M10, if judged by actions performed and not doctrinal role, was a HMC first and a GMC second.
-The T53 was a brilliant idea with idiotic execution. Gaijin plz
-The M3 Lee was the only US casemate tank of WW2. That should make you slightly sad.
-Most Americans study British tank design because it makes them feel better about US designs.
-Finding a good casemate design would have been tough, but the 5-inch/38 caliber would have made a mean bunker buster.
-for all of the flak that the 37mm gun in the Stuart gets, it was an exceptionally useful gun in WW1 for a reason. It had a good rate of fire and could decimate a machine gun nest. When you think about what a light tank has to do, that sounds just about perfect for the job.
-Take the T28/92: shave down the frontal armor to 3 inches, remove the transmission and install the T26 transmission, swap out the 105 for a 90mm T16 or even a 155, and what do you have? A 40-45 ton heavy tank destroyer or assault gun that has a number of redundant parts with existing tanks in the US arsenal.
-It would probably make a good academic journal article to explore the evolution of the Sherman's postwar legacy in popular culture. Did it, as most of us believe, truly only switch from war-winner to death trap in the late 90s, or did the popular narrative evolve more than that? Sadly the trend in academia still leans towards variations on "Sherman tank bad" or "Sherman tank good" with little else said on the matter
-The only reason the Sherman catches as much "flak" as it does is because it was expected to do everything. If the US had had a heavy tank going into D-day (i.e. a tank designed for breakthrough actions against heavily fortified enemies) then people would see the Sherman as simply another tool in the arsenal. In other words, the T-34 is judged by one standard because it operated in a system with KV and JS/IS heavy tanks and monstrous assault guns like the ISU-152. It was a component. But in the minds of many, the Sherman *was* the US system (tank destroyers are, as always, completely forgotten) and it's sadly judged by a far different standard.
-If the fact that in 1940 the US was building all of its tanks with aircraft engines isn't a statement about the US's interwar geopolitical interests, I don't know what is.
