severedDEATHelemental
severedDEATHelemental
Suicidesoldier#1
Fanatical Zealot
Heimdalr
Mega Noob
Suicidesoldier#1
Fanatical Zealot
Heimdalr
Mega Noob
Suicidesoldier#1
Fanatical Zealot
Exoth XIII
Eloquent Sophomore
8,975 Points
-
200
-
100
-
250
Suicidesoldier#1
Fanatical Zealot
Exoth XIII
Suicidesoldier#1
No, Hitler was stupid. He also handed out steroids to his troops which ultimately made them weaker.
Looking online, all I can find supporting this is rumor, which practically guarantees that, even if it was experimented with, use was not widespread.
Quote:
It's a guy who really didn't understand anything or think anything through.
He was a sociopath. They tend to think things through, they just don't take ethics into account. (Like I said, his biggest stupid move was engaging Russia.)
Quote:
Plus he could have redeemed the Jews and been like "If the Jews are good, perhaps they prove themselves..."
No. His power base relied on the assumption that the Germanic people needed to be united and purified, which meant eliminating Jews from the gene pool. Think about it this way; it'd be like Glenn Beck saying "maybe atheists aren't so bad." While it would be much more ethical than his present position, if he said it, every one of his dumbshit fans would leave him.
Quote:
Plus the Jews walked into the compound without fighting, they surely would have fought in the war.
They didn't go out of patriotism.
Quote:
As well, even from a full on blitzkreig strategy you can still be attacked at say, a 30 degree angle from a guy who isn't straight out in front of you- that means being attacked in your flank.
Because the allied forces were spread so thin, (albeit thicker than the German forces, across the line,) they weren't able to bring much flanking power to bear at the penetration zone, where german tanks were concentrated.
Quote:
Without any side armor our Bazookas could tear right through- infantry, with light weapons, could eat through tanks.
Yeah, only, they didn't, because they were too busy hiding from the concentrated artillery, and too busy fighting the germans in front of them, to engage the flanks of the penetrating force, which is why blitzkrieg strategies were so effective early in the war.
The Blitzkrieg strategy really didn't see many defeats, until the allies learned to position loads of anti-tank units near critical targets behind the battle lines.
Hell, they lost more tanks to lack of fuel than they did to flanking attacks.
Quote:
Also, plenty of people have made the assertion that Infantry have no place on a modern battlefield, and been proven wrong.
Naturally. That's very wrong.
Without infantry, the Germans would've been unable to set up a deceptively long battle screen. Their tanks are the crux of the strategy, but the soldiers were a prerequisite.
Quote:
Look at the terrorists- guerrilla warfare, no big tanks or nothing. But yet they wreak havoc- why?
They are humans. There is a lot humans can do, and guns don't make it any easier.
That's actually what I was trying to get across. Guerillas don't need the fanciest guns. They need good tactics, and money.
Quote:
robots to replace humans may be a good idea.
Nowhere near cost effective.
What we need is for someone to use our resources sensibly.
You assume robots will be expensive but with no real basis.
They would be cheaper than humans for sure- instantly trained, probably tougher, probably stronger, they make calculations so they'd be more accurate, etc. so that may end up with them being cheaper- plus a human life invaluable.
An invincible non-sleeping no food necessary relentless nigh unstoppable robot, even if we only have one, would be all that would be needed, practically like dropping an atom bomb.
Also price has no bearing on victory- once you win and take over the world who cares? O_o
And bliztking is the key point of almost any strategy except for attrition warfare, hitting them "hard and fast" is always the idea, it's just a matter of actually being able to do it. You might as well say "shoot them with guns". ******** fantastic, great strategy, I love this strategy, I'm all for it, question though- how do you plan on doing that, and with what gun? I mean it's just silly for that to be your only strategy.
The only way not having armor on the sides would work though is if all the tanks were side by side. Let me draw you a picture!
As you can see, even at a 15 degree angle from your target a panzer tank was ******** useless.
The fact of the matter is range, separation, and the fact that Shermans had a turret I.E. there gun wasn't just pointing out straight forward, meant that the Panzers had to move their entire tank in order to hit a target that wasn't right in front of them. What degree of sideways they had idk, but I'm pretty sure it was none. Howitzers, for instance, do this- they can afford to have bigger cannons, with longer ranges if they are stationary. But then you lose mobility. To send out a mobile tank that can't turn sideways? You might as well not be able to move at all, it's like being a sitting duck. Your enemy comes head first at you, you just flank them. They don't even have the ability to turn sideways- seriously. So they're just ********. I mean it takes them over a minute. So our tanks would be there, in coordinated efforts, and open fire- down they went. Holy hell, just being the second man down the line I.E. attacking the next one step over allowed you to hit the basically completely unprotected side. You didn't even need to flank them. Just by getting an angle on him from "the front" you could hit him.
Think about it this way- what's the advantage of ONE WALL? It needs to protect all sides or it's useless. A castle with one wall might as well have none. Great, a giant wall- oh I know, why don't I go around? I mean literally just a 30 degree angle on it and blam, you've gotten around it if you shoot bombs over it- even with a bow and arrow you basically see most people behind the wall. It's a no brainier. And then you can shoot over it, under it, around it, etc.
Plus the treads weren't protected at all, so you could stop a tank from getting somewhere and doing damage, you might as well destroyed it. They were just giant piles of crap. It's the stupidest strategy a person can have. Even if you are fighting your enemy from in front you can see how just a 30 degree angle gets you where you need to take such a tank down, and these tanks DID NOT have turrets so if you were spread out right, you wouldn't even get hit by them. It's ludicrous to have a tank like a panzer. All you need is a properly staggered group and a panzer is dead. ._.
Exoth XIII
Eloquent Sophomore
8,975 Points
-
200
-
100
-
250
Suicidesoldier#1
You assume robots will be expensive but with no real basis.
A robot capable of taking on the tasks of a soldier? You're shitting me.
Here's my basis; I'm an engineering major. I know what it costs to design and build things. Making a robot to do one task over and over again, that costs a lot, but less than what the human equivalent would be payed over the robot's lifetime.
A soldier bot, though...
Quote:
plus a human life invaluable.
That's a fine ideal until you start shelling out trillions of dollars, which hurts those back home. (Which is everyone, since you no longer have soldiers out there.)
Quote:
An invincible non-sleeping no food necessary relentless nigh unstoppable robot, even if we only have one, would be all that would be needed, practically like dropping an atom bomb.
Nigh unstoppable?
You're not familiar with robotics, are you?
Quote:
And bliztking is the key point of almost any strategy except for attrition warfare, hitting them "hard and fast" is always the idea, it's just a matter of actually being able to do it.
I know I explained to you that there was more to it than "hard and fast." I know I did.
Look up "schwerpunkt."
Quote:
As you can see, even at a 15 degree angle from your target a panzer tank was ******** useless.
Which is why they're designed for penetration, not long term engagements.
Seriously, I know I've explained it to you before.
Artillery and bombers would punch a hole at a critical point in the allied line, where all of the german tanks were concentrated. The allied flanking forces would frequently NOT NOTICE the penetrating forces, because they were entangled with the rest of the front.
Once the penetrating force secured or destroyed their objective, they would turn around, and hit the allied forces from the rear, surrounding and obliterating them.
As I said, the allies beat this strategy by placing anti-tank units close to critical structures, because that's the only time in the battle where they would even know where the penetrating force will hit them.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is range, separation, and the fact that Shermans had a turret I.E. there gun wasn't just pointing out straight forward, meant that the Panzers had to move their entire tank in order to hit a target that wasn't right in front of them.
You're still not getting it.
In the blitzkrieg strategy, the panzers NEVER face an enemy that isn't directly in front of them, so the ability to turn is irrelevant.
Quote:
Your enemy comes head first at you, you just flank them.
The allied forces at the penetration point were too busy facing the concentrated force of their entire attack to figure out to flank them.
Hypothetically, even if they DID try these tactics, because the german mobile forces were concentrated at one point, they'd have the numbers to get through anyway. They'd take losses, sure, but nowhere near as much as the allies would take when they turn around and hit them with the kettle pot.
Quote:
coordinated efforts,
Stop right there.
They didn't have satellite, they only had radio reports. They wouldn't know where the penetration point would be until it was too late. It was impossible to bring a concentrated effort against the german penetration, which was the entire point.
Quote:
Holy hell, just being the second man down the line I.E. attacking the next one step over allowed you to hit the basically completely unprotected side. You didn't even need to flank them. Just by getting an angle on him from "the front" you could hit him.
Except that the "second man" was too busy getting exploded by the heavy artillery fire, and the shots from the many tanks backing that "front guy" up.
See, the point of the schwerpunkt was, at that one point in the battle line, you GREATLY outnumber your enemy. Think of it as "heavily focused shock and awe tactics."
Quote:
A castle with one wall might as well have none.
Castles don't move.
They're also a single target.
Quote:
Plus the treads weren't protected at all, so you could stop a tank from getting somewhere and doing damage, you might as well destroyed it.
Which is why, before the allies started hedgehogging, the only time the blitzkrieg ever lost, was when some dumbass general tried running tanks through mud.
Suicidesoldier#1
Fanatical Zealot
Exoth XIII
Suicidesoldier#1
You assume robots will be expensive but with no real basis.
A robot capable of taking on the tasks of a soldier? You're shitting me.
Here's my basis; I'm an engineering major. I know what it costs to design and build things. Making a robot to do one task over and over again, that costs a lot, but less than what the human equivalent would be payed over the robot's lifetime.
A soldier bot, though...
Quote:
plus a human life invaluable.
That's a fine ideal until you start shelling out trillions of dollars, which hurts those back home. (Which is everyone, since you no longer have soldiers out there.)
Quote:
An invincible non-sleeping no food necessary relentless nigh unstoppable robot, even if we only have one, would be all that would be needed, practically like dropping an atom bomb.
Nigh unstoppable?
You're not familiar with robotics, are you?
Quote:
And bliztking is the key point of almost any strategy except for attrition warfare, hitting them "hard and fast" is always the idea, it's just a matter of actually being able to do it.
I know I explained to you that there was more to it than "hard and fast." I know I did.
Look up "schwerpunkt."
Quote:
As you can see, even at a 15 degree angle from your target a panzer tank was ******** useless.
Which is why they're designed for penetration, not long term engagements.
Seriously, I know I've explained it to you before.
Artillery and bombers would punch a hole at a critical point in the allied line, where all of the german tanks were concentrated. The allied flanking forces would frequently NOT NOTICE the penetrating forces, because they were entangled with the rest of the front.
Once the penetrating force secured or destroyed their objective, they would turn around, and hit the allied forces from the rear, surrounding and obliterating them.
As I said, the allies beat this strategy by placing anti-tank units close to critical structures, because that's the only time in the battle where they would even know where the penetrating force will hit them.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is range, separation, and the fact that Shermans had a turret I.E. there gun wasn't just pointing out straight forward, meant that the Panzers had to move their entire tank in order to hit a target that wasn't right in front of them.
You're still not getting it.
In the blitzkrieg strategy, the panzers NEVER face an enemy that isn't directly in front of them, so the ability to turn is irrelevant.
Quote:
Your enemy comes head first at you, you just flank them.
The allied forces at the penetration point were too busy facing the concentrated force of their entire attack to figure out to flank them.
Hypothetically, even if they DID try these tactics, because the german mobile forces were concentrated at one point, they'd have the numbers to get through anyway. They'd take losses, sure, but nowhere near as much as the allies would take when they turn around and hit them with the kettle pot.
Quote:
coordinated efforts,
Stop right there.
They didn't have satellite, they only had radio reports. They wouldn't know where the penetration point would be until it was too late. It was impossible to bring a concentrated effort against the german penetration, which was the entire point.
Quote:
Holy hell, just being the second man down the line I.E. attacking the next one step over allowed you to hit the basically completely unprotected side. You didn't even need to flank them. Just by getting an angle on him from "the front" you could hit him.
Except that the "second man" was too busy getting exploded by the heavy artillery fire, and the shots from the many tanks backing that "front guy" up.
See, the point of the schwerpunkt was, at that one point in the battle line, you GREATLY outnumber your enemy. Think of it as "heavily focused shock and awe tactics."
Quote:
A castle with one wall might as well have none.
Castles don't move.
They're also a single target.
Quote:
Plus the treads weren't protected at all, so you could stop a tank from getting somewhere and doing damage, you might as well destroyed it.
Which is why, before the allies started hedgehogging, the only time the blitzkrieg ever lost, was when some dumbass general tried running tanks through mud.
Actually patton did rigorous drills to make sure everyone was perfectly coordinated. Even if it meant death you were expected to stay in your position as a part of your strategy.
The worst thing ever to most soldiers was when the first tank in a line of 300 got hit- they were ordered to move forwards and ignore him sense it would take too much time to help him. Eventually they fired upon the other tank and a rescue team was sent after the downed tank but they said the worst thing in the world was driving past their fellow man, in a burning tank, and not doing anything to help them.
That's how rigorous his plans were. Mass coordinated efforts with radio and tons of discipline, a lot of times predicting what his enemy would do.
But it's obvious to see how a staggered column of tanks would have a group of panzers beat. AGAIN, even if you are attacking an enemy "from the front" a 30 degree angle would give you off.
I mean I even drew a picture.
Staggered columns = dead enemy german tanks. I mean fo realsz. Even if they attack you "from the front" they will still be a little off. The best way to think of it is unless a panzer faced an enemy tank at a perfect 90 degree angle they'd lose, which means like every time.
And planning only for a single event?
That's incredibly stupid. Your super expensive mega hard to make tank that could be easily flanked is somehow going to beat 5 times as many Shermans that can be made 3 times as fast despite the fact it has no flanking ability? I mean it might as well been a glass cannon. What's the point of putting all that defense into a tank that can't even face the enemy unless it's at a perfect 90 degree angle?
It's ludicrous.
Even if only facing the enemy WAS necessary why not make a tank that could be good in every situation- it's really quite stupid, and it in large part cost them the war.
As far as robots go, let's say we made a 10 million dollar super robot that had like, idk, body armor on it and stuff- 2000 pounds worth of A grade vanadium steel. Apache helicopters are like twice that and we have thousands.
If it didn't need tons of maintenance and could go into places humans can hide that planes and tanks usually have trouble with what would be the problem? I mean there wouldn't be anything but like, tanks that could stop it. Practically invincible to small arms fire. Plus a person could be controlling it from far away eliminating that whole issue of human like robit brains.
Exoth XIII
Eloquent Sophomore
8,975 Points
-
200
-
100
-
250
Suicidesoldier#1
Actually patton did rigorous drills to make sure everyone was perfectly coordinated. Even if it meant death you were expected to stay in your position as a part of your strategy.
That's cool. He wasn't in Europe for the blitzkrieg.
Quote:
But it's obvious to see how a staggered column of tanks would have a group of panzers beat.
I mean I even drew a picture.
It occurs to me that you might need a visual presentation of how a blitzkrieg actually works; your pictures seemed to reflect a 1:1 tank ratio at the penetration point, with no support. Here's a simplified version of the blitzkrieg strategy:
Germans red, allies blue.
The germans would use infantry to draw out a lengthy battle line. The allies would distribute their forces along this line, to avoid giving the germans an opening. As you can see, though, the germans have concetrated their tanks and artillery at a single point. This makes them weak along the battle line, but very strong at that one point.
Before their tanks engage, they would weaken the allies at that one point, using concentrated artillery fire, and close air support, with the result...
That the tanks steamroll right over them. The flanks are too preoccupied with the concentrated artillery bombardment to counterattack. This is the "shock and awe" part of the attack.
While the allied forces are busy fighting along the battle line, (usually doing well, since the german battle lines are weakened from donating so much power to the penetration,) the german tanks are securing their objective.
Once the mission is accomplished, the germans would sweep the penetration forces into a pincer attack, doing heavy damage.
Once the allied line is broken, they would surround and eliminate, in what they called a "kettle pot." This is where the allies took the heaviest losses.
And that's how blitzkrieg works.
Now, if you have a clever general, who can figure out the mission objective, he can station antitank units there. He can't stop the germans from penetrating, but he can eliminate their penetrating forces, like so:
This strategy was known as "hedgehogging," and was the most effective counter to the blitzkrieg.
Quote:
And planning only for a single event?
The tank is designed for a single strategy, that generals implemented over and over. It was good at what it did.
Quote:
What's the point of putting all that defense into a tank that can't even face the enemy unless it's at a perfect 90 degree angle?
Penetration. The tank is only supposed to engage enemies right in front of it.
Quote:
Even if only facing the enemy WAS necessary why not make a tank that could be good in every situation
Cost. That was, by and large, why the germans lost; lack of resources.
Quote:
As far as robots go, let's say we made a 10 million dollar super robot that had like, idk, body armor on it and stuff- 2000 pounds worth of A grade vanadium steel. Apache helicopters are like twice that and we have thousands.
Apache helecopters provide tons of useful intel, and can make precise anti-infantry strikes while they're at it. Each apache is more useful than 100 units of robotic infantry.
Quote:
If it didn't need tons of maintenance
Ha.
Quote:
and could go into places humans can hide that planes and tanks usually have trouble with what would be the problem?
Soldiers are more adaptable, cost a whole lot less, and can still go all those places.
Quote:
I mean there wouldn't be anything but like, tanks that could stop it.
Except armor piercing IEDs, possibly electromagnetic pulses, anti-tank weapons, quicksand, pits, traps involving large weights... I can think of a million ways to take down your ten million dollar robot that would cost under $100.
Quote:
Practically invincible to small arms fire. Plus a person could be controlling it from far away eliminating that whole issue of human like robit brains.
Remote controls have lag time. Don't put 'em too far away.
Suicidesoldier#1
Fanatical Zealot
Exoth XIII
Eloquent Sophomore
8,975 Points
-
200
-
100
-
250
Suicidesoldier#1
Fanatical Zealot