If I was going into Tank on Tank combat I’m taking the M4 Sherman. Better sights, better visibility, an actual turret basket, better ergonomics, better mechanical reliability, and with the 76mm variant a very capable anti armor gun. As well as far more reliable armor due to high production quality standards. The M4 armor is reliable face hardened. The T34 could be correctly hardened, too hard so that it’s brittle or too soft.

If I was trying to drive a tank to get into a fight, the M4 is the obvious choice due to the much better reliability.

If I had to pick a tank to work on. M4 again due to its easy to repair design.

If I wanted to drive a comfortable tank well that’s no contest it’s the M4. Also it’s an easier to drive tank due to the vastly superior production quality.

So the M4 is a vastly superior weapons platform the only reason they seem comparable is on paper armor thickness and gun. Off of paper they aren’t close. Like pretty much all Russian military equipment they seem intimidating but ultimately are trash. Like how the T 72 got smashed by the M2 bradely and infantry fighting vehicle not even a tank.

@SuperbattleshipYamato hard to argue against any of this really. The IJN was so far gone by this point in the war that there’s not really much they could have done to salvage their situation one way or another. The bit about the allies not having many LSTs in general is something I never knew before though.

@SuperbattleshipYamato Yeah I get you 100%. Alternate History is a niche interest in the first place so finding other people willing to go down the rabbit hole is always tough.

I was reading this document (https://history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-20/CMH_Pub_104-20.pdf) which counted the Panzer 1 as a tankette. Do any of you think this is a better description for the vehicle than a light tank? It’s not much heavier than some Japanese tankettes and its armament and crew size is certainly similar.

This is the first time I’ve heard of classifying the vehicle as a tankette, which is why I find it noteworthy.

@Coldwarrior1984

Reading this, I feel strongly you’re confused about the nature of the German defenses in Normandy. In combination, I feel you are overestimating the Allies ability to place smoke as precisely and in the quantity that would have been required to have a chance to accomplish the goal you lay out. I also feel you’re overestimating the effectiveness of smoke even if I grant that none of the above was an issue.

I’ve been to Normandy three times with tour guides. I’ve read everything from Ambrose and Osprey on Overlord. I’m tempted to repeat my initial post about why you don’t hear or see this tactic being performed en masse in the many assaults in the Pacific or Mediterranean.

I’ll just sum this up and say that the German fighting positions were not composed primarily of Saving Private Ryan style bunkers but widerstandsnest with Tobruks across so much acreage that a simultaneous precision smoke affect against all of them for the required time to get everyone ashore is less realistic that just a mass smoke bombardment of the beach area.

@ABWorsham4

Curious. Would’ve been a complicated air operation, given that escorting aircraft may have had to come from carriers. Then again, the Western Allies ruled the skies.

The success would’ve depended on whether the Italian government collapsed (Mussolini and the facists overthrown) and the army would’ve defected as quickly and massive as they did following the invasion of Sicily. If a substantial number were at least disarmed, it’s quite possible enough Allied troops could’ve been ferried into Italian ports to hold against an expected German counterattack.

While I don’t think the Allies would’ve reached the Italian-Yugoslavian or Italian-German borders, they may have reached what would become the Gothic Line by early 1944. Just making probable estimates, I did not look this in detail.

Today or yesterday (depending on where you live) was the 80th anniversary of the Battle of the Phillipine Sea.

When the US landed in Saipan, the Japanese responded with a massive carrier attack (supported by aircraft from land bases), the first major Japanese carrier operation in a year and a half. Numerically, at least, this was the largest Japanese carrier force ever committed to battle and was faced by the largest and most powerful fleet ever put together in the history of warfare up to that point, America’s Fast Carrier Task Force.

Due to the sharp decline of Japanese pilot quality and a massive technological and numerical advantage from the American side, the Japanese 1st Mobile Fleet was dealt a giant defeat, losing 3 carriers and irreverisble numbers of aircraft for essentially no results.

The battle saw the combat debut of Admiral Jisaburo Ozawa, arguablly one of the best Japanese carrier commanders, in command of a major Japanese carrier force. Previously Ozawa commanded various fleets and formations containing carriers, but never the Kido Butai (or its successor, the 1st Mobile Fleet) in combat.

)89f8de53-eb0c-4026-990b-e3b6aca4969f-image.jpeg

@Witt

Thank you so much! I appreciate your input.

@ABWorsham4

Hi AB

Started Forsyth The Fox a few weeks ago. Only about an hour in. Triplea keeping me busy and hockey playoffs going now, so be a bit before i finish it :)

The US ‘Ghost Army’ was a unit specialized in deception: by building and operating mockups, they gave the Germans the impression of being a large army, drawing the enemy’s attention away from actual operations. They famously participated in Operation Fortitude in 1944, aimed at leading the Germans to believe that the allied invasion would occur somewhere else than it actually did. Later, they transferred to mainland Europe and continued to mislead the enemy.

Surviving veterans have now finally received their well-earned decorations.

@ABWorsham4 probably still scared the starving civilians , carrying rifles and 2 bullets each, half to death at the time though .

For me, it would depend on if I was the pilot, or the air marshall…

Pilot - BF109. The later spits outperformed the later bf’s, but 1940, in a straight dogfight, the 109.

BUT…
If I was looking at it and commanding at the high level, the hurricane. Easy to fix, easy to produce, fast turn around for reload/refuel, easier to train on, fighting over your own territory with a full tank. Yep - the hurricane.

@ABWorsham4

Thank you.

👍👍

@ABWorsham4

Thanks for letting me know. I was considering watching it, but now I’m scratching that off my list of things to watch. Now I feel bad for Leslie Odom Junior for doing this.

@ABWorsham4

👍👍

@barnee

Bit late, but seconded.

This year was its 82nd anniversary.

@ABWorsham4

Iowa’s faster and outranges the, hypothetically (not including fire control) Iowa can take out a ton before it runs out of ammunition.

If they’re fighting close Iowa losing to 8 pre dreadnoughts with 14 inchers sounds right. 👍

For those who don’t know, Shinano was originally planned as a Japanese Yamato class battleship. However, midway through construction Japan decided to convert it into a carrier.

Not an aircraft carrier though, a “support carrier” which would only carry 47 aircraft for self defense but held almost a hundred more aircraft as spares and many supplies to support the actual fleet carriers on extended operations. It was sunk by a US submarine in 1944.

Another such support carrier actually did exist, the HMS Unicorn.

What if the Shinano was converted into an actual fleet carrier though? It takes space to house not just replacement aircraft, but additional pilots, mechanics, etc.

So Shinano probably wouldn’t have been able to carry the 120 aircraft it theoretically could’ve. But it still probably would’ve carried a lot of aircraft owing to its size.

The question is, how much? I look forward to your responses!