East Africa

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

That’s because each nation during WWII learned different lessons during that war. USSR build their tanks to be cheap because they know they will lose equipment and men. They accept that losing soldiers is going to happen so they tend to use numbers to gain the edge, however they haven’t needed to do this since WWII. The last tried this in Afgan and it didn’t work so well.

The US can’t take loses for $hit, so we try to destroy you from the air, far way, as fast as possible and units that are designed to be in your face while fighting are armored up.

What’s your web site.