Anzio and the K5E guns

@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.

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

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.

@all-encompassing-goose

Thank you for responding!

The Monster was not a tank-it was a planned self propelled gun, with the main gun being the Schver Gustav, the largest artillery piece ever, requiring 2000 people to use. It was only ever used as a railway gun. The Monster would have allowed it to move anywhere. This is why I did not put “tank” in the title.

Your post was awesome! Keep up the good work!

@abworsham4

Any of the Panzer aces-they truly destroyed a lot of tanks.

Seriously though, I would choose the Sturmtiger-I just find it interesting how it launches rocket propelled mortars rather than normal shells, even if the vehicle was never used as intended.

When I lived in Orange County Ca, I remember seeing the platforms for old ww2 anti air guns. Same on the “Queen Mary” docked there.

I think it’s correct in the game to have the guns. Because the nature of the game can cange the way the war really played out, america would have had many more batteries than it did based on the war. We did have anit air batteries but not even close to the amount in England.

For instance, in one of my games, my German airforce bombed the American fleet in the gulf of mexico. If Germany would have had long range bombers like the B-17 and/or carriers capable or bombing the East or West Coast, Americans response would naturally been to have more AA batteries. That’s merely my speculation though.

Yeah, but big guns are really cool, just like big trucks!