Fredi

Just wanted to say "wow".. no more politics eh? or did that get moved to some other place? There used to be a place for those seriously pro ami's to voice their opinions.

Interesting discussion sofar. Got me thinking about my own real life experiences.. Does anyone know if either side in ww2 ever used delay fuses for their tanks HE-rounds? I was a tank commander in the military and we were taught to(ideally) set the timer on the HE when dealing with trenches and "reverse slopes". Together with our tanks speedy auto-loader, this meant we were fairly effective artillery units as well as mbt's. We were effective with indirect fire out to 6000m with onboard equipment but could extend that with some help from the local arty guys. Our guns fired 105mm shells and the effect from the HE blast was less than impressive(damn hollywood), so I have no problem believing that 155mm or better is needed to really destroy something(trenches in this case).

This has been very interesting but I'm no longer sure what this discussion is about really.. I am convinced that the Germans had a doctrine for fighting with mounted infantry well before the war. Guderian probably thought it would be nice to have fast moving armored infantry in his blitzkrieg.. However, having a doctrine does not mean it is your only means of operation. They probably had plenty of doctrines and used what the situation required. I also suspect economy and battlefield reality played a major part. AFV's are precious and if you attack with them, they will get knocked out unless they are heavily supported. So.. the Germans adapted to circumstances, a thing they proved to be masters of. I personally believe the doctrine is solid but that it needs the added firepower of modern fully stabilized cannons to work. And even now I wouldn't recommend it for assaults, merely for advancement.

Umm I am quite certain that I was successfull when I used Windows movie maker to combine .wmv clips into one movie. It will only handle wmv clips though so you need to convert them all into that before combining. Everyone say: Thank you M$ for your greed and position of monopoly. <lots of profanities>

Yeah, fanaticism does not in any way resemble being beserk. I'd describe fanaticism as determination beyond selfpreservation. Beserk is just.. cavemen on steroids.

Which statement do you mean? In mountainous terrain with limitied mobility, an AT-gun would be cheaper and preferable. Whether tanks are too numerous just do the math.. I havent counted them but the Germans fielded maybe a couple thousand tanks at any time. This compared to a couple million infantry soldiers. You might argue that the tanks were always at the front though.. Either way I dont care since I like tanks

Depending on the battlefield circumstances, you may be right. When I was a tanker in the army we abstractly described a tank as a triangle with each point representing in turn, firepower, protection and mobility. The area or "sum" of the triangle was its effectiveness. On top of that you would apply battlefield tactics to make up for any shortcomings or to improve your strong points. So yes, its alot about tank technology, but battlefield tactics can help overcome or improve the odds. Consider the invasion of France in 1940 where the German tanks were inferior to those of the enemy but still won the day due to tactics(and some strategy heh). Also consider "Die Maus" with heavy armor and armament but almost no mobility which meant it was probably about as useful as a pillbox...