Sealion?

[Magpie_Oz]

Has anyone ever surpassed Napoleon's armies? Especially the uniforms of the marshals and generals.

Nancy boys.

On that, interesting to note that SS uniforms are popular with the Gay community, those guys certainly have an eye for fashion.

[Erwin]

"Has anyone ever surpassed Napoleon's armies?"

Most tinpot dictators seem to put a lot of effort in this area: Gadhaffi etc.

[Vark]

Panther versus Tiger for modernity, sorry case closed. Take a close look, without the menace factor and other psychological baggage and you have a 1920's build. Centurion looked dated the moment it came off the production line, (in the 67 War the Super Shermans looked more modern) as did the Chieftain, remember this is not a debate about effectiveness but aestheticism and modernity, two things British AFV designs often failed on. If slab sidedness is the benchmark for modernity, what about the king of the 90 degree angle the Cromwell? No, slope equals sexy, modern, look at the S tank so sloped it was virtually flat, look at the Jagdpanther, hell it go on the set of any Star Wars movie and not look out of place (probably would have made the Imperial forces more effective!)

As for the modern MBT, products of CAD, so they will that residue of high technology, whatever the design, that and the composite materials for the armour (no weld marks, seemless, and sleek) and all the electronic gizmos.

You might wear a Hugo Boss uniform, but it's covered in ancient webbing, you are wearing jackboots, hold a Kar 98K and throwing stick grenades! Sorry you are from the past, snazzy, but out dated. Compare that to the US GI, semi-auto rifle, modern webbing, a canteen kit still used today and possibly holding a portable radio (hand portable, not the German, two part, bedroom furniture variety). Oh, and that horse drawn wagon does let the side down a bit, compared to a Deuce and a half.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

You might wear a Hugo Boss uniform, but it's covered in ancient webbing, you are wearing jackboots, hold a Kar 98K and throwing stick grenades! Sorry you are from the past, snazzy, but out dated. Compare that to the US GI, semi-auto rifle, modern webbing, a canteen kit still used today and possibly holding a portable radio (hand portable, not the German, two part, bedroom furniture variety). Oh, and that horse drawn wagon does let the side down a bit, compared to a Deuce and a half.

Well, no one side had the monopoly on what was modern and effective in terms of kit and weapons. I could counter your point above with the comparison of readily portable machineguns of the US compared with Germany. You have the WW I style water cooled M1917 Browning HMG or air cooled Browning MMG equivalent with no quick change barrel versus the MG 42 with its quick change barrel, relatively light tripod, excellent accuracy and ability to double as either an lmg or a proper HMG. Still used today with virtually no modifications, as the MG 3.

The only thing we may agree on is that the British army always seemed to have the dowdy, outdated looking gear throughout the war. What with tank destroyers that had the gun facing backwards, Marmon Harrington armoured cars, Churchill tanks, drab khaki uniforms etc, etc they always looked like the Steptoe & Sons of WW II. The only item I can readily think of that looked the part was the Comet tank. That was sexy in the best Tiger tank tradition!

Regards

KR

[Vark]

Sometimes it is a bit of a shock to see how archaic looking some of the early war (through the end of '42 at least) vehicles and equipment are.

This is what I responded to, looks, not the efficacy of the kit, gosh some people are so defensive if you dare to suggest German equipment was not the best. Yes, the MG-42 looks modern, but if the schlub behind the trigger looks of Great War stock, it somewhat detracts from the look of snazzy modernity. Compare a GI with WWI vintage BAR, but kitted out in modern webbing and modern uniform and the BAR's, by osmosis, becomes retro, not archaic.

As for Brits, their standard battledress had a untilitarian, subdued design, thus avoiding the archaic look. Their webbing looked modern, but that helmet, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Even covered in scrim it looks positively ancient. The para smock though looks modern, even now, and berets are timeless (the rimless helmet still holds its own, even now).

Tanks, yes, the Pharonic chariots, recovered from tombs look more modern, compared to a Universal carrier, Matilda, A10, Crusader and Valentine. Strange that some of their aircraft were the height of modern design.

[wombat_of_war]

This is what I responded to, looks, not the efficacy of the kit, gosh some people are so defensive if you dare to suggest German equipment was not the best. Yes, the MG-42 looks modern, but if the schlub behind the trigger looks of Great War stock, it somewhat detracts from the look of snazzy modernity. Compare a GI with WWI vintage BAR, but kitted out in modern webbing and modern uniform and the BAR's, by osmosis, becomes retro, not archaic.

As for Brits, their standard battledress had a untilitarian, subdued design, thus avoiding the archaic look. Their webbing looked modern, but that helmet, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Even covered in scrim it looks positively ancient. The para smock though looks modern, even now, and berets are timeless (the rimless helmet still holds its own, even now).

Tanks, yes, the Pharonic chariots, recovered from tombs look more modern, compared to a Universal carrier, Matilda, A10, Crusader and Valentine. Strange that some of their aircraft were the height of modern design.

well the british helmet not only looks ancient it is an ancient design, the ww1 british wouldnt look out of place on a 12th century battlefield.

[TrailApe]

What with tank destroyers that had the gun facing backwards

Are you referring to the Archer?

If so, you have the wrong idea of what that particular vehicle was designed to do.

It was purely a means of getting a 17lber deployed quickly - hence it being manned by RA.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

As far as I can tell, the Archer was still classed as a Tank Destroyer yet it was the only one in that class across all nations that had the main gun facing to the rear of the chasis. Just because Royal Artillery personnel manned the thing doesn't excuse it from being of a design that could be useful in a scrape if ambushed.

I don't see any Stugs or Marders with backward facing guns in the Axis inventory yet they were manned by artillery personnel as well. I'm sorry, the Archer was just a pure stop gap hybrid design thrown together in what looks like a weekend of slap dash design work.

Regards

KR

[JonS]

Sweet gun on it, but.

Edit:

the Archer was still classed as a Tank Destroyer

who classed it as a Tank Destroyer?

a pure stop gap hybrid design thrown together in what looks like a weekend of slap dash design work.

[psst]Panzerjager I, 15cm sIG33 auf Panzer 1, Diana, S307(f) Vielfachwerfer, Marder, S307(f) (PaK40), Nashorn, Hetzer, 7.5cm (sf) 39H, 10.5cm (sf) 39H[/psst]

[LukeFF]

Hmm, but what about the Soviet weapons and infantry gear? Sure, we all know about the T-34, but I honestly know little about how good their uniforms and webbing were.

As for their guns: well, the M91/30 could double as a telephone pole, but the M38 and M44 are very handy carbines. The PPSh-41 seems to have been the best SMG of the war, and the DP-27 seems like it was a fairly decent design.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Sweet gun on it, but.

Edit:

who classed it as a Tank Destroyer?

Me. It may have officially been classed as a self propelled gun but the gun on it was most definitely designed from the ground up to defeat well armoured threats, hence my classification as a Tank destroyer. I also note that Wikipedia refers to it as a Tank Destroyer. Refer link- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_(tank_destroyer)

[psst]Panzerjager I, 15cm sIG33 auf Panzer 1, Diana, S307(f) Vielfachwerfer, Marder, S307(f) (PaK40), Nashorn, Hetzer, 7.5cm (sf) 39H, 10.5cm (sf) 39H[/psst]

Maybe so but most of the examples you've given were local conversions numbering very few in total. The so called common ones being the PzJg I & Nashorn at least mounted forward facing guns and still both of their numbers combined doesn't match the number of Archers built. Also, the Nashorn was around in mid 1943 while the half baked Archer didn't make its debut until October 1944!

Regards

KR

[JonS]

From the Wiki article you linked to:

The Archer was classified as a self-propelled gun

You can, however, call it what you will. But there is a difference between a self-propelled gun and a tank destroyer.

From the same article:

Production started in mid 1943

Overall, the Brits builts a vehicle that mounted the best anti-tank gun of the war on an otherwise obsolete chassis, and in the process created a rather effective SPG. Well done them.

[ZPB II]

The PPSh-41 seems to have been the best SMG of the war

That title belongs to the Suomi SMG.

[GreenAsJade]

I want a Schwimmpanzer! The CMBN replacement for Assault Boats!

[Michael Emrys]

I'm sorry, the Archer was just a pure stop gap hybrid design thrown together in what looks like a weekend of slap dash design work.

Given that it was primarily intended to fire from ambush and then make a getaway, I don't see the rearward facing gun as a great handicap. Granted, that locks it into a specialized niche, but it definitely had its use. Stopgap it surely was, but it was far from the only one in the war.

Michael

[TrailApe]

the main gun facing to the rear of the chasis.

So then, you immedeately put all towed anti-tank guns into the category - 'Guns Facing Wrong Way When Travelling' and therefore badly designed.

Just because it was mounted on an tracked chassis and had a big A/T gun on it doesn't mean it was meant to operate in the role that you think it should perform.

The concept was to be able to deploy a 17lber in the anti tank role more quickly than the towed gun with the added benefit of better cross country performance.

The gun could not be fired when the driver was in situ (the drivers head would occupy the same space as the breachblock) So forget jadgpanzer and think of a towed anti-tank gun without the prime mover.

The CM1 Archer tactic of 'reverse to contact' is not really a viable option.

The way it was used in real life was to follow up on the infantry assault, and once the objective was taken, move in and deploy, thus adding a good wallop to the 6lbers of the infantry. If you get rid of any preconceptions of tracks+gun=tank then the Archer is a pragmatic solution for deploying a good A/T piece with the minimum of fuss.