buddy Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Just read the book - basically one guys memories of his WW2 experience from an infantryman's point of view... He seemed to be very critical of armor - said they basically arrived late all the time and didn't offer as much support as needed. The only reason I bring this up is I use my armor in conjunction with my infantry usually, and I wonder if this is the way most players do it? Also, do you think it was just this guys experience or more commonplace for armor to hang around until it was a bit more safer to come onto the scene? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 I usually have the infantry lead because tanks are too easy to kill with hidden weapons. Once I've identified the enemy positions I move the tanks into the safest possible location and begin blasting. You have to be super careful with Allied tanks because just about anything the Germans have can destroy them. I usually employ American armor from behind the infantry and in covered positions. The German tanks are more useful because some of them can be moved into the open as long as the front armor is facing the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Well, if you read the oral histroies of armor units like the 32t5th and 761 you find out they thought many Infantry units came late and never supported them in attack, allowing German infantry to bust them up, while the TD guys thought the tankers were wimps because they ran away and hated supporting infantry.... I am not saying that the author of "Roll Me Over" (Gantner or something like that) is wrong, just that it seems lots of people were critical of other units functioning. Watch Kelly's Heroes sometime, the director was an Infantryman in World War Two in the 35th Infantry Division and the movie is his feelings about how the war was run expressed on celliod (or DVD as the case may be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesreidau Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 Just finished that book myself Buddy, damn good account. Seems the armour attached to his unit wasn`t competently led eh? Really gives `em a slating.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 9, 2001 Share Posted January 9, 2001 You've always got to be aware of an author's point of view. Armor is not going to like the legs, the legs the armor. Gets even worse when you talk about different branches of the service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraGoon Posted January 10, 2001 Share Posted January 10, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: You've always got to be aware of an author's point of view. Armor is not going to like the legs, the legs the armor. Gets even worse when you talk about different branches of the service.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Amen to that. ! DG ------------------ Remember: Always end your lay in elevation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted January 10, 2001 Share Posted January 10, 2001 Amen. This sort of thing has to be taken with a grain of salt. It reminds me of after-action reports from the WW II Pacific naval battles -- in which each side would praise the quality of the other's flashless powder while bemoaning the flash from its own. There much about the eye of the beholder here. And Wilson, in "If You Survive", has some good things to say about armor support, IIRC. ------------------ Also los, Augen zu, und hinein! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts