Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
V44, Infantry Fighting Vehicle
Indeed, the 20mm is meant to be the main gun with the 100mm mortar being only for anti-concentration/fortification use. This would be similar to the original design for the M3 Lee, but... you know... with things working as intended.
The speed is the same as the M18 Hellcat but with a better PWR than the Hellcat. For most basic figures, I use Tanksharp, then downgrade whatever it spits out to be lower than similar historical vehicles in the same time frame.
I am a bit uncomfortable with this design, but would like to hear others opinions before continuing to discuss it.Indeed, the 20mm is meant to be the main gun with the 100mm mortar being only for anti-concentration/fortification use. This would be similar to the original design for the M3 Lee, but... you know... with things working as intended.
The speed is the same as the M18 Hellcat but with a better PWR than the Hellcat. For most basic figures, I use Tanksharp, then downgrade whatever it spits out to be lower than similar historical vehicles in the same time frame.
Quoted
I would like to see some more information on the background of this vehicle, and how the Danish Army reached its conclusions on the need for such. Given Denmark's likely opponents in any ground combat scenario, it seems overly aggressive and almost improbable.
That is why the Danish army is a "paper army". It may have fielded gear on par or more advanced than the Great Powers, but the force structure is severely understaffed as you recall. Looking at the "Danish Army" as detailed in the encyclopedia, I got the impression that few units had more than a handful of any of the Danish gear. This results in what I would call a "prestige army".I don't see how you can look back on the previous Danish Army developments and conclude it is "underfunded." They've consistently fielded home-designed gear which is on par with (and sometimes more advanced than) the Great Powers, equipping a large percentage of their ground forces.
I disagree. Half-tracks have poorer cross-terrain mobility and are more mechanically complicated as it comprised of two systems in one chassis. The benefit of the half-track as manifested in fuel economy is unnecessary since it is to be attached to armored elements, which invariably have less range than half-tracks. That additional range is therefore wasted. The answer to the maintenance and service life issue come down to the capabilities gained. In this case, I believe the tracked vehicle offers sufficiently better operational capability such that the additional cost is worth the price tag.I think Denmark's current line of half-track vehicles will be far superior, since they'll have better fuel economy, easier maintenance, a longer service life, etc.
The Airforce is to paralyze enemy movements by complete air superiority, thereby limiting enemy tactical/operational information.
The "Fluid Battle" doctrine assumes a clear advantage in information and flexibility over the enemy, and the force structure reflects this fundamental requirement.
Have you looked at the size disparity of the Heer versus the Danish Army? In the event of a conflict between Germany and Denmark I seriously doubt that the Danish Army would have a change of attaining the "deep penetration" it seeks, given the preponderance of German mobile forces, German air superiority and the extremely narrow front upon which operations would take place.
Why not? I agree with the airforce point, but all doctrines have their flaws and unanswered questions. I do not intend the "Fluid Battle" doctrine to be the holy grail. Without direct testing in battle, it is merely theoretical. For example, AirLand Battle never dealt with the question of significant enemy reserve forces.The Airforce is to paralyze enemy movements by complete air superiority, thereby limiting enemy tactical/operational information.These are critical assumptions I don't believe you can reasonably make.The "Fluid Battle" doctrine assumes a clear advantage in information and flexibility over the enemy, and the force structure reflects this fundamental requirement.
I pondered these questions myself, playing Romania and bordering a behemoth. My thoughts were;
...
1-4 and 6 probably apply in Denmark's situation. 5 is where I think your going off a bit, you have the right idea in trying to make yourself an expensive morsel but I don't think Elastic Defense is the way to do it.
If you want to make an expensive morsel, dig a big ditch both wide and steep with no bridges across the breadth of Jutland, bordering Germany, build some fortifications that make the Maginot Line look like a child's sand castle behind that, ring them with enough AA to make an Eben Emael a nasty proposition, and repeat the same on any airfield in Denmark with enough artillery emplaced to make any Paratroop or glider landing an expensive undertaking. Do the same with all strategic objectives the Danish Army can forsee in Denmark. Fortify all expected landing beaches to the same level as the fortifications behind the Jutland Dike. All this is very expensive, and will bankrupt Denmark several times over.
Or, you can just plan not to fight Germany 1 vs 1.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH