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.
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
So in terms of tanks, the M4 is pretty much soley for blowing up infantry due to the lack of HEAT rounds for the 4" gun. The M18 tank destroyer with the 2" gun for shooting at tanks?
I heard a great phrase to describe the US's tank destroyer doctrine; "The tank destroyers went out to destroy enemy tanks. Usually they didn't find any, and when they did, they usually didn't come back."
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
It definitely makes sense to stick with the historical doctrine when there is no reason to change it.
Were there any reasons for sticking with the 75mm historically instead of moving to the 105mm?
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
A 6" gun is going to be a bit of squeeze into the M6, even with the really big turret on the M6A2E1. Even so, there isn't much to be said for something the size of a small house trundling around the battlefield, especially when it's got pretty thin armour. Wouldn't it be better to go with a casemate mount instead. Historically the M6 was mounting a more powerful anti-tank gun, rather than anti-personnel. Is there anything better than the 2" gun in the M18 at the moment?
Quoted
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The year in review, continued
The nationalization of the Mexican oil fields was a new crisis for the Administration to manage. The President was no friend of the big oil companies, but he knew very well that failing to respond would be seen as weakness by his political enemies and used as a bludgeon against both him and the new Union Party. The lights burned late into the night after the Mexican announcement, as a response was hammered out.
The eventually agreed-upon response was simple: Mexico had the right to nationalize the oil industry, but the privately owned oilfield equipment was the property of the owners until and unless they agreed to sell. That meant, in practice, that while the government of Mexico owned the oil and could charge what it wished for it, and could prosecute companies for any damage to the fields, the companies owned their equipment and could cap the wells and pack up their equipment for use on other fields.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH