Re: Many things

--- John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > T-34 has got to be the most overrated tank in
> > history.
> >  Sure it was nice, but practically every tank in
> the
> > US front line units was a 76-armed varient.  And
> > nearly every time the 76-armed M-4 met a T-34 the
> > latter came out the looser.
> ------
> In the armored divisions the 76 could be considered
> 'mostly' standard issue.   The Russians had moved 
> on to the T34-85 by the time the 76 armed Sherman
> was
> available in any quanity, I am trying to ignore
> the JS-1,-2,-3 when I say that.

We've had this discussing on a semi-regular basis
here.  The M4A3E8 could lunch on a T-34 regardless of
varient.  Now, the JSs could have been a nuisance, but
then again so could our M-36s, which could embarass
pretty much anything on treads, even if they had no
armor.	However, by late '45, how many M-26s would
have been entering the supply line had we stayed on a
wartime production schedule?
 
> Agree with the close support.   You need to consider
> the USAAF was at that time a high altitude force,
> having to play the game at low altitude by the 
> Russian rules would have caused excessive losses
> (Not to mention the damage that the Russian 
> close support would have caused to American 
> units that lacked proper/effective AA.)

We had the AAA units and the AAA weapons in-theater,
we'd just have to reform them.	We got rid of 'em when
we discovered that the best AAA weapon is a flight of
P-51s.
 
> > Besides, in Korea the Russians did not show
> terribly
> > well, and that was flying far superior aircraft to
> > the 'Mericans. 
> -------
> The Mig-15 has two advantages, firepower and 
> height, the F-86 has maneuverability.
> The Chinese and Koreans tried to play the 
> maneuverability game, they lost,

Uh, Russians.  There were a lot of Russians flying
birds in that war.
 
> To Tomb,
> After the initial savage losses against the Red Air
> Force the allies would have made good the losses
> more quickly than the Russians.   The Russian army
> seldon was able to mount an advance that ran farther
> that a tank of gas for a tank, most advances were
> visual, I.E. Take your unit an capture that hill,
> wait for further orders.

"The Red Army could not have concieved or executed the
advance made by the Third Army through France."
   --Joe Stalin
		       
> To John,
> All units were rated politically, with the number
> of party members largely determining the rating,
> read that as political officers if you wish.
> The NKVD, the Russian SS, had a large number of 
> field divisions, these were not only elite units
> but could be used to prevent/eliminate loyalty
> problems in the army.   Remember that the party
> had used this type of problem to come to power!

But they couldn't stop Joe Russian from simply
surrendering in large numbers.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com