Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
David Fletcher on the tanks made to end the war one swoop, including the first armoured personnel carrier. The British, French and American were to combine to make the tanks, which were largely British designed.
This is interesting because it possibly means that even if the Germans had stayed strictly on the defensive in 1918, they were going to face an overwhelmingly Allied offensive in 1919. So even if Ludendorff did not waste away the freed up German forces from the Eastern front to attack the Allies in early 1918, the Germans were still going to lose eventually.
They were planning a massed combined arms attack. The Battle of Amiens showed the way being the first ever combined arms attack (Blitzkrieg) with massed tanks and aircraft. It basically was the start of the end of WW1.
This is interesting because it possibly means that even if the Germans had stayed strictly on the defensive in 1918, they were going to face an overwhelmingly Allied offensive in 1919. So even if Ludendorff did not waste away the freed up German forces from the Eastern front to attack the Allies in early 1918, the Germans were still going to lose eventually.
The Royal Navy blockade was starving the Germans - literally. Hitler's fear of another naval blockade and another war of attrition prompted him to develop fast attacks to end battles quickly - more gambles than anything else. But that failed then the Royal Navy did again what it did in WW1 - starve the country preventing access to resources.
The Germans attacked the USSR in 1941 with 3,200 tanks. In WW1 the allies in Plan 1919 were to use over 5,000 tanks.
not so much the number of tanks as being used in a mass attack and NOT piecemeal just deployed to support troops scattered in small groups...its the Mass attack that's the effective part
Matilda I (1935) had a riveted corpus and Matilda II (1936) had a welded corpus.
Spoiler
Is it so? I have concluded that after watching the photos
It's clear welding is more progressive technological process. I'm interesting were there accidents when the rivets of Mark tank broke? Was that a real problem? What was the caliber of a shell that could broke a rivet? Is there the thickness of the armor when we can't use rivets any more (they will be the weakest elements)?
not so much the number of tanks as being used in a mass attack and NOT piecemeal just deployed to support troops scattered in small groups...its the Mass attack that's the effective part
The battle that caused the big slide towards the end was the Battle of Amiens in which tanks were used in a mass attack.
Matilda I (1935) had a riveted corpus and Matilda II (1936) had a welded corpus.
Spoiler
Is it so? I have concluded that after watching the photos
It's clear welding is more progressive technological process. I'm interesting were there accidents when the rivets of Mark tank broke? Was that a real problem? What was the caliber of a shell that could broke a rivet? Is there the thickness of the armor when we can't use rivets any more (they will be the weakest elements)?
It depends on the quality of the weld. Welds not up to top quality cracked when the metal around it was hit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
