Comments by "Hyok Kim" (@hyokkim7726) on "Насколько эффективным был Тигр на самом деле?" video.

  1. The Artillery General had a point. As for optimal strategy (not tactics, operational considerations), the Americans got it right for the optimal use of tanks, in massive numbers, for strategic offensive, for breakthrough, not kill ratios. Not to fight the enemy tanks, but to breakthrough the enemy gaps, and wreck havoc, a rampage against enemy infantry, and rear supply depots, communication lines. To use primarily tank destroyers to deal with enemy tanks. For that purpose, the tanks should have optimal guns, armor, engine, and overall weight. It should have enough (not beyond optimal) gun, high explosive shells only to deal with enemy infantry, normal bunkers, normal artillery at normal range. No APs. Enough armor (to defeat the normal enemy artillery high explosive shells, not APs) at normal range. Enough engine to have enough speed/momentum to wreck havoc with minimal time in the rear before the enemy can react. For tank destroyers, ones integrated with the tanks, would have an open turret (for maximum situational awareness, optimal ventilation, and faster bailout time), would have an AT gun, with AP shells only, but not overlong barrel. The armor would be minimal only against enemy small arms, HMGs only, not any artillery shells. The would enable TDs act fast and decisively against the enemy tanks, heavy bunkers. Would enable them to see the enemy tanks before they can see and deliver AP shells at longer range than the enemy tanks. Again, the Americans got it right with their hellcats. As for tank destroyers integrated with the mechanized infantry, they would have no turret, but an open casemate, again for better situational awareness, even better ventilation, faster bailout time. Since TDs with the MIs, are to be used in a fixed position for well defined approaches for the enemy tanks, they would have had little need for turrets, further reducing weight, and visibility for optimal ambush against enemy tanks. No turrets, and open casemate, means TDs could use longer barrel than the TDs with an open turret. Far longer range than even TDs with an open turret. They could have used just chassis, not even casemate, for damaged armor retrieval, tow artillery, supply ammo/fuel for the armored units, recon/mine field clearing, and as assault mortar platform. Mortars to be used in massive numbers against concentration of the enemy armors (top of the turrets the weakest of the armor), the Italians sometimes used this technique brilliantly against the British armors. Also to strip off the enemy infantry from the enemy tanks to make the enemy tanks vulnerable to friendly infantry.
    2
  2.  @Schwarzvogel1  Thanks for spending your time and energy for objective criticism. I am grateful. ‘’I beg to differ. The U.S. didn't "get it right" in any absolute sense. They only "got it right" given the enemies they were facing--a heavily battered and bleeding Wehrmacht, and a Japanese army that had virtually no armoured support.’’ First of all, you don’t need to beg to differ. Be proud to differ. So what strategic mistake had U.S. made regarding adopting TDs/ ‘’The Hellcat wasn't a brilliant design at all; it only worked because the American forces enjoyed almost total air supremacy in their areas of operation, and didn't face heavy amounts of German artillery.’’ No, U.S. didn’t. There lies in the brilliance of Hellcat. Why spend more money to add more armor and closed turret when they weren’t needed in strategic sense, and would have only slowed down the Hellcats, and cost more money, plus more breakdowns due to overworked engines and suspensions like Tigers/ Why spend more money, slow down breakthrough advances, invite more reliability, fuel, logistics problem when one doesn’t have/ ‘’If the U.S. armoured doctrine during WWII was so great, then why didn't they stick with that into Korea and Vietnam?’’ Because there is no universally valid optimal strategy across the time and space. Each war needs different optimal strategy depending on terrain, weather, logistics, and the enemy dispositions. Korea and Vietnam were very different situations than WW2 overall. Btw. U.S. did use TDs in Korea. Also, in Vietnam, heavily armored U.S. tanks had great problem going through mud field. Not only they got stuck, but also, at least in one case, one actually sunk. You can read about it in ‘Tank Sergeant’. In fact, that was one very good reason U.S. made a great use of Ontos, very light weight, thinly armored, no turret, but closed casemate with recoilless guns. They didn’t get bogged down in the muds like heavily armored tanks. Do you think Tigers and Panthers would have fared better or worse/ ‘’Why did virtually every belligerent after WWII immediately start designing "do everything" tanks (i.e. MBTs)?’’ And have they been proven to work better than open topped turrets/ ‘’An open-topped TD is a great way to get your crews killed by enemy CAS and artillery.’’ You forget the purpose of TDs. They were never intended to fight alone against CAS, and the enemy artillery. Btw. How do you think Panthers and Tigers fared alone against CAS and the artillery/ Not very well. It matters not whether TD is an open top turret or closed top turret or even a Panther or Tiger if attacked alone by CAS, artillery, one is doomed. The best response would be to bail out asap. And open top turret would be faster to bail out than closed. ‘’How do you think that American army would have fared if they had to fight the Soviets in Operation Unthinkable, the hypothetical invasion of the USSR after 1945? I suspect that the Hellcat and Jackson would have undergone radical designs quickly in the face of Katyusha barrages and incessant attacks from Il-2s!’’ Two possibilities. 1. U.S. gaining the air superiority. This would have resulted in U.S. CAS neutralizing the katyusha, and of course, by definition, no II-2s. U.S. would have won whether she had been armed with Tigers, Panthers, or Hellcats, however, with Hellcats, U.S. would have far more Hellcats, than Tigers or Panthers. With Hellcats, U.S. would have won far more decisively than Panthers, and especially Tigers. II-2s would have been pretty much worthless for air superiority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2#Air-to-air_combat 2. Soviets gaining the air superiority This would have meant it wouldn’t have made a difference if U.S. had been armed with Panthers, Tigers, or Hellcats. Overall, U.S. still would have been better off with Hellcats, than either Panthers or Tigers. ‘’You mention "strategy," but what you describe sounds far more like tactics than strategy, to be fair.’’ Me think you’re projecting your obsession with tactics to mine. Hellcats were far cheaper to build and to maintain. Open top turrets had far better situational awareness than closed top turrets. If you see MHV videos regarding panzer tactics, one tactic the Germans used was to use MGs to discourage the enemy commander opening the hatch for better situational awareness. Also, the German Panzer IIIs and IVs outfought the vaunted T-34s, partially due to better optics, the Panzer III IV crews could see the T-34s before T-34 crew could see them. Also, open top turret would have had far better ventilation than closed top turrets. T-34 crews often suffered due to lack of ventilation especially with the diesel engine running and the gun firing. One reason IDF tanks outperformed the Arabs was A/C. Also, open top turret means far faster bail out time, meaning the experience the tank crew built was not lost when the tank blew up. Plus the hellcats fared very well even against vaunted Panthers and Tigers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat#Combat_performance ‘’The main strategic advantage the U.S. had was its excellent logistics and incredible industrial capacity... and the fact that Americans were smart enough to choose to live far, far away from anybody who could actually bomb their country with WWII-era technology.’’ All those advantages I mentioned above get amplified when combined with industrial capacity, meaning even bigger advantages through additional numbers, and less downtime.
    1