Turkish Yavuz vs Parizhskaya Kommuna

@king_of_tanks

Good point.

@witt

Definitely.

@abworsham4

Any part of the Missouri that gets hit is going to get serious damage, as long as Gustav’s shell is not launched at less than half of the maximumcrange.

I don’t get what’s meant…

-AW talks about the Battleship Howe.
-Then IL says Howe was a Battleship like Hood.
-Then CWO points out the hood was a battlecruiser.

No one is saying the Howe was a battlecruiser?  And everyone agrees it was a battleship.  So what’s the point of the whole conversation? lol

Germany wins this matchup.

I think I Go with the Sherman Firefly in this case, since I prefer a 5-men-crew in Tanks.
This is my plus I give to the Firefly ,for wich I choose the Firefly over the T34/85.

@ABWorsham:

Stug III if I get off the first shot.

If the engagement is any longer than the first shot, give me the T-34.

By the way love the question.

Me too. Sorry I did not say, Aequitas.

I don’t know much about the 25-pounder, but as regards the famed German 88: it was excellent in both its original role as an anti-aircraft weapon and in its later additional role as an anti-tank gun, but I’m not sure how well it would work as “traditional artillery”.  Anti-tank guns and anti-aircraft guns are both intended to work as direct-fire weapons, which basically means shooting in a straight line at a target you can see (at virtually no elevation for an anti-tank gun and at a very high elevation for an anti-aircraft gun).  The 88’s high muzzle velocity was well suited to both jobs.  Field artillery and divisional heavy artillery, on the other hand, are often called upon to deliver indirect fire: plunging fire against targets which can’t be seen (a classic example being WWI artillery barrages).  This requires lower muzzle velocity and different sighting mechanisms than the 88 had.

The Winter War is an amazing tale of bravery on the Finns’ part.