Mario Rigoni Stern

@SuperbattleshipYamato hard to argue against any of this really. The IJN was so far gone by this point in the war that there’s not really much they could have done to salvage their situation one way or another. The bit about the allies not having many LSTs in general is something I never knew before though.

@SuperbattleshipYamato Yeah I get you 100%. Alternate History is a niche interest in the first place so finding other people willing to go down the rabbit hole is always tough.

I was reading this document (https://history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-20/CMH_Pub_104-20.pdf) which counted the Panzer 1 as a tankette. Do any of you think this is a better description for the vehicle than a light tank? It’s not much heavier than some Japanese tankettes and its armament and crew size is certainly similar.

This is the first time I’ve heard of classifying the vehicle as a tankette, which is why I find it noteworthy.

@Coldwarrior1984

Reading this, I feel strongly you’re confused about the nature of the German defenses in Normandy. In combination, I feel you are overestimating the Allies ability to place smoke as precisely and in the quantity that would have been required to have a chance to accomplish the goal you lay out. I also feel you’re overestimating the effectiveness of smoke even if I grant that none of the above was an issue.

I’ve been to Normandy three times with tour guides. I’ve read everything from Ambrose and Osprey on Overlord. I’m tempted to repeat my initial post about why you don’t hear or see this tactic being performed en masse in the many assaults in the Pacific or Mediterranean.

I’ll just sum this up and say that the German fighting positions were not composed primarily of Saving Private Ryan style bunkers but widerstandsnest with Tobruks across so much acreage that a simultaneous precision smoke affect against all of them for the required time to get everyone ashore is less realistic that just a mass smoke bombardment of the beach area.

)89f8de53-eb0c-4026-990b-e3b6aca4969f-image.jpeg

@ABWorsham4

Curious. Would’ve been a complicated air operation, given that escorting aircraft may have had to come from carriers. Then again, the Western Allies ruled the skies.

The success would’ve depended on whether the Italian government collapsed (Mussolini and the facists overthrown) and the army would’ve defected as quickly and massive as they did following the invasion of Sicily. If a substantial number were at least disarmed, it’s quite possible enough Allied troops could’ve been ferried into Italian ports to hold against an expected German counterattack.

While I don’t think the Allies would’ve reached the Italian-Yugoslavian or Italian-German borders, they may have reached what would become the Gothic Line by early 1944. Just making probable estimates, I did not look this in detail.

If I was going into Tank on Tank combat I’m taking the M4 Sherman. Better sights, better visibility, an actual turret basket, better ergonomics, better mechanical reliability, and with the 76mm variant a very capable anti armor gun. As well as far more reliable armor due to high production quality standards. The M4 armor is reliable face hardened. The T34 could be correctly hardened, too hard so that it’s brittle or too soft.

If I was trying to drive a tank to get into a fight, the M4 is the obvious choice due to the much better reliability.

If I had to pick a tank to work on. M4 again due to its easy to repair design.

If I wanted to drive a comfortable tank well that’s no contest it’s the M4. Also it’s an easier to drive tank due to the vastly superior production quality.

So the M4 is a vastly superior weapons platform the only reason they seem comparable is on paper armor thickness and gun. Off of paper they aren’t close. Like pretty much all Russian military equipment they seem intimidating but ultimately are trash. Like how the T 72 got smashed by the M2 bradely and infantry fighting vehicle not even a tank.