Weekly Discussions

Many people accept the premise that the Germans wasted too many resources on heavy and super heavy tanks. The Americans had many prototypes and heavy tank projects, of which the Pershing is the most famous. Many resources where spent on the design, testing, production, and last-minute transport to Europe. The numerous prototypes, T20-T26, many of which went no where, sat in motor pools and yards for years. Especially considering the resources used to get the few Pershings overseas, do you think that the expedited development and transport of Pershing was a waste of time and resources or not?

If anyone has a specific question they want to see in the upcoming Weekly Discussions, please message me. Thanks.

What do you think was the most effective/best American tank destroyer of WWII?

Alternate History: Utilizing Tobruk

In the deserts of North Africa, one of the main problems facing the armies there was resupplying. For the Afrika Korps and the Italian forces, supplies had to be trucked to the front from miles and miles away. They needed another port. Tobruk was their opportunity. Unlike the Italians, the Afrika Korps took the city. However, the British Navy and Eighth Army counterattacks kept them from using the port to resupply.

How do you think that the North African Campaign would have changed (or not) if the Afrika Corps had been able to resupply from Tobruk?

Is this a continuation of the series? Who knows...

What do you think was the most effective German tank destroyer of WWII?

Also, a side question: Should the StuG be considered a tank destroyer or not? Although it was designed as assault artillery, it was very rarely used for this role. Many commanders and units considered them to be panzerjagers, others simply used them as tanks. There was conflict between commanders as to whether the StuG was a TD or not. They also claim to have destroyed the most allied armored vehicles during the war. What do you think?

Alternate History: America in the French Campaign of 1940

According to historian Victor Davis Hanson, if the US had held an alliance with France and Britain in the interwar period and mobilized after the declaration of war on the Allies by Germany, the French Campaign could have looked very different. He cites the US’s ability to deploy 2 million soldiers in less than 2 years of being in WWI. Do you think that this could have altered the course of the 1940 Campaign and how do you think it would have turned out?

The T-34 and M4 Sherman are two of the most recognizable tanks of WWII and even the post war. Both were made in large numbers and had numerous variants. So, the question for this week is, which tank, in your opinion, was better at doing the job it was designed for?

Because of the French surrender early in the war, many people have the assumption that French tanks of WWII were very bad and ineffective. However, many people have come forward with the notion that this is not true and that French tanks were actually equal contenders on the battle field and only failed because of their leadership and strategy. They claim that the SOMUA S35 and other tanks like it were suitable partners for the Panzer IIIs and even IVs. The success of the Char B1 bis also bolsters their claim. However, the other side of this argument has returned fire, claiming that even though French tanks may not be as bad as most people thought, the German models were still quite superior. What do you think?

Been really busy lately, so I apologize for the lack of discussion questions.

During WWII, the Americans had 2 solutions on the table when it came to dealing with late war German Panzers. The first was obvious, build heavier tanks, however, moving a 50 ton tank around was not easy. The other option was to up-gun/ up-armor the existing Sherman design, such as the M4A3E2 Jumbo and the M4A3E8 Easy Eight. What do you think was the better option, coinsidering logistic abilities of the US at the time?

Alternate History: The Invasion of Japan

After Germany surrendered, the only major Axis power left was Japan. To defeat Japan, US commanders came up with the idea of invading Japan. They expected heavy resistance form the Japanese, estimating about 95% casualties. So, how do you think the invasion of Japan would have faired?