New Government in Holland.

[ctwaterman]

Artillary bombardments are the bane of a tanks existance.  If the ground between the two armys has been chewed up by days of heavy bombardment its a night mare for the early tanks to cross the Infantry will litterally out walk the tank across this type of terrain.

In addition by 1917/18 the German had a HV Gun mounted on  truck for moving around as needed to shoot at tanks and the first Anti-Tank Rifles started making their appearances....

Charles

[damocles]

Artillary bombardments are the bane of a tanks existence.  If the ground between the two armys has been chewed up by days of heavy bombardment its a night mare for the early tanks to cross the Infantry will litterally out walk the tank across this type of terrain.

In addition by 1917/18 the German had a HV Gun mounted on  truck for moving around as needed to shoot at tanks and the first Anti-Tank Rifles started making their appearances....

Charles

You have the tanks. You have the artillery. You have shock action. The combination is not days of bombardment; it is at most a sharp suppression of forward defenses that drives enemy troops to ground that lasts only while the tanks close up on the enemy positions during the disruptive bombardment to overrun the enemy trench lines. You lift final fires just as the tanks enter their own machine gun ranges. Your own fires are on the enemy trenches, not no-man's land. 

As for the German gun trucks-no overhead cover and lousy cross country mobility, howitzer blast/frag does wonders to an enemy antitank gun screen. Nothing is perfect here, but you play the numbers game, pick the ground and do the recon and the assault drills by the numbers. The Germans did not stop tank assaults. They only slowed them down.       

The 1 k/h is acceptable, as long as at the end of the hour the enemy trench complex is cleared, and the follow on troops include pioneers that cut routes through the crater scape. (armored bulldozers).   

[Carthaginian]

You have the tanks. You have the artillery. You have shock action. The combination is not days of bombardment; it is at most a sharp suppression of forward defenses that drives enemy troops to ground that lasts only while the tanks close up on the enemy positions during the disruptive bombardment to overrun the enemy trench lines. You lift final fires just as the tanks enter their own machine gun ranges. Your own fires are on the enemy trenches, not no-man's land.  

As for the German gun trucks-no overhead cover and lousy cross country mobility, howitzer blast/frag does wonders to an enemy antitank gun screen. Nothing is perfect here, but you play the numbers game, pick the ground and do the recon and the assault drills by the numbers. The Germans did not stop tank assaults. They only slowed them down.      

The 1 k/h is acceptable, as long as at the end of the hour the enemy trench complex is cleared, and the follow on troops include pioneers that cut routes through the crater scape. (armored bulldozers).  

Uhm... that's MODERN tank doctrine. That's blitzkrieg.
Charles is painting a MUCH more accurate picture of WWI tactics- artillery, tank and infantry.

Also, both sides would indeed deliberately shell no-man's land, in addition to the unintentional 'shorts' that landed there. The disruption of the terrain and the fresh, sucking, engulfing mud caused by the bombardments was a powerful asset. It could cause extreme amounts of trouble for infantry and horses or vehicles trying to cross it.

Armored bulldozers ale also a mistaken part of your philosophy... also being a part of blitzkrieg philosophy.

[snip]

In this timeframe, we are still looking at day's long bombardment being the "effective" way of using artillery.

In fact, one could argue without a major war ala WWI (unless there has been lots of trench warfare) there would not be tanks to begin with. Tanks were basically a weapon made to beat trenches and other MG-covered defensive sites. It took a nation that was completely open to new tactics to realize that tanks were more powerful in groups then as dedicated infantry support, there primary design goal until the late 1930's

[damocles]

You have the tanks. You have the artillery. You have shock action. The combination is not days of bombardment; it is at most a sharp suppression of forward defenses that drives enemy troops to ground that lasts only while the tanks close up on the enemy positions during the disruptive bombardment to overrun the enemy trench lines. You lift final fires just as the tanks enter their own machine gun ranges. Your own fires are on the enemy trenches, not no-man's land.  

As for the German gun trucks-no overhead cover and lousy cross country mobility, howitzer blast/frag does wonders to an enemy antitank gun screen. Nothing is perfect here, but you play the numbers game, pick the ground and do the recon and the assault drills by the numbers. The Germans did not stop tank assaults. They only slowed them down.      

The 1 k/h is acceptable, as long as at the end of the hour the enemy trench complex is cleared, and the follow on troops include pioneers that cut routes through the crater scape. (armored bulldozers).  

Uhm... that's MODERN tank doctrine. That's blitzkrieg.
Charles is painting a MUCH more accurate picture of WWI tactics- artillery, tank and infantry.

Also, both sides would indeed deliberately shell no-man's land, in addition to the unintentional 'shorts' that landed there. The disruption of the terrain and the fresh, sucking, engulfing mud caused by the bombardments was a powerful asset. It could cause extreme amounts of trouble for infantry and horses or vehicles trying to cross it.

Armored bulldozers ale also a mistaken part of your philosophy... also being a part of blitzkrieg philosophy.

==============================================================

http://www.consimworld.com/newsroom/archives/morenews/inftactics/infantry.pdf

Ever hear of Emory Upton? Of course you have.

As for bulldozers...

http://www.kansasphototour.com/bulldoze.htm

In this time-frame, we are still looking at day's long bombardment being the "effective" way of using artillery.

a. The Dutch are experimenting after their defeat. Plus they are not rich. From where does the the stocks of ammunition come?
b. Geiner and Guderian are buddies who've worked the subject at Namur since 1917.
c. Right now we have a nice big war that teaches the 1914 lesson.    

In fact, one could argue without a major war ala WWI (unless there has been lots of trench warfare) there would not be tanks to begin with. Tanks were basically a weapon made to beat trenches and other MG-covered defensive sites. It took a nation that was completely open to new tactics to realize that tanks were more powerful in groups then as dedicated infantry support, there primary design goal until the late 1930's

d. The tank or pantserwagen is still a mobile machine gun suppressor to the Dutch. The Dutch are exercised about machine guns, having been creamed in Malaysia by the weapons and superior DKB infantry in the NOI. That is Majoor Hind's part of this equation.  

Europe's military thinkers joined the bounding overwatch bandwagon a few years later. In1905, G.F.R. Henderson wrote:
Nor is it the [artillery] alone that should cover the infantry advance. ... [A] portion of the infantry should be detailed for this purpose before the remainder move forward. ... Such fire is little less effective than that of the field ... artillery. It may be less demoralizing; but, if the exact range can be ascertained, it will be more accurate, for infantry has not to contend with the technical difficulties, fuses, errors of the day, &c., of the sister arm. ... We are justified, therefore, in laying
down the secondary principle that long-range rifle fire is an important auxiliary to the artillery in covering the advance of attacking infantry. 21

pg. 14 of the PDF cited.

This is something I researched before I proposed this item. In fact I derated the actual contraptions and theories behind the proposals, because we did not have WW I in the Nverse.  

When serving as the American military observer with the Prussian Army during the Franco-Prussian War, Lt. Gen. Philip Sheridan was asked by a high Prussian officer—very possibly the great Helmuth von Moltke himself—how he thought the US Army would do against the Prussians, to which he replied, "Grant, if given the armies of the Potomac and the Tennessee, would land in Lisbon and capture Berlin in six weeks."48

pg. 25; same PDF.

And by now, van Seik knows what he wants. Tanks, lots of tanks...and mortars, and, machine guns and stosstruppen.  

[damocles]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Clankety clankety.

The export market is out there. FT-17s pfui!

[TexanCowboy]

When serving as the American military observer with the Prussian Army during the Franco-Prussian War, Lt. Gen. Philip Sheridan was asked by a high Prussian officer—very possibly the great Helmuth von Moltke himself—how he thought the US Army would do against the Prussians, to which he replied, "Grant, if given the armies of the Potomac and the Tennessee, would land in Lisbon and capture Berlin in six weeks."48

pg. 25; same PDF.

And by now, van Seik knows what he wants. Tanks, lots of tanks...and mortars, and, machine guns and stosstruppen.  

Interesting...except that Grant would be shattered on the way across the Atlantic by other naval ships. A moniter does not have the range nor the seakeeping ability to effectively cross the Atlantic AND be in fighting trim. Sure, crossing the Atlantic was done, but without all the towing sources....besides, I fail to see how Grant could defeat the goodly number (250,000+) of German troops, a equal or larger number of French troops, and some Spanish resistance, deal with partisians, and keep his supply lines open. I don't believe it's possible.

[damocles]

When serving as the American military observer with the Prussian Army during the Franco-Prussian War, Lt. Gen. Philip Sheridan was asked by a high Prussian officer—very possibly the great Helmuth von Moltke himself—how he thought the US Army would do against the Prussians, to which he replied, "Grant, if given the armies of the Potomac and the Tennessee, would land in Lisbon and capture Berlin in six weeks."48

pg. 25; same PDF.

And by now, van Seik knows what he wants. Tanks, lots of tanks...and mortars, and, machine guns and stosstruppen.  

Interesting...except that Grant would be shattered on the way across the Atlantic by other naval ships. A moniter does not have the range nor the seakeeping ability to effectively cross the Atlantic AND be in fighting trim. Sure, crossing the Atlantic was done, but without all the towing sources....besides, I fail to see how Grant could defeat the goodly number (250,000+) of German troops, a equal or larger number of French troops, and some Spanish resistance, deal with partisians, and keep his supply lines open. I don't believe it's possible.

The first underlined is entirely true. Only if those 50 or so Monitors had been true BATTLESHIPS could the transports have landed the troops.

The second underlined is the fact that he actually did something like that thing? That's a fair analog description of the American Civil War.

Ocean going Monitors as classes.

CSA ironclads

I would call those auto-sinkers.

[Carthaginian]

I would call those auto-sinkers.

Strange, the Stonewall was a good ship for sailing on the high seas.
She was also a holy terror- the Union sailors pissed their pants thinking of her.

[snip]

I think he might be refering to Virg and similar types. I disagree that they are autosinker's if that is the case.

If we are talking cheesebox rafts, then I am with you completely (14" freeboard, really?)

[damocles]

You did read the history of her Cuba crossing? She had a lot of trouble in voyage; she needed a lot of work after the USN got her.

She underwent a rebuild; like some of those US Civil War "Monitors".



She was still superior to any of the 1880 horrors that were US Civil War "rebuilds" (new construction), but not by much.

 

[Laertes]

Ah, Amphitrite. Design creep, pre-obsolescence and redesign whilst under construction. I'd love to say that we've learned those lessons, but Duke Nukem Forever would make me a liar.

[damocles]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

RFSD Peter Wolf, HOLLAND/MK  Monitor laid down 1920

Displacement:
   4,107 t light; 4,368 t standard; 4,560 t normal; 4,713 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   350.00 ft / 350.00 ft x 50.00 ft x 15.00 ft (normal load)
   106.68 m / 106.68 m x 15.24 m  x 4.57 m

Armament:
     4 - 9.45" / 240 mm guns (2x2 guns), 421.80lbs / 191.32kg shells, 1920 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
     Main guns limited to end-on fire
     8 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns (4x2 guns), 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1920 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships
     8 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (2x4 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1920 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 1,974 lbs / 895 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150
   4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
  - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   5.91" / 150 mm   227.50 ft / 69.34 m   8.49 ft / 2.59 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

  - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   5.91" / 150 mm   2.95" / 75 mm      2.95" / 75 mm
   2nd:   2.17" / 55 mm   0.98" / 25 mm      0.98" / 25 mm

  - Armour deck: 2.95" / 75 mm, Conning tower: 6.10" / 155 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Geared drive, 2 shafts, 3,594 shp / 2,681 Kw = 15.00 kts
   Range 5,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 345 tons

Complement:
   276 - 360

Cost:
   £0.871 million / $3.484 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 247 tons, 5.4 %
   Armour: 1,450 tons, 31.8 %
      - Belts: 495 tons, 10.8 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 215 tons, 4.7 %
      - Armour Deck: 704 tons, 15.4 %
      - Conning Tower: 36 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 126 tons, 2.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,784 tons, 39.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 453 tons, 9.9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 11.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     7,511 lbs / 3,407 Kg = 17.8 x 9.4 " / 240 mm shells or 1.9 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.03
   Metacentric height 1.9 ft / 0.6 m
   Roll period: 15.3 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 87 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.01
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.73

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.608
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 18.71 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 37 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      20.58 ft / 6.27 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   13.10 ft / 3.99 m
      - Mid (50 %):      13.10 ft / 3.99 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   13.10 ft / 3.99 m
      - Stern:      13.10 ft / 3.99 m
      - Average freeboard:   13.70 ft / 4.18 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 63.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 98.2 %
   Waterplane Area: 12,895 Square feet or 1,198 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 109 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 95 lbs/sq ft or 464 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.93
      - Longitudinal: 1.98
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

500 tons misc.
250 tons fire control
 50 tons radios.
 50 tons torpedoes
150 tons misc. leftover

Holland is submitting a request for tender for four of these type ships or better for Riverine service. Completion to be NLT 1H1921  

[TexanCowboy]

He may have done it, vs. an underfed, undersupplied army that relied mostly on capturing artillery from the Union. With all said troops in a given location, and not seperated by mountains, and with those troops well supplied, he couldn't have done it.

I'm referring to both, actually. The CSA ships had nowhere near the speed and range, and the US moniters, yeah. Both sides had maybe 2-3 ships that could cross, but 5-6 ships isn't enough to escort a convoy of 250,000 troops+ supplies across the Atlantic.

[damocles]

He may have done it, vs. an underfed, undersupplied army that relied mostly on capturing artillery from the Union. With all said troops in a given location, and not seperated by mountains, and with those troops well supplied, he couldn't have done it.

I'm referring to both, actually. The CSA ships had nowhere near the speed and range, and the US moniters, yeah. Both sides had maybe 2-3 ships that could cross, but 5-6 ships isn't enough to escort a convoy of 250,000 troops+ supplies across the Atlantic.

http://www.civilwarartillery.com/manufacturers.htm

Look under the Confederacy. That was more than Italy, Spain, Portugal and all the the German states, except Austria and Prussia, could do combined.

France, Austria, and Britain could each do more, but they didn't have the generals or the staffs, at the time, to use the potential properly in a land war. (Krimea and Austrian wars against Prussia and Italy, plus the French disaster in Mexico are the examples).

The Prussians are the only ones who have the organizational and logistical chops to take on the Armies of the Potomac and Tennessee in the 1864-1865 time frame in Europe in a land war . I don't agree that Grant could have beaten the German first team, though. I think Moltke's goon squad (staff) was too good. About the others? No doubt at all. Their actual results show me that they were tactical babes in the Wilderness (pun intended).