Recent content by Derfman

While I know that B-29 is the clear choice, I voted B-17 anyway. The B-17 together with the Lanc and B-24 were the grand old warhorses that faced the LW in its prime. Of the 3, all great, I am shamelessly prejudice in favor of the B-17.

I "think" they did medivac and SAR in Burma, but not sure.

On the subject of the original post, I'll stand by choosing the Panzer IV, although the Sherman would be my choice as a close 2nd (with a better gun, I'd rate it first). But as for later, I'll also continue to stand by my choice of either the later Panther, or the T34/85 as the "overall" best...

For all its weakness and outdated nature, the M3 Stewart was OUTSTANDING in its intended role, due to its rugged reliability and excellent performance. Sort of the same principle as the success of the Swordfish. A vehicle that to all appearances seems hopelessly outdate, but still does a a...

The Zero was indeed superior to its initial opposition. but was out right inferior to its later main opposition. I base this conclusion on the following: The Zero could NOT force fights on terms that were advantagous to it unless the enemy pilots were surprised or willingly engaged in...

As I stated above, pretty much any aircraft that engaged a Zero in a fight where "nimble" was a key factor was probably going to lose, be it a F4U, an Fw 190, a Spitfire, a Ta152, etc. But once the F4Fs, P40s and P39s ceased to be the main opponents of the Zero, and F6Fs, F4Us, P38s, P47s and...

The zero was not a great aircraft. Not bad, but not nearly as great as some would suggest. The zero sacrificed a lot to be nimble. As long as "nimble" was a major factor in a fight, the Zero did well. When fast and rugged Allied aircraft decided to not play the "nimble" game, the Zero...

Apologies for derailing the thread:oops: But its not a very bad derailing, just mildly off "exact" topic. Having said that.... The Tiger II did have SOME mobility issues. It was not a complete mobility failure like the Maus, nor was it an almost complete mobility failure like the...

x

On the King Tiger I know for a fact that a number were abandoned on both east and west fronts, in situations where more mobile armor was able to keep up with mobile forces in retreat. I also know that in the battle of the bulge, they did contribute much at all, again, due to poor mobility...

The Tiger II was WORTHLESS for the one thing that wins war: "Offensive action" Even the much flawed Sherman was better. During offensive action, heavily armored and heavily gunned Tiger IIs could waste fuel trying to get in range of the enemy, but thats all they could do. Of course, once...

The thing I'd really like to see would be a two edged sword. A huge part of the problem is mushy politically correct thinking in western countries, especially on military issues. If the point could be driven home that there is a CRITICAL difference between a bomber (suicide or not) that...

Tough choice I voted Pzkpfw IV I'm not a fan of the Tigers as "good Tanks", due to the mobility issue. On the Tiger I, mobility was not so bad to make it a "bad" tank, but enough to take away top slot for "good". Tiger II was a "very poor" tank except when its enemies came to it (which...

A SOLID vote for Dwight D. Eisenhower Ike was God's gift to the Allies. But NOT as a battlefield commander or even a strategist. Ike was probably THE best "political general" in the history of the human race, and in this case I say "political general" in a positive fashion. Any general...

I have a hard time choosing between Churchill, FDR and Truman. Maybe Churchill, but by a tiny margin. I know you need hitler on the list, but even from a purely military point of view, the man was a disaster. ALL his successes that succeeded "in spite of his Generals" were things that...