Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen  As been said before on here the Germans guns would have penetrated any armour in service with anyone back then.
It's the ability to hit back that counts. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Poop Likely not that much better.
At the ranges usually fought over in Normandy any allied vehicle was completely vulnerable to the German HV guns, including the front plate of the Churchill (even if Centurion & other postwar types had somehow arrived at Normandy their armour would be just as vulnerable).
The considerably more effective gun would of course be a considerable advantage in many cases, but the difficulties often found while attacking in the Bocage of locating well concealed German targets in strong defensive positions would often negate even that factor.
Whatever armour the allies deployed in the horrendously difficult task of attacking Normandy would likely have faced similar losses as actually occurred. |
Thanks guys, that was the point I was trying to make. A more effective main gun could have helped matters, but it returns to the premise that to hit a target, you had to see it. Which is more likely to be seen first, the concealed gun or tank or the one moving?