[002]
75.83.225.194
Current Version
Changed line(s) 6 from:
n
That said, the definition of \
to:
That said, the definition of \\\"tank destroyer\\\" gets complicated. The British had two classifications for tanks: \\\"Infantry\\\" and \\\"Cruiser.\\\" Infantry tanks were heavily-armored yet slow and, as they were mainly intended for infantry support, and generally carried guns of large calibre for high-explosive rounds and machine-guns, though they were equipped with armor-piercing ammunition. Cruiser tanks were fast, lightly armed vehicles intended for fast-paced manouver warfare.\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\
The US used the same distinctions but called them \\\"tanks\\\" and \\\"tank destroyers\\\" respectively. The tactical doctrine of the Americans was \\\"Tanks kill infantry, infantry kill anti-tank guns and anti-tank guns kill tanks(obviously)\\\". However, the Americans were firm believers in fast war, and believed that tank killers had to keep moving to fight Blitzkrieg penetration tactics and to keep up with the tanks. therefore, they put their heavy AT guns in armoured chassies based on tanks and called them \\\"Gun Motor Carriage\\\". For anyone who doesnt go into this in depth it can get very confusing. Gradually, as armor got heavier and engines got better, both were merged into the single \\\"main battle tank\\\" category that dominates the battlefield to this day.\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\
Categorisation gets even more complicated when Soviet and German tank destroyers are factored in. Vehicles such as the SU-85 and Jagdpanther (based on the T-34 and Panther respectively) were simply turretless (not necessarily open-topped) and sometimes up-armoured versions of an existing tank chassis, mounting a limited-traverse gun in the hull that was typically bigger than the original tank could carry. The Bundeswehr continued to apply the term to their post-war assault guns after they removed their gun armament and refitted them with TOW missile tubes.
[[/folder]]
It\\\'s long, probably belongs on \\\"Other\\\" with the painting exampes rather than a TV Tropes folder, refers to an example on DraftDodging that no longer exists, and I don\\\'t know if it\\\'s better fit for the main description or perhaps Analysis.
\\\\\\\\
The US used the same distinctions but called them \\\"tanks\\\" and \\\"tank destroyers\\\" respectively. The tactical doctrine of the Americans was \\\"Tanks kill infantry, infantry kill anti-tank guns and anti-tank guns kill tanks(obviously)\\\". However, the Americans were firm believers in fast war, and believed that tank killers had to keep moving to fight Blitzkrieg penetration tactics and to keep up with the tanks. therefore, they put their heavy AT guns in armoured chassies based on tanks and called them \\\"Gun Motor Carriage\\\". For anyone who doesnt go into this in depth it can get very confusing. Gradually, as armor got heavier and engines got better, both were merged into the single \\\"main battle tank\\\" category that dominates the battlefield to this day.\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\
Categorisation gets even more complicated when Soviet and German tank destroyers are factored in. Vehicles such as the SU-85 and Jagdpanther (based on the T-34 and Panther respectively) were simply turretless (not necessarily open-topped) and sometimes up-armoured versions of an existing tank chassis, mounting a limited-traverse gun in the hull that was typically bigger than the original tank could carry. The Bundeswehr continued to apply the term to their post-war assault guns after they removed their gun armament and refitted them with TOW missile tubes.
[[/folder]]
It\\\'s long, probably belongs on \\\"Other\\\" with the painting exampes rather than a TV Tropes folder, refers to an example on DraftDodging that no longer exists, and I don\\\'t know if it\\\'s better fit for the main description or perhaps Analysis.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The entry is problematic. It says that Loghain wanted to kill Cailan and the rest of the army under Cailan\'s command. One, that was never Loghain\'s intention -- and it\'s a common misunderstanding amongst the fandom -- because that\'s actually an asenine way to 1) kill your king, even if he was going to do that and 2) not the point.
to:
The entry is indeed problematic. It says that Loghain wanted to kill Cailan and the rest of the army under Cailan\\\'s command. One, that was never Loghain\\\'s intention -- and it\\\'s a common misunderstanding amongst the fandom -- because that\\\'s actually an asenine way to 1) kill your king, even if he was going to do that and 2) not the point.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
As for Cailan being an idiot, well, he is one. He goes into battle without an heir named or even legitimizing his bastard brother that he knew about, repeatedly brushes off Loghain\'s desire to talk tactics and calls it \
to:
As for Cailan being an idiot, well, he is one. He goes into battle without an heir named or even legitimizing his bastard brother that he knew about, repeatedly brushes off Loghain\\\'s desire to talk tactics and calls it \\\"boring\\\", and has an unhealthy idealization of the world. The guy is a manchild, through and through. Saying the soldiers could\\\'ve talked to him about the battle is ignoring how Cailan wouldn\\\'t even listen to his GENERAL.
And those things he did -- the one volley, the wasting of the Mabari troops, charging out into the open -- are all things that cannot be laid at Loghain\\\'s feet. Loghain told Cailan to lure the Darkspawn into the open where they could be surrounded, not charge out to meet them and make shoddy use of his resources. Luring your enemy in that situation is best done when you at least have the walls protecting your flanks (the Darkspawn certainly didn\\\'t need help charging at them. They just went ahead and did it), while having Archers in the far back firing continuously into the horde and a phalanx formation up front extending a few rows back.
I\\\'d edit it in myself, but the article\\\'s locked so I assume only the moderators can do it.
And those things he did -- the one volley, the wasting of the Mabari troops, charging out into the open -- are all things that cannot be laid at Loghain\\\'s feet. Loghain told Cailan to lure the Darkspawn into the open where they could be surrounded, not charge out to meet them and make shoddy use of his resources. Luring your enemy in that situation is best done when you at least have the walls protecting your flanks (the Darkspawn certainly didn\\\'t need help charging at them. They just went ahead and did it), while having Archers in the far back firing continuously into the horde and a phalanx formation up front extending a few rows back.
I\\\'d edit it in myself, but the article\\\'s locked so I assume only the moderators can do it.
