After the defeat, Hube handed over the task of gathering troops to his subordinates, and then flew to the Balkans, and then went directly to Berlin with others who needed to be questioned. There, they would be questioned by the German Army's top brass to determine whether Hube had committed malfeasance or misconduct during the battle.

"My tactical arrangement was originally to divert the flank breakthrough head-on, and the opponent had a large number of high-caliber and large-caliber cannons, while I equipped Paul's troops with large-caliber mortars and self-propelled infantry guns, which proved to be extremely powerful and could cause great damage to the opponent's anti-aircraft guns after using specialized anti-bunker shells." Hube said.

"Very well, since there are no problems with the plan, why did it fail in the final stage of the raid? If, as you say, with superior fire support and self-propelled anti-tank guns on both flanks, why was it crushed by a tank unit of less than a company on the other side? A major general with an emaciated face asked.

"Our 75mm guns simply could not destroy the frontal armor of the opposing side. Although they have not many tanks. But in the troops on the flanks of the opposing side there was also a very fast-moving armored vehicle equipped with a high-rate rate of fire. It's very similar to the wheeled armored vehicles we encountered at the end of World War I. They were supposed to use a 30mm cannon, but it was very powerful, and the key was that it was extremely fast. It is better to deal with unprotected or lightly protected targets than 75mm guns. They can shoot very quickly. And the speed of action is very flexible. It was difficult for our artillery to hit the opponent, and the opposing armored vehicles destroyed the support fire of our rear in an extreme time, and even penetrated the side and rear armor of tank No. 3 at close range. Hube explained..........

"A 30mm cannon penetrates the rear armor of the tank? I'm afraid it's more difficult. The Major General thought for a moment and said. If that's the case. Then it means that the side armor and the rear armor of our tanks also need to be strengthened. The weight of the whole vehicle will increase a lot. ”

"Nothing to doubt. China is rich in tungsten ore, and if they wish, they can equip all anti-tank weapons with tungsten alloy armor-piercing shells. Hindenburg next to him said, and then motioned for Hube to continue.

"That's right, their armor-piercing shells are good, and the tanks are more advanced than ours. They can destroy our tanks at 1000 meters, and our artillery can be blocked even at 500 meters. Of all the anti-armor weapons, the only one that can guarantee the destruction of the opponent at the same distance is the cannon. But the number of such artillery is too small. Moreover, the half-track as a platform is too fragile, and the other side also attaches great importance to our self-propelled guns, and when the wings are deployed, they concentrate their fire on these high-power weapons. We have lowered the combat effectiveness of our opponents. If only we could have some tank destroyers. I think it's going to be better. Although they do not have turrets. The firing range is limited, but the 75mm gun is no longer enough, and if we want to defeat these formidable opponents, then adding some tank destroyers to the attacking forces with limited chassis performance is the only way. Hube said..........

"Unfortunately, because of the defeat, we were unable to get the wreckage of the opposing tanks from the battlefield. But I think Colonel Hube is very credible, and we are a little too arrogant. Maybe Huaxia's subsystem is not the best, but they have always been able to integrate things that are not first-class to surpass first-class equipment. This is true for both warships and light weapons. Well, and, now it's time to add tanks again. Ludendorff on the side said. There was a hint of frustration in his tone.

"At least I think in terms of tank performance and the composition of armored forces. Huaxia has its own advantages, we pay too much attention to tanks, and we despise tank destroyers and infantry fighting vehicles too lightly, and I think that in order to deal with the more advanced tanks that may be encountered in the future, the L45 level artillery is not necessarily enough. And in order to cover the rapidly advancing armored forces, it is also important to give the infantry a good platform. We have a lot to learn from this engagement. Hube concluded. …。

"Alright. As for the report you wrote, we will study it ourselves. If you don't have much to do during this time, you can take a break. Seeing that the matter was almost complete, Hindenburg signaled that the interrogation could be closed. However, he knew that this interrogation was only the beginning, and the impact of the defeat of the Hube battle group was enormous, not only for the Germans to reassess the strength of the other side, but more importantly, for tactics and strategy, as well as on military production.........

"Hube's boy was defeated, but he blamed the tank's performance. He used his armor as a hammer to crush everything, not a blade to cut through the defenses. This kind of guiding ideology is wrong. In a club of German Army officers, Guderian said to his colleagues next to him. He was one of the few officers in the Army who emphasized tank mobility. In his opinion, the role of tanks is that highly mobile armored forces tear apart the opponent's defense line and then divide the heavy forces that surround the opponent. Tearing the notch is just the beginning, not the end. If mobility problems make it impossible to expand the results of the battle, then the strategic significance of the tank has been lost. So he prefers tank No. 3, which is more than 20 tons, to tank No. 4, which is more than 30 tons.

"God knows what kind of tender the War Department will issue this time, there is already information inside, it is said that they plan to build a 50-ton tank, and they are required to completely suppress all the tanks and upcoming tanks of the other side in terms of firepower and protection. It's hard for me to imagine what this would be. A steel fortress that can only move slowly? Or is it a tank destroyer with a turret? Of course, the most likely will be a guy who is in constant trouble and will break down after not running a few kilometers. "Speaking of which. Guderian smiled..........

"Then I would like to ask, how do you plan to cut through the opponent's defenses? With an iron car that can be easily penetrated by the other party? Or the flesh and blood of the officers and soldiers? Even if we were able to cut through the opponent's defenses, what if the armored forces that quickly spread out in depth ran into the opponent's heavily armored units? Let the other side smash your armor to pieces? What's more, times are constantly changing, and at the beginning of World War I, the British and French defense lines lacked depth, and they could divide and encircle each other as long as they opened an opening, but now? The opponents we face will have multiple defensive lines, and the areas we will attack will have extremely deep depth. British India is about 8 times the size of France! And India itself does not have much heavy industry, and even if it destroys the cities, it will not affect the military production of the other side. It is unrealistic to want to use the advantages of mobility of armored forces to end the battlefield in a short time. The war will eventually turn into a positional war between the two sides. Just like in the late stages of World War I. A discordant voice rang out in the house.

"The greatest advantage of the attacker is to concentrate superior forces at a time and place of their choice to break through the opponent's defenses. We can concentrate a lot more troops than the defense of the opponent on a certain section of the front to break through the opponent's defenses, and in this case, the numerical advantage is greater than the performance advantage. It is impossible for a tank to be well defended in all directions, and the price for this is too great. And I believe that the most basic requirement for a qualified weapon is reliability. We're going to fight in South Asia, not Europe. The reliability of any weapon deteriorates in an environment of insecurity. By that time, the worst enemy of our tanks may not be the adversary, but precisely their own complex equipment and super-large weight. There was a hint of sarcasm in Guderian's words. Major General Modell, I think the teacher should have talked to you about the principle of concentrating superior forces and striking at the opponent quickly and maneuvering, in your first class, right? We can also give an example, well, how to say it? When the Mongols swept across Europe, their light cavalry won the battle against the European heavy cavalry. ”…………。

"I don't think it's appropriate to draw an analogy with the Middle Ages and today's wars. I think everyone has studied the history of World War 1. The French heavy cuirassiers (heavy tanks and tank destroyers) must have impressed you, right? Every time, we have to pay more than the other party to smash these hard bones! The French also learned wisely, and they deployed heavily armored units in the back, and then gave us a hard blow after we revealed the direction of the main attack. The reason why we were able to penetrate our opponents was because of our superiority in overall military strength. We got rid of the two-front operation. It is possible to concentrate forces against Britain and France. Before the United States joined, we could afford such losses, but in the future the situation changed. The opponent will have the advantage of combat equipment resources and strength, while we are the inferior, and every soldier and material cannot be easily compromised. Modell replied.

"We're not talking about a war. In the last war, China was still our quasi-ally, and Italy was still our ally. And this time we will face 4 first-class powers. Austria-Hungary was as bad as ever, and the Italian elite was made our enemy. We don't have that many resources to splurge. If you still insist on your view, I think we can also have a full day of exchange with you on strategic issues at the upcoming Army Conference. Moder left the room. Leave a room where people look at each other ..........

Moder did not elaborate his views on the choice of future army tanks. But he pointed out a key problem, which is that in the future, the enemy's national power will be stronger. Then in this case, if Germany wants to win, it must lose as little as possible in exchange for more losses for the other side. For the same amount of resources, heavy tanks will certainly have a much smaller number than medium tanks, but heavy tanks are less likely to lose than medium tanks. Under the strategy of being strong and weak, how should we make trade-offs? The theory of a fast medium tank, which Guderian emphasized, was clearly seriously challenged, because it was too easy to lose.

Thanks to the book friend zhouyu1976 for the tip~~~, as well as the book friend topdon, I kill me, pig cola, and the precise positioning of the monthly pass support ~~~. (To be continued).