Login

russian armor

WW2 Documents, Myths and Facts

PAGES (8)down
18 Mar 2015, 09:39 AM
#1
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

There I was, looking for some legit sources to discredit our certain OKW apologistic friend claims on the panther and stumbled upon this:

WW 2 myths busted:
Clickidy click

A fun read and as a cherry on top, it will ruin the world of our beloved fanboys of Krupp Steel :D

Have fun reading!











Now, thinking about it, this could become a nice thread akin to the one with WW2 pics, except here we could slap interesting documents and other stuff to read.
Mods, feel free to change title accordingly if it'll work!
18 Mar 2015, 09:55 AM
#2
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

Some of the statements there are true, but lots of them are myths themselves...
18 Mar 2015, 09:59 AM
#3
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

That's why I've put tile "fun stuff" and not "scientific evidence" Kappa.
You should never really take anything without source attached as a unquestionable truth. Still, would be great if people were looking for interesting texts and slapping them here.
18 Mar 2015, 10:05 AM
#4
avatar of Von Kluge
Patrion 14

Posts: 3548 | Subs: 2

especially if that source is coming from Katitof :snfCHVGame:
18 Mar 2015, 10:05 AM
#5
avatar of WiFiDi
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3293

was reading and about half way through the first page. i started going wait now it is just saying stuff because author said so... If they're are gonna use sources they probably should use them throughout the peice not give up a few bullets in.
18 Mar 2015, 10:06 AM
#6
avatar of Trubbbel

Posts: 721

I'm never into these discussions as they don't really interest me, but with this new info (i read for a while, although not all of the summaries) in ligth, stuff becomes hard to explain.

So the allied tanks were matching all-in-all. Even the French. And Soviet optics were World class. And the German Aces figures are loads inflated.

But still the tank casualties for Allies compared to Germany were staggering. Due to sheer incompetence of allied crews then? How do the tank aces not have a great ratio when the ratio of allied tanks to German tanks were so uneven? Hah! "Maths" *sneer*. Maybe the ratios are not correct and Soviets had actually less tanks. Because Soviet did not have as much people as claimed, just big country geographics. They did have a big geographics didn't they? And very cold snow?

It's all so confusing.
18 Mar 2015, 10:32 AM
#7
avatar of somenbjorn

Posts: 923

I'm never into these discussions as they don't really interest me, but with this new info (i read for a while, although not all of the summaries) in ligth, stuff becomes hard to explain.

So the allied tanks were matching all-in-all. Even the French. And Soviet optics were World class. And the German Aces figures are loads inflated.

But still the tank casualties for Allies compared to Germany were staggering. Due to sheer incompetence of allied crews then? How do the tank aces not have a great ratio when the ratio of allied tanks to German tanks were so uneven? Hah! "Maths" *sneer*. Maybe the ratios are not correct and Soviets had actually less tanks. Because Soviet did not have as much people as claimed, just big country geographics. They did have a big geographics didn't they? And very cold snow?

It's all so confusing.


I think your understanding of English is equally poor to your writing.
18 Mar 2015, 10:33 AM
#8
avatar of flyingtiger

Posts: 142

I'm never into these discussions as they don't really interest me, but with this new info (i read for a while, although not all of the summaries) in ligth, stuff becomes hard to explain.

So the allied tanks were matching all-in-all. Even the French. And Soviet optics were World class. And the German Aces figures are loads inflated.

But still the tank casualties for Allies compared to Germany were staggering. Due to sheer incompetence of allied crews then? How do the tank aces not have a great ratio when the ratio of allied tanks to German tanks were so uneven? Hah! "Maths" *sneer*. Maybe the ratios are not correct and Soviets had actually less tanks. Because Soviet did not have as much people as claimed, just big country geographics. They did have a big geographics didn't they? And very cold snow?

It's all so confusing.

I would not say allied tanks were matching all-in-all, they're still mostly inferior in long range combat compared to German one, but that's situational.

And many of the Allied tanks losses came from anti tank gun, panzerschreck and panzerfaust etc etc, not by German armor, especially in later stage of the war when they're on the offensive, not defensive like the German.
18 Mar 2015, 10:49 AM
#9
avatar of Trubbbel

Posts: 721

I think your understanding of English is equally poor to your writing.

Feel free to give me useful feedback on my writing. That way I will improve and you will be less annoyed in the future. ;)

18 Mar 2015, 11:14 AM
#10
avatar of MarcoRossolini

Posts: 1042

I'd recommend Archive Awareness if you want serious historical documentation and analysis.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.se/
18 Mar 2015, 13:13 PM
#11
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

Troll topic.
We suppose to believe all these just because someone wrote them lol.
Anyway OP is no better than Krupp steel fanboys because he is a Krupp steel hater.

P.S. Really liked that 300 meters stuff, I loled my ass of. Like in open ground shermans and T34s were able to approach at 300 meters of a Tiger tank all day long. Just like that "scary" happening with a Su-27 that flew over an american destroyer jaming its comunication starting from 150 yards distance. Double LOL.
18 Mar 2015, 13:20 PM
#12
avatar of CasTroy

Posts: 559

SS asked me to do this, and The_Chieftain (WGA’s historian) put in his corrections into the list, as well as various posters of the World of Tanks NA forums.

Okay :facepalm:
18 Mar 2015, 13:24 PM
#13
avatar of JHeartless

Posts: 1637

YOU LATE Katitof :) I shared that on the forum Months ago! But here is another youll like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II

HRMMMM in the entire war the US lost 20,000 tanks in ALL Theaters hmmmmmmmmm.Brits? The SAME! GASP! I detect a Myth about terrible US tanks...seeing as yknow they lost just as many as the Brits and thats 20K total not just Shermans I am sure they are a small percentage of those losses. Lets just not bring up how many the Soviets lost...

And Germans?

Around 40,000 tanks and SPGs destroyed or captured (~2,000 in North Africa, ~4,000 in Western Front and ~34,000 in Eastern Front)
18 Mar 2015, 13:39 PM
#14
avatar of l4hti

Posts: 476

Germans were the best, that is why they won the war, right?
18 Mar 2015, 13:56 PM
#15
avatar of flyingtiger

Posts: 142

YOU LATE Katitof :) I shared that on the forum Months ago! But here is another youll like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II

HRMMMM in the entire war the US lost 20,000 tanks in ALL Theaters hmmmmmmmmm.Brits? The SAME! GASP! I detect a Myth about terrible US tanks...seeing as yknow they lost just as many as the Brits and thats 20K total not just Shermans I am sure they are a small percentage of those losses. Lets just not bring up how many the Soviets lost...

Where's the credit for the German air forces, anti tank gun crew, panzerscherck, panzerfaust and... mines? :facepalm:
18 Mar 2015, 14:03 PM
#16
avatar of JHeartless

Posts: 1637


Where's the credit for the German air forces, anti tank gun crew, panzerscherck, panzerfaust and... mines? :facepalm:


In the source book. That costs over 200.00 US :*( I am trying to get my hands on a copy for a reasonable price. Or find it in a library.

0-8160-2971-7
18 Mar 2015, 14:14 PM
#17
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

Pretty good article that dismisses some of the most notoriuos myths of WW2.


18 Mar 2015, 14:21 PM
#18
avatar of MajorBloodnok
Admin Red  Badge
Patrion 314

Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9

It is convention for these WWII discussion threads to be be in the Scrap Yard, which is where I have moved it. I might wish there was a Library thread, but currently there is not.

@ OP: If you want the thread title changed to something else, please let one of the Mods know what title you prefer
18 Mar 2015, 15:13 PM
#19
avatar of Trubbbel

Posts: 721

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Mar 2015, 13:39 PMl4hti
Germans were the best, that is why they won the war, right?

To be fair, they were one nation fighting everybody else on multiple fronts. I'm not hailing nazis.
18 Mar 2015, 15:24 PM
#20
avatar of AvNY

Posts: 862


To be fair, they were one nation fighting everybody else on multiple fronts. I'm not hailing nazis.



Not about being Fair. If you don't want to have your buildings leveled, the cream of your youth killed, many of your women raped and possesions plundered, and your name ruined for a couple of generations, don't pick a fight with multiple powers, invade their lands, rape their women, plunder their riches, enslave their populace, etc. etc.

They had the advantage of surprise and good tactics (plus taking on only one opponent at a time) up until the end of '41. They were able to slog it out until the end of '42. But after that they lost about as fast as could be expected considering that no offensives ever covered more than 400-600km before needing a few months of reorganization and replenishment.
PAGES (8)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

598 users are online: 1 member and 597 guests
donaldfufu
1 post in the last 24h
6 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49186
Welcome our newest member, 12betripp
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM