To be fair, they were one nation fighting everybody else on multiple fronts. I'm not hailing nazis.
Not counting the Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Slovaks, Finns, Croats and probably a few others that I forgot
WW2 Documents, Myths and Facts
18 Mar 2015, 17:05 PM
#22
Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2
Not counting the Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Slovaks, Finns, Croats and probably a few others that I forgot
Resident Soviet Whiner and Grand Master Bias Jedi; General Secretary of the Soviet Whine Hydra Collective; Axis Hating Sheeple; Allied Butt Buddy! Collect Them All!
Also the African Branch of TAB Bulletins
PS: The Italian Army fought with courage and skill
Also the African Branch of TAB Bulletins
PS: The Italian Army fought with courage and skill
18 Mar 2015, 17:08 PM
#23
Posts: 1225
Not counting the Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Slovaks, Finns, Croats and probably a few others that I forgot
Whose contributions - in the grand scheme of things - were necessarily minor and did not redress the balance in the Axis favour to any significant degree, that much has to be said.
18 Mar 2015, 17:20 PM
#24
Posts: 559
18 Mar 2015, 18:34 PM
#25
Posts: 431
70 years are really not enough time to be objective, eh? This forum is full of selfmade historians using Wikipedia and some random sites claiming to be experts about everything (and sometimes you can see a touch of racism).
Yes, meanwhile everyone should now that the Kruppstahl-blablabal is only a myth, but saying "German superior tanks are a myth, we know that *please insert any other country with tanks here* is da real shit, because *please insert some link to a strange internet site here*" is also fanboyism at its finest. I've seen now fanboys from all sides.
Would you kindly grow up? If you want to be taken serious, you should learn to be objective. And guys, please get reliable sources. A wargaming blogger has probaly only googled "WW2 myths" and used the first three sites as a source.
Yes, meanwhile everyone should now that the Kruppstahl-blablabal is only a myth, but saying "German superior tanks are a myth, we know that *please insert any other country with tanks here* is da real shit, because *please insert some link to a strange internet site here*" is also fanboyism at its finest. I've seen now fanboys from all sides.
Would you kindly grow up? If you want to be taken serious, you should learn to be objective. And guys, please get reliable sources. A wargaming blogger has probaly only googled "WW2 myths" and used the first three sites as a source.
18 Mar 2015, 19:31 PM
#26
Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2
The average level of discourse here is pretty low and there very few people I take seriously
Resident Soviet Whiner and Grand Master Bias Jedi; General Secretary of the Soviet Whine Hydra Collective; Axis Hating Sheeple; Allied Butt Buddy! Collect Them All!
Also the African Branch of TAB Bulletins
PS: The Italian Army fought with courage and skill
Also the African Branch of TAB Bulletins
PS: The Italian Army fought with courage and skill
18 Mar 2015, 20:05 PM
#27
Posts: 721
and probably a few others that I forgot
The Japs
Yes I understood your point but Germany seemed to pull its weight to a much higher degree in Europe than its allies.
My mommy always said there were no monsters - no real ones - but there are.
18 Mar 2015, 20:08 PM
#28
Posts: 1702
Looks like this thread has taken a turn. It's not going to be a discussion, but instead everyone showing of their ego and talking about how everyone else is worthless.
I approve Keepo
I approve Keepo
18 Mar 2015, 20:35 PM
#29
Posts: 2070
Looks like this thread has taken a turn. It's not going to be a discussion, but instead everyone showing of their ego and talking about how everyone else is worthless.
I approve Keepo
Axis doesn't have the best AT options in the game
9 Apr 2015, 13:22 PM
#30
Posts: 1571
I am pretty much in agreement with every point here. I think the biggest problem with the analysis of armor & the hobby is the extreme 'focus' on fairly meaningless aspects/technical details of armor and not the capability, logistics handling, services, and troop training/tactics of the armored formation, which was in fact far more important than the equipment item.
Another focus that is coolly ignored is how useful the tank is at the operational level and how it fits in.
Another focus that is coolly ignored is how useful the tank is at the operational level and how it fits in.
WW 2 myths busted:
Clickidy click
9 Apr 2015, 13:30 PM
#31
Posts: 438
I am pretty much in agreement with every point here. I think the biggest problem with the analysis of armor & the hobby is the extreme 'focus' on fairly meaningless aspects/technical details of armor and not the capability, logistics handling, services, and troop training/tactics of the armored formation, which was in fact far more important than the equipment item.
Another focus that is coolly ignored is how useful the tank is at the operational level and how it fits in.
I agree. Having gotten a minor in German Military History (Majored in computer programming
) The key to note is that Armor was almost never deployed in single entities but rather in formations. These formations and tactics made for a higher degree of the success rather than the individual tank "Stats". Having a high velocity 75mm gun on a panther ment nothing had the German Optics not been good enough to allow for the tank crew to engage at ranges exceeding Russian/American ranges and using the 75mm to its fullest capabilities.
9 Apr 2015, 14:09 PM
#32
Posts: 862
I am pretty much in agreement with every point here. I think the biggest problem with the analysis of armor & the hobby is the extreme 'focus' on fairly meaningless aspects/technical details of armor and not the capability, logistics handling, services, and troop training/tactics of the armored formation, which was in fact far more important than the equipment item.
Another focus that is coolly ignored is how useful the tank is at the operational level and how it fits in.
I agree. Having gotten a minor in German Military History (Majored in computer programming
Actually it goes even farther than that. Great optics on a high velocity gun in a strong frontally armored tank run in formations isn't of much use if the crew is inexperienced, the ground is broken and/or wooded, the opponent is experienced and lying in ambush. In such situations the "superior" Panther formation will die fast to side shots from M4's, m10s, m18s in prepared positions.
Exhibit one is the battle of Arracourt - 75 Mark IVs and 107 Mark Vs, 80 armored fighting vehicles such as assault guns vs the 4th Armored division (190 M4s and 77 Stuarts at full strenght), and a TD battalion (36 m18s at full strength). At the end of the battle 7th Pz. Army had 62 effective vehicles left tot he loss of 41 m4s and 7 Stuarts.
Studies showed that the winner in most tank engagements was the side that was able to set the nature of the battle (defensive lines, ambush, etc) and fight according to its strengths. This is not unlike airplane dogfighting where it is much less important how the planes match up then whether the pilots know how to use their plane's strengths and avoid its weaknesses.
9 Apr 2015, 14:17 PM
#33
Posts: 862
There were many other advantages that the allies had that aren't sexy enough to qualify as "super weapons" and so don't get the attention of fanbois.
The US had industrial innovations and advantages not available or not used by the Germans. The US was at the forefront of rivet and flush-rivet technology, and TIG welding of aluminum, meaning they could build planes faster, stronger and lighter than the Germans. This isn't sexy, but it does make for the fast building of better planes.
The US had industrial innovations and advantages not available or not used by the Germans. The US was at the forefront of rivet and flush-rivet technology, and TIG welding of aluminum, meaning they could build planes faster, stronger and lighter than the Germans. This isn't sexy, but it does make for the fast building of better planes.
9 Apr 2015, 14:22 PM
#34
Posts: 862
I have said this in other places, but the US artillery was superlative.
The organization and preparation of the US artillery was superior to all other countries during the war. The use of pre-calculated trajectory tables meant these organizations could target fast (almost as fast as the British), with more accuracy than anyone else, and with large numbers of tubes.
During the defense of the Elsenborne Ridge in the Battle of the Bulge, they used several dozen (60-70) time-on-target barrages in the space of just a few days, coordinating the artillery of 4 divisions (16 batteries) in the space of minutes. One TOT was 3 divisions strong and fired 129 tubes. It isn't a wonder that Germans told of things blowing up all around them when facing Americans.
The organization and preparation of the US artillery was superior to all other countries during the war. The use of pre-calculated trajectory tables meant these organizations could target fast (almost as fast as the British), with more accuracy than anyone else, and with large numbers of tubes.
During the defense of the Elsenborne Ridge in the Battle of the Bulge, they used several dozen (60-70) time-on-target barrages in the space of just a few days, coordinating the artillery of 4 divisions (16 batteries) in the space of minutes. One TOT was 3 divisions strong and fired 129 tubes. It isn't a wonder that Germans told of things blowing up all around them when facing Americans.
9 Apr 2015, 14:27 PM
#35
Posts: 438
Actually it goes even farther than that. Great optics on a high velocity gun in a strong frontally armored tank run in formations isn't of much use if the crew is inexperienced, the ground is broken and/or wooded, the opponent is experienced and lying in ambush. In such situations the "superior" Panther formation will die fast to side shots from M4's, m10s, m18s in prepared positions.
Exhibit one is the battle of Arracourt - 75 Mark IVs and 107 Mark Vs, 80 armored fighting vehicles such as assault guns vs the 4th Armored division (190 M4s and 77 Stuarts at full strenght), and a TD battalion (36 m18s at full strength). At the end of the battle 7th Pz. Army had 62 effective vehicles left tot he loss of 41 m4s and 7 Stuarts.
Studies showed that the winner in most tank engagements was the side that was able to set the nature of the battle (defensive lines, ambush, etc) and fight according to its strengths. This is not unlike airplane dogfighting where it is much less important how the planes match up then whether the pilots know how to use their plane's strengths and avoid its weaknesses.
There were many other advantages that the allies had that aren't sexy enough to qualify as "super weapons" and so don't get the attention of fanbois.
The US had industrial innovations and advantages not available or not used by the Germans. The US was at the forefront of rivet and flush-rivet technology, and TIG welding of aluminum, meaning they could build planes faster, stronger and lighter than the Germans. This isn't sexy, but it does make for the fast building of better planes.
1000% in agreement and I am glad you into depth for I am at work and didnt want to lol. But yes your right all those factors made up for the shortfalls of the Panther/Tiger/Ferdnand/JadgPanther/JagdPanzer. For many German machines the armor was great and gun was great but the equipment i.e. engines were not so hot nor were transmissions/ turret mantle's (Panther before model G I believe had a mantles that allowed Allied tanks to shoot it and the shell would ricochet into the hull and often kill the driver and take out the forward transmission). Then again look at the Allies with vertical stabilizers ( a concept many German tanks lacked). The winner of tank battles was nothing short than from the better men/tactics/and those whom had the stronger will to do what ever it took to win. There was no mythical machine that won everthing for either side.
9 Apr 2015, 14:47 PM
#36
Posts: 862
There was no mythical machine that won everthing for either side.
When you wrote that my first thought was of the P-51D Mustang. I always grew up learning this was the best fighter. Faster (true), more maneuverable, fast climbe, dive, etc. In fact, aside from some speed, is was in most respects just "very good". But it was "very good" in many many things. What made it so amazing was it's range, the training of it's pilots (US pilots got 50%+ more hours of training than Luftwaffe pilots by this time), and how changes in the conduct of escort operations at about the time this fighter was coming into large use.
In early '44 the escort operations were switched from going out with the bombers, covering them as they dropped bombs and then returning with them, to using three different sets of fighters, one for each phase of the bombers mission. This increased the available fuel each fighter had for combat emergency power from 5 minutes on a mission. They also changed engagement priorities. At first the fighters were to stay with the bombers. They could chase off enemy fighters but ended up not getting to engage them. Since later they had more combat time and more fighters, they were given instructions to give chase since downing enemy fighters was part of the destroy-the-luftwaffe endgame.
9 Apr 2015, 14:58 PM
#37
Posts: 438
Yes but just the same, the P-51 was great and technologically advanced yes but was soon outclassed/outgunned/outproduced by Sabers because of advances from the German ME262. The P-51 only lasted a few years and was subsequently retired. Now on that topic the only true mythical machine in any arsenal I can think of is the B-52 Bomber with planned service all the way to 2040. Anyway back to topic. Sorry OP
9 Apr 2015, 15:08 PM
#38
Posts: 862
Yes but just the same, the P-51 was great and technologically advanced yes but was soon outclassed/outgunned/outproduced by Sabers because of advances from the German ME262. The P-51 only lasted a few years and was subsequently retired. Now on that topic the only true mythical machine in any arsenal I can think of is the B-52 Bomber with planned service all the way to 2040. Anyway back to topic. Sorry OP
Don't worry, I can bring this back to topic and save you from the invisi-gods...
The mythical war machine is the M2 50cal machine gun. A WWI design that we are still using today and that has survived every modern attempt at replacing it. It was designed about 50 years after the invention of the Gatling gun. It is now almost 100 years since it was designed. I remember thinking of its longevity when the Marines were using it in the Battle of Khafji, and that was 24 years ago (sheesh, I am old).
(Each generation of jet has had a longer life. The 4th gen fighters have now lasted 40 years and it was 30 years until they were being supplanted. That kind of life cycle is now planned into the 5th gen fighters. Maybe with UAV's they will last a shorter time. The B-52 is still very good at dropping large qtys of munitions, and little else, but with the assumption of air supremacy and with stand-off weapons, that is all it really needs to do.)
9 Apr 2015, 16:42 PM
#39
Posts: 117
Are we discussing one to one Tank stats or their overall performance in the actual war, because the two are very different. One to one the German tanks were generally better at least compared to American made tanks, however real life is complicated and a myriad of factors, many logistical, play into how a tank performs in war.
Crew Experience
Quality of parts
Reliability of equipment
Availability of parts (i.e. tanks break down, will you have the parts to fix it?)
Availability of fuel and ammunition and its quality
Production capability and cost (i.e. loses will happen, can they be replaced and at what cost?)
Military doctrine(how does the command expect them to be used and were thus were designed for)
Combat statics can also be misleading as they often list hard numbers and fail to take into account the complex realities of large operations (i.e. terrain, offensive, defensive, reasons behind a certain action)
Life and war are complicated, its hard to list stats and causality numbers and get a real idea for how something actually happened. Both sides fought bravely with what they had, often the outcome of a battle was out of the average soldiers hands long before the first shot is even fired.
Discover magazine discussing Shermans and German Armor with the source mostly being "Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II"
German steel Quality according this book wasn't as bad as some believe
Crew Experience
Quality of parts
Reliability of equipment
Availability of parts (i.e. tanks break down, will you have the parts to fix it?)
Availability of fuel and ammunition and its quality
Production capability and cost (i.e. loses will happen, can they be replaced and at what cost?)
Military doctrine(how does the command expect them to be used and were thus were designed for)
Combat statics can also be misleading as they often list hard numbers and fail to take into account the complex realities of large operations (i.e. terrain, offensive, defensive, reasons behind a certain action)
Life and war are complicated, its hard to list stats and causality numbers and get a real idea for how something actually happened. Both sides fought bravely with what they had, often the outcome of a battle was out of the average soldiers hands long before the first shot is even fired.
Discover magazine discussing Shermans and German Armor with the source mostly being "Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II"
German steel Quality according this book wasn't as bad as some believe
9 Apr 2015, 17:44 PM
#40
Posts: 1225
Don't worry, I can bring this back to topic and save you from the invisi-gods...
The mythical war machine is the M2 50cal machine gun. A WWI design that we are still using today and that has survived every modern attempt at replacing it. It was designed about 50 years after the invention of the Gatling gun. It is now almost 100 years since it was designed. I remember thinking of its longevity when the Marines were using it in the Battle of Khafji, and that was 24 years ago (sheesh, I am old).
(Each generation of jet has had a longer life. The 4th gen fighters have now lasted 40 years and it was 30 years until they were being supplanted. That kind of life cycle is now planned into the 5th gen fighters. Maybe with UAV's they will last a shorter time. The B-52 is still very good at dropping large qtys of munitions, and little else, but with the assumption of air supremacy and with stand-off weapons, that is all it really needs to do.)
Even in the information age we live in, the life-cycle of weapon systems is more than anything determined by the next shooting war between peer powers; necessity propels innovation. That, if anything, is the pertinent lesson of WW2. The conflicts Western powers have been involved in since the WW2 have been grosso modo simply so utterly asymetric as to not necessitate any fundamental leaps in technology.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
14 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.882398.689+4
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.997646.607+1
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1000
Board Info
466 users are online:
466 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48726
Welcome our newest member, vanyaclinic02
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, vanyaclinic02
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM