Nice to see the new patch....

Stop trolling. You know exactly what I meant.

You disingenuously stated that length of barrel was the only determinate of armour penetration. I know exactly what you were doing.

Yeah also looking forward to the patch.
#hypetrain

You disingenuously stated that length of barrel was the only determinate of armour penetration. I know exactly what you were doing.

Okay, I get it. You are the special kid.

Barrel length is one of the most important factors. That´s why the 88 on the KT had more penetration than the 88 on the Tiger I. I didn´t state that it was the only factor. Someone was implying the caliber was the only factor and that is wrong.

I hope the 17 pounder units are sort of complementary to the Jackson, higher penetration but lower damage. That way the two will feel different. Nfi how Relic will deliver it to us in the end though.

Wehrmacht equals SS (Nazi).

You do know the Wehrmacht was created by an "executive" order of Hitler. It also has the Nazi eagle with a little Nazi swastika on all their uniforms. So symbolically and literally tied to the Nazi party.

Okay, I get it. You are the special kid.

Barrel length is one of the most important factors. That´s why the 88 on the KT had more penetration than the 88 on the Tiger I. I didn´t state that it was the only factor. Someone was implying the caliber was the only factor and that is wrong.

It's not though is it?

Otherwise the higher velocity pzgr of the 5cm 60cal (835m/s) would have out penetrated the pzgr 39 of the Kwk 7,5cm 750m/s . . 750m/s is pretty close to the 745m/s of the 37mm kwk which was terrible even before one takes into account it's tendancy to shatter on overmatching armour.

The war saw increasing calibre's not just ever longer 37/45/2pdr barrels. Issues penetrating sloped armour wapruf did not go make 5cm guns longer they went make larger calibre (7,5cm) that over match 4,5cm of armour and cut down the cartridge charge (and velocity) as it was having ejection issues.

PaK 40 with a l46 barrel fired a larger cartridge at 790m/s than the KwK 48 with a l48 barrel but a smaller cartridge (longer) only achieved 750m/s. You can guess that the shorter barraled Pak had better penetration than the longer PIV/StuG gun.

It's a lot more complicated than picking and choosing "history/weapons development" so: mighty nazi for my game.

Penetration for AP shells is primarily a function of momentum, Mass x Velocity. You can increase penetration by increasing the mass of the shell (increasing calibre is one way to do this, substituting the materials for denser ones is another). You can also increase it by increasing the velocity of the shell. A long barrelled 88 had higher muzzle velocity not purely because of its longer barrel, but also because of an associated increase in gunpowder to propel it faster.

A 90mm shell vs a 75mm shell fired at the same velocity will see the 90mm penetrate more. OTOH a 75mm Panther shell travelling faster than the 90mm AP shell has more comparable performance. One reason that countries in the postwar era favoured larger diameter guns rather than focusing on HV stuff is because larger, heavier shells are better for dual-purpose stuff, they have bigger HE loads. The development of APFSDS ammunition later on allowed them to have their cake and eat it too, albeit at the cost of complicating the aiming a bit.

Oh, how I'd love to see side armour...

You do know the Wehrmacht was created by an "executive" order of Hitler. It also has the Nazi eagle with a little Nazi swastika on all their uniforms. So symbolically and literally tied to the Nazi party.

I can bring counter-arguments to your theory, no problemo, such as: please tell me then why german military was saluting as any military force on the globe, but the Waffen SS was saluting by rising the right arm straight at 45 degrees? Why there were recorded incidents between whermacht and SS officiers related to treatement of civilians? The only coup d'etat against Hitler that actualy almost succeded was started and helped by wehrmacht officiers. And so on.... Let's not allow ignorance to keep us away from real facts.
Wehrmacht was in the same time the tool and the victim of nazi regime.

What theory?

The Reichswehr was ordered by the Ministry of Defence to use the Nazi Eagle on it's uniform begining 1 May 1934. The same month the Reichswehr was retitled the Wehrmacht Heer as Hitler followed through on his promises to expand the Army.

The Wehrmacht was a creation of the Nazi Party and wore it's symbols as part of it's ceremonial and field uniforms.

Anything else is "lost cause" revisionist bullshit.
1935

1944



Also from wiki:

Die Vereidigung der Wehrmacht auf Adolf Hitler, 2.8.1934

"Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, daß ich dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit für diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen."

The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934

"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."

There is a list of public notables who refused to swear an oath to Hitler either in public office or conscription to Heer/SS and their various punishments including death penalty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_oath

The Wehrmacht as a organisation went along with this shit, German army officer drafted these oaths from within the defence ministry(General Werner von Blomberg and General Walther von Reichenau). The Wehrmacht's very genesis after all owed everything to Hitler and the Nazi party

An army would "go along" with the regyme and serve it most probably until the end. It's army's duty as long as the political regyme elected by the people is in place no matter if the choice was wrong. That's what armies do.
If we are thinking like this, Soviet army on the other hand "went along" with Stalin's regyme and with the following commie regyms with no problem at all until '90s (or like some would say, until today ). The only thing armies can do is keep at least dignity and act like armies, by separating civilians from opposing forces. Armies have their idiots and fanatics among its personnel, but they are not the majority.

So I would like to keep the difference between Wehrmacht and SS, between Soviet Army and NKVD even though in some situations the differences were hard to note

I can bring counter-arguments to your theory, no problemo, such as: please tell me then why german military was saluting as any military force on the globe, but the Waffen SS was saluting by rising the right arm straight at 45 degrees? Why there were recorded incidents between whermacht and SS officiers related to treatement of civilians? The only coup d'etat against Hitler that actualy almost succeded was started and helped by wehrmacht officiers. And so on.... Let's not allow ignorance to keep us away from real facts.
Wehrmacht was in the same time the tool and the victim of nazi regime.

You are right to some extent, but the Paulus's and Reichenau Sixth Army did commit attrocities when entering Stalingrad and the invasion of the Ukraine, it was total war by both countries, they also were involved in the killing so it's not as if only the SS were the criminals, only some divisions were anti-hitler, like the austrian division, can't recall the name, all taken from Antony Beevor's Stalingrad, and documentaries. Not making an apology of the other argument, just a constructive observation

An army would "go along" with the regyme and serve it most probably until the end. It's army's duty as long as the political regyme elected by the people is in place no matter if the choice was wrong. That's what armies do.
If we are thinking like this, Soviet army on the other hand "went along" with Stalin's regyme and with the following commie regyms with no problem at all until '90s (or like some would say, until today ). The only thing armies can do is keep at least dignity and act like armies, by separating civilians from opposing forces. Armies have their idiots and fanatics among its personnel, but they are not the majority.

So I would like to keep the difference between Wehrmacht and SS, between Soviet Army and NKVD even though in some situations the differences were hard to note

I like in your facist devotion you ascribe to the idea that no order is ever illegal or wrong. You then contradict this by blithering about separating civilians and opposing forces.

Note the Heer's active breaking of international law:
The laws of war as accepted by all civilized countries in 1942 were unequivocal on this point: "... it is especially forbidden ... to declare that no quarter will be given".

With the Promulgation of:
The commissioner order
The commando order
The severity Order
The tendency to conduct collective punishment

Which all enjoined, allowed, and enlarged the German army's historical propensity (since the war of 1870) for mass reprisals/collective punishment aka gunning down/burning/bayoneting unarmed solders and civilians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrecklichkeit

There is a list of orders, massacres, collective punishment, execution of prisoners that all point to a bit more than the bullshit "few bad apples" apologist argument. There were serious structural issues with the Heer that predisposed it to committing atrocities. The very fuckwittery that following orders led to by the Wehrmacht resulted in most western militaries after the war enacting various injunctions to follow only "lawful orders" or giving soldier/NCO officer the ability to reject illegal orders.

Because merrily breaking laws and murdering unarmed persons while hiding behind duty/oaths/orders is considered in polite company, evil.

The laws of war as accepted by all civilized countries in 1942 were unequivocal on this point: "... it is especially forbidden ... to declare that no quarter will be given".

Allied War Crimes
Soviet War Crimes
War Crimes of the Wehrmacht
Italian War Crimes
Japanese War Crimes
U.S. War Crimes
.
.
.

Now tell me where are the civilized countries?

Please discuss over here: General World War 2 Thread


On Topic:

Good to see there is a patch in all. Let´s wait until the British show up.

I like in your facist devotion you ascribe to the idea that no order is ever illegal or wrong.

Fine, I don't want to interfear with your anti-fascist crusade or whatever anymore. I like people with objective views, not Justice League wanabees.

The laws of war as accepted by all civilized countries in 1942 were unequivocal on this point: "... it is especially forbidden ... to declare that no quarter will be given".

"Laws of war", come on, you really think they really care of that text ?

they should place on "Agent Orange" barils "approved by laws of war"

War is war, they dont give a fuck about a text. (i am talking of every country)

Allied War Crimes
Soviet War Crimes
War Crimes of the Wehrmacht
Italian War Crimes
Japanese War Crimes
U.S. War Crimes
.
.
.

Now tell me where are the civilized countries?

Please discuss over here: General World War 2 Thread


On Topic:

Good to see there is a patch in all. Let´s wait until the British show up.

So if other countries commit warcrimes the Wehrmacht did not commit war crimes . . . nor was tied explicitly to the Nazi party/regime? That's certainly an "argument".

"Laws of war", come on, you really think they really care of that text ?

they should place on "Agent Orange" barils "approved by laws of war"

War is war, they dont give a fuck about a text. (i am talking of every country)

"They" cared enough to lie about Russia not being a signatory and pretend therefore the protections to Prisoners of war did not extend during Germanys war on Russia..

So if other countries commit warcrimes the Wehrmacht did not commit war crimes . . . nor was tied explicitly to the Nazi party/regime? That's certainly an "argument".

he's saying that every country committed "war crimes" and thus that trying to draw distinctions between the "civilized" and "non-civilized" countries based upon war crimes a non-sequitur.

he's saying that every country committed "war crimes" and thus that trying to draw distinctions between the "civilized" and "non-civilized" countries based upon war crimes a non-sequitur.

Yeah so he decided to conduct a separate straw man argument then.