Login

russian armor

Myths of American Armor (food for thought)

22 Jul 2015, 19:12 PM
#21
avatar of AvNY

Posts: 862



+1 This


It feels like over the last couple of years alot of the stuff I've read have all been very much focused on the individual accounts, and as you point out and is said in the video these might be quite inaccurate. (All guns are 88s all tanks are Tigers sort of thing)

I still enjoy reading it but I think the best (Historically speaking) stuff I've read is the stuff researched by historians and not interviewed by journalists. :)




I think most people aren't aware how seriously the allied militaries (including the Soviets?) took these issues both during and after the war. So many want to paint them as they painted the generals of WWII as cold hearted backwards ideologues who cared about their pet theories more than the poor soldier in the mud (or the burning tanks).

A good example is the study that it was the guy with the first shot who usually won. Aside from having got the first shot it, it also means he got into the position to take it first and had the initiative (if not some down right ambush advantage). When ambushed you want your equipment to survive the first shot, but we learn that is unlikely to happen regardless of which piece of kit you are in. They don't think about the 5 panthers they killed from the side or behind, only the one that bounced the shell from in front and think "g-d I wish my tank would be impervious to enemy fire like these ones."
22 Jul 2015, 19:18 PM
#22
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

#1. Myth- the endless false comparisons with armor, forces, etc.

Authors like Zaloga add to this problem.
22 Jul 2015, 20:22 PM
#23
avatar of AvNY

Posts: 862

#1. Myth- the endless false comparisons with armor, forces, etc.

Authors like Zaloga add to this problem.



???
22 Jul 2015, 21:51 PM
#24
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

The cottage industry (gaming, modeling, books, tv) of Panther vs. Sherman, Tiger vs T-34, etc. is largely spun on a web of false comparisons and simple made up theories.

Pretty much all of Zaloga's books (and Osprey publishing) fall in this category. The quality and depth is still no good.
22 Jul 2015, 22:32 PM
#25
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

thanks for the post!
23 Jul 2015, 10:19 AM
#26
avatar of somenbjorn

Posts: 923

The cottage industry (gaming, modeling, books, tv) of Panther vs. Sherman, Tiger vs T-34, etc. is largely spun on a web of false comparisons and simple made up theories.

Pretty much all of Zaloga's books (and Osprey publishing) fall in this category. The quality and depth is still no good.


I have to disagree with you, I've read a little of Osprey Publishings books and I have concurred it has to be down to the author if the book is good or not. But sure depth is not their market, their "Duel" series isn't more than 90 pages or so but can serve as a good introduction for interested high-schoolers.
With silliness of the titles probably being pushed by their marketing team.



edit: Not disagreeing with you on the "cottage industry" I 100% agree with you on that. Just defending Zaloga and Osprey abit.
23 Jul 2015, 11:50 AM
#27
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225

"Denouncing Myths" too is a historiographical cottage industry entirely in its own right...just saying.
23 Jul 2015, 13:34 PM
#28
avatar of AvNY

Posts: 862

There is a lot in history we think we know well that we do not for many and various reasons. Often one piece of work becomes a kind of canon (not cannon) because of popularity, rarity, supposed provenance of the author, etc.

The Belton Cooper book was for a long time the definitive source of so much of what people thought they knew regarding the M4 Sherman. McNair was the bad guy. The Panther was the best designed, best built and best all around tank of the war. Etc. etc. Today we know the stories are much more complex than that. We understand that though veterans accounts are invaluable they are also one persons limited and subjective opinion view. We have information that was either classified or hidden away in archives while the "everbody knows" type of history was being constructed.

That is why there is still work for historians to do. Is there a cottage industry of people working these things out? Sure. Just as there was a cottage industry of people who ground out the history "everybody knows" about the war in the couple of decades after.

I am old enough to have watched "The World at War" when it came out. Mostly though I watched it when my parents thought I was ready which wasn't for a handful of years after. It is a great piece of wark and was the "definitive documentary" film at that point and for many years later. Yet think about that. Pretty much everything "experts" (particularly armchair generals) thought they knew about the war excluded knowledge or understanding of what Ultra (breaking the Enigma code) did for the war effort.

23 Jul 2015, 16:39 PM
#29
avatar of somenbjorn

Posts: 923

Sure revising history for the sake of revising history is done very much these days, with quite large differences in quality.
Some making valid, substaniated points and others bringing nothing new to the table rather just explaining things that have been common knowledge for years in academia. (Sure there is no lack of works that are pure fiction either.)

But I think there is merit to the two former ones. The first is obvious, the second is because of how far behind the general publics view of history is from academia. Even "knocking down open doors" as it were has a merit in order to counter-weight the sheer volume of bullshit spewn over the world from poorly researched games, movies, documentaries and the often poor writings from the Cold-war era. (Especially in the light of modern studies.)



31 Jul 2015, 17:56 PM
#30
avatar of OrionHunter88

Posts: 141

#1. Myth- the endless false comparisons with armor, forces, etc.

Authors like Zaloga add to this problem.


Did you read Zaloga's flagship book about the M4 - "Armored Thunderbolt"?
If so, what specifically was he so wrong about?

I've read several of his books and Osprey campaigns. Yeah you can say they lack some depth I guess but what are you comparing it to? Way better than a lot of popular sources out there. Eye-witness veteran accounts can be pretty skewed, history-channel/documentary have even less depth usually, not even going to even bring up mainstream movies. I see Osprey as "chewable bites", yeah sure their book doesn't cover every possible detail about a vehicle/campaign but so what?
1 Aug 2015, 20:07 PM
#31
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

oh, it's just me griping after getting Zaloga's "Top tanks of WW2" book and finding the analysis in it the quite thin. I have read most of what he has written over the years and I own almost the entire Osprey library (ww2). It is not useless, it's just that often the subject is not dealt with comprehensively by historians so this booklet becomes the one of the influential sources..

There needs to be more stuff of the quality/comprehension (and beyond) of Igor's tank army books and stuff like Jentz' panzertruppen. Operational histories like Barrett or Glantz's stuff.

There's way too little focus on actual war experience in the tank book genre which has lead to speculative beliefs among the hobby community. I have heard that the publishers don't for instance, print unit histories because people won't buy them- the market is in the glossy picture books and other lightweight stuff.
1 Aug 2015, 20:26 PM
#32
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

It this book: http://www.amazon.com/Armored-Champion-Top-Tanks-World/dp/0811714373/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438460665&sr=8-1&keywords=top+tanks+of+ww2

It's not a useless book (worth getting for the tables and other factoids). But the analysis is quite weak IMHO and I feel like Zaloga/his publisher churned this out as a money grab- he wants this book to help fuel tank vs. tank debates and stimulate the sales of the Duel & other such series.
28 Sep 2015, 14:36 PM
#33
avatar of Death's Head

Posts: 440

The truth usually lies somewhere in between two extreme positions. Lots of old sources tell us that the Panther and Tiger were exceptional designs despite their flaws, new revisionism will say despite their strengths they were poor designs.

The reality was they were over-engineered but serviceable tanks. Exaggerations like "best _____ of the war" or "it sucked" demonstrate an ignorance of mid-20th century warfare, it's nuances and the complexity of operating a combat unit.
30 Sep 2015, 13:44 PM
#34
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

^
the info about things like 'unreliable panthers' has been available since at least the 1960s. (PzBrigade 10 in the summer of 43', or the panther battalions in the Ukraine 43/44) Historians have been lazy about such details. What is not qualified is how the retreats, shortage of material, and defeats effected operational readiness measured with performance on the field.

But all of this is too much research to put in osprey format.
30 Sep 2015, 20:18 PM
#35
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225

^
the info about things like 'unreliable panthers' has been available since at least the 1960s. (PzBrigade 10 in the summer of 43', or the panther battalions in the Ukraine 43/44) Historians have been lazy about such details. What is not qualified is how the retreats, shortage of material, and defeats effected operational readiness measured with performance on the field.

But all of this is too much research to put in osprey format.

Frankly, by way of NARA, its been available even a good deal earlier. If people had taken the time to actually read up on the Panzerlage, they would have seen that the Panther was not on average less (or more) reliable than either the Tiger or the PIV after the teething issues had been worked out.
In general, its quite astounding just how underused (or selectively used) even the completely open German archives still are even in Western historiography, not to mention just about everything that came out of the Soviet Union/Russia until not long ago.
1 Oct 2015, 00:28 AM
#36
avatar of Death's Head

Posts: 440


Frankly, by way of NARA, its been available even a good deal earlier. If people had taken the time to actually read up on the Panzerlage, they would have seen that the Panther was not on average less (or more) reliable than either the Tiger or the PIV after the teething issues had been worked out.
In general, its quite astounding just how underused (or selectively used) even the completely open German archives still are even in Western historiography, not to mention just about everything that came out of the Soviet Union/Russia until not long ago.


That's right. In terms of readiness rates I think the PIV beat even the T-34 in some sources.

Most of the reliability problems with later German tanks had more to do with the overall state of the German war machine from production to logistics from 1943 onwards than with any particular design flaw.

The Soviets gained enough respect for these tanks that they were rewarded some units with captured Tigers and Panthers which they would operate until they inevitably broke down. Anecdotes like these would imply that the heavy tank battalions were held to some level of respect even by their most hated adversaries.

Revisionist history is interesting but it's also about selling fresh new books/documentaries with a different take than most of the other titles in the saturated military history market.
1 Oct 2015, 04:39 AM
#37
avatar of Werw0lf

Posts: 121

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jul 2015, 11:35 AMKisiel
link to forum thread of a fellow game with tanks that busts some more ww2 myths.

Most if not all of the allegations made in that thread purported as fact are so blatantly partisan as they are ignorant and full of holes, pun intentional, they are worthless.

Most look and sound like a plaguised Wiki bibliography written by some 20 year old kid cum know it all university student academic expert writing a thesis about 'the reality of combat' by a someone who's grown up in a time so distant from contextual reality, who hasn't actually spoken at length first hand one on one in intimate revealing conversation with many who were there first hand, and who's never been 'there' himself (served or at the pointy end in combat conditions).

Anyone referring to, e.g. 5th SS Wiking as 'of Volksturm quality' and of it or similar Waffen SS units having taken part in many battles only or predominantly as rear echeolon is clearly a certifiable cretin. As for the flippantly dismissive as it is a condescending reference to anti-partisan operations as insignificant, you do know how few Wehrmacht partisan badges were awarded during the war and why, and how highly prized they now amongst collectors because of that don't you?

Prior to their annihilation in all but name, the original 12th SS's indeniable bravery and fighting prowess around Caen was far from that of low quality troops or akin to a Volksturm joke, as the Canadians would tell you from their graves were they able. As to the dismissive nonsense by some kid who probably still depends upon McDonalds or mummy to prepare his meals regarding Wittman's astonishing feat of tactical initiative, daring and success of which I am fully aware of every minor detail, such unashamedly partisan driven denouncment just beyond excusively pathetic.

Reality should be acknowledged respectfully, not adulterised to fit any preferred perspective.

My grandparents' town situated topgraphically at a point of defensive tactical significance was bravely defended by what remained of 5th SS in March of 1945, and I can tell you who the definitive barbarians were, and who committed and what gross atrocities first hand. It was not 5th SS.

To the poster referring to the World at War series. I too was around to witness its initial airing on FTA TV in 1974. I bought the first edition DVD set UK release when it initially released on that media, very very expensive at that time. The narrative tailored to the footage in The World at War is so one eyed and in so many cases factually and historically incorrect to fit beliefs and biases of its audience of the day, it's worthless as a historical documentary other than as a example of said generational target audience perspective, albeit the footage is enjoyable. As if Speer and Wolff were ever going to say anything other than what they perceived the interviewer wanted to hear lest they be reincarcerated by the victors yet again. There was no interview with Gunsche, and the interview with Remer who was probably the most honest of the bunch, was skewed to present him as some sort of quasi-automaton nutter.

To reiterate, paraphrased, the words in a book by Keegan read long ago name so his name is since forgotten, of a British Colonel of significance who fought them in two wars as well as serving in Korea. "You don't know what war is until you have fought the Germans".

60 million odd Germans and European Freiwillige gegen Bolshewismus plus a few minor Axis satellites contribution holding the logistical and might of the whole world at bay on the continent for 5 years engaged in a Weltanschauung whose outcome was misdirected by weather and decided by materialschlacht?!!!

American testing and self critique at the time of the inferiority of their armour and weaponry juxtaposed with high regard or respect for that of their opponent's is out there in You Tube land for the lazy who won't read or those incapable of selecting objectively for anyone caring to search and watch. e.g far from being the legend COH has made it, the antiquated BAR was rubbish and loathed by American soldiers who used it. It was in no way the even near equivalent of the magnificent and too accurate Czech designed Bren LMG other than in looks. The BAR was really nothing but an overly complex, heavy, cumbersome rifle capable of automatic fire, but for which purpose both its 20 round magazine capacity and barrel were inadequate necessitating the issue of two per squad still at a disadvantage even to an MG-34 equipped German squad. I've held, carried, fired and stripped both as well as the bipod and tripod mounted GPMG M60 among numerous others, the former of which was the standard squad LMG sup wep when I served first as a 'grunt', then Inf. Pl Cmdr. prior to being offered the opportunity to become a 'Birdie'.

Similarly of Britain's relatively rubbish Cromwell (a Cruiser tank, approx. equiv. of a medium tank other nations and arguably the latter Mks were Britain's best of class) and Churchill heavy (anti-)infantry tank neither of which were anything like the Überarmour this game misrepresents them justified as necessary for balance.

I'm not an apolgist for anyone. I just prefer truth be told warts 'n all than hear the same nonsense endlessly regurgitated. Two wrongs don't make anyone more right. They just distort the truth so that everyone is wrong, the cycle of lies and prejudice continues and those who should be able to but can't represent the truth, as silent as they are dead.

1 Oct 2015, 11:42 AM
#38
avatar of Winterfeld

Posts: 249




Anyone referring to, e.g. 5th SS Wiking as 'of Volksturm quality' and of it or similar Waffen SS units having taken part in many battles only or predominantly as rear echeolon is clearly a certifiable cretin. As for the flippantly dismissive as it is a condescending reference to anti-partisan operations as insignificant, you do know how few Wehrmacht partisan badges were awarded during the war and why, and how highly prized they now amongst collectors because of that don't you?

Prior to their annihilation in all but name, the original 12th SS's indeniable bravery and fighting prowess around Caen was far from that of low quality troops or akin to a Volksturm joke, as the Canadians would tell you from their graves were they able. As to the dismissive nonsense by some kid who probably still depends upon McDonalds or mummy to prepare his meals regarding Wittman's astonishing feat of tactical initiative, daring and success of which I am fully aware of every minor detail, such unashamedly partisan driven denouncment just beyond excusively pathetic.





I just quickly want to throw the Jäger Raport out here, which i had to work with while writing my Thesis. In the Raport, which was made by an SS Einsatzgruppe in Lithuania describes your "Brave heroically" fight against "partisans" and jews. People that were forced together and shot or hanged and thrown into mass graves.
They did not fight in any way on the front, they drove up with thanks and used the mounted Machineguns to shoot thousands of jews and "partisans".
Please dont glorify the most inhumane members of Germany at the time. If you were SS you believed in being better than anyone and yes, they may have fought bravely, but surely also because they knew they would be chased and convicted if they lost the war.
Please read some more about what the SS did, before you call them brave and heroic.
The jäger Raport can be googled and everyone can see how systematically and proud the SS "fought" the "partisans"!
1 Oct 2015, 13:22 PM
#39
avatar of Mackie

Posts: 254

wow, everything i believed is a lie!

my life is forfeit
1 Oct 2015, 14:32 PM
#40
avatar of Werw0lf

Posts: 121

<snip> while writing my Thesis.

Bespeaks volumes.

Here's a typical example of why you're so confused and easily deceived into believing what it is you want to hear.

If you must allege a certain thing was said by someone, base logic as well a convention mandates what you enclose within quotations marks was actually said, and that it is quoted in context.

Second, if you are going to attack an argument and expect to be afforded credibility, make sure it's the argument you are attacking, your facts are relevant and right rather than some personal pet perspective seeking popular concensus of the equally ignorant. Case in point, I never said what you've encapsulated in quotation marks, and nowhere did I make reference to the word "Jew" nor did I make any inference about them of any sort.

The truth stands up to scrutiny which is why laws have been enacted to deny both. "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus. That whole done to death tasteless topic that is drawn into every discussion as a straw 'argument' when no other exists as you have is an emotional hysteric which doesn't. Those who do examine the facts find the sweeping generalisations so frequently accepted as a fundamental truth have no credible -there's the quintessential word Sherlock- evidence which supports them.

You do realise that witness 'testimony' or 'confessions' obtained under duress are recognised by every legitimate investigative agency in the world as not credible, nor admissible, except at Nuremburg circus show trials of course.

Regardless it's well outside the remit either of this thread or forum. Even were I to deign to discuss it, a discussion involves a williness to listen and sufficient intellect accompanied by erudition and wisdom necessary for understanding, all of which I you give me cause to suspect are absent in your case.

You clearly have no idea of the organisational structure of die Wehrmacht nor the evolution of the various branches of the SS or their roles. 5th SS just like 12th SS were Waffen SS, not SD nor Einsatzkommando. People like you don't understand the distinction between the Sipo, Kripo, Gestapo and Abwehr, which were SS, rather than adminstered by SS, or were Polizei or Wehrmacht.

As for referencing JVL or Wikipedia -we are all aware of its apt nickname- as reference sources presenting either an informed or impartial source of 'evidence' on your topic, I submit there is no case to answer your Honour.

In the case of what is now referred to a WWII, the causes leading up to it and conduct of nations during it, neither the Soviets nor the Western Allies hold legitimate claim to any moral high ground even if that's what you prefer to believe. The noble premise is always shouted loud in justification in arousing popular sentiment, but it is an puppet show.
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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: 598 guests
0 post in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48732
Welcome our newest member, strzlagx81
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM