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."
I guess it is just plain normal in the annals of veterans recollections that you saw the defficiencies in your own equipment and the strengths of the enemies.
US tankers will remember vividly every on-target bounce, but not take as natural that their tank is able to reverse out of the fight reliably. Heck, they probably think every bounce was lucky even though many might have stories of such "luck".
Likewise German veterans would be astounded at the availability of reinforcements, artillery and reinforcements. While the recollections are of heroism and ability to withstand they assuredly would hve rather been in the opposite situation, having the equipment, fuel, ammunition, support, etc themselves.
think of this story, that 1100 vehicles could be replaced for one Regiment in 4 weeks is in itself astounding. The German units in Normandy had lost 1/3 of their fighting strength by that time, while their opponents were only getting stronger and figuring out the tactics they would need.
Thanks for the reply with the context. I recall one statistic from a documentary focusing on a British tank regiment north of Caen holding an exposed hill. If I remember it was an 80 tank unit. During the battle they received 900 replacement Shermans.
A link or citation would be nice. That statistic (1100% turnover in one engagement) would be completely astounding for a single battle even if by "battle" you mean all the operations until the British broke through Caen.
It is not astounding for a wartime operation. The 3rd Armored from Normandy through to the end of the was lost 650 tanks and had another 700 tanks knocked out and restored to operations, out of a TO&E of 232 tanks. So 580% turnover in 10-11 months. But the knocked out tanks equals less than 300%.
Surely this is also because they fought the least tank battles or tank led attacks on heavily defended positions rather than a difference in quality of equipment or doctrine?
Only in part. A lot of tanks of all nations were still lost to AT guns. But in the video he shows that there was a lower killed-crew-to-tank-destroyed ratio in M4s than other tanks and a lower ratio in US Shermans than in British Shermans (Brit crews did not wear helmets while in the tank).
Part of this was that by mid-44 every Sherman coming off the production lines was much better designed for survivability. They had wet storage in the hull, US ammo cooked up less easily than that of other countries, and the tanks were designed for more ease of exit.
The lecturer has other videos showing how hard/easy it was for a driver to enter or exit the driver's hatch of various tanks and the Shermans' hatch is by far the easiets (even coming with a spring loaded hatch).
So yeah, they lost fewer men (in fact remarkably few) but they also lost fewer men per lost tank than other countries, and your argument can't account for that.
I'm just disappointed that they're ignoring the Jumbo's contribution to the war. Those 'Assault Tanks' were key in breaking through German lines in the Ardennes, because they could bounce a hit from a Tiger or Panther when nothing else could. Over 250 made, unknown number of "Expedient Jumbos" (field modified Shermans), compared to just 20 Pershings.
The Armored divisions didn't want them. Their resistance to enemy fire proved to be effective. But they were much slower and their weight pushed the suspension of the Sherman to its limits which also decreased their mobility. They were arriving in theater by October I think and by the Bulge counterattack it had already been decided that they were not the answer or the future. Remember that they were an answer mostly to AT guns and heavy ones at that (the Sherman was already "decently" armored against 50 and 75mm AT guns from the front).
I put this here because it has nothing to do with the game.
Afterthoughts? (If you actually watched the entire 45ish minutes)
"Sherman bounced 75mm shells more often than not"
"American TD doctrine was strictly DEFENSIVE"
"Pershing sucks"
"17 pounder sucks" (well, he doesnt say that, but he points out its awful accuracy)
And this especially:
IL-2 and whatever other german ground attack plane were very effective because they were designed to kill armor. Typhoon, P47's etc were not quite so effective at all (numbers to show) because they were FIGHTERS
"Americans engaged only 3 Tiger I's. First time the shermans won. Second time the Pershing lost. Third time wasnt fair as it was in the process of being loaded onto a flatbed"
Also, no one called the m10 the wolverine, so the name randomly came out of somewhere XD
This was awesome!
Thanks!
You forgot to add other takeaways from this:
- The Shermans arriving by mid-44 were damn fine tanks that were well designed, extremely survivable, posed a real threat to Panthers, and were probably a superior tank at that point to any version of the PIV. (Late model M4 > late model P4)
- The US armored command was by no means brain-dead and was wise enough to say "No" to any sexy bit of kit that was designed.
- US tankers suffered some of the lowest rates of combat deaths of any nation in the European theater.
Barton, Avny, this is a videogame..."authenticity", to whatever degree this can be realised in the first place, should not exactly be at the forefront of priorities.
Well... yeah! That was my point.
"historical" arguments need to cut both ways, as should "balance" arguments. You don't get to pick and choose one or the other depending on the argument you want to make.
most maps are in Holland, and still brits have Comet that never fought there and barely had seen fight in Germany, makes sense, why don't Germans get Maus's or E-series tanks
Why even bring this up?
There were piddling few of many of the German vehicles ever produced but somehow they are all over the game.
And a lot of that limited Germnan tech somehow gets to 1941 and 1942 battlefields?
1100 Comets were produced and more were in production. That is a whole lot more than the 40 Ostwinds and 0 Maus'.
Likewise there were only 3 engagements ever recorded in which the US faced Tiger I's, so should they be banned from Ost when facing USF?
If the war had gone on the new Allied tech would have faced and overmatched the Germans. They just happened to defeat them pretty quickly without the advanced tech (of course in reality Allied late game was much more powerful than Axis late game).
I would add that it is entirely possible to be a fanboy and to want balance.
I also would add that it is preferable that the game be balanced towards 1v1 and 2v2 than 3v3 and 4v4.
I reject the notion that doing that precludes the ability to balance across game formats and over the course of the game. To use the "it's impossible" response is to give in to a lack of will, work and imagination since we all know that the problem exists.
And that the excuse that it isn't possible is false is shown by the new changes coming up. Extending the (or even including?) a mid game, extending the CPs for heavies and limiting their #, all should extend the time it takes to get to late game, which in itself helps the balance.
The part that is missing is that there isn't as much reward to allies (USF in particular?) to holding out in late game. Ost will have more and more uber vehicles, and perhaps T4. OKW will have vet5, but in COH1 (ok, I know it is all I know well) at least rewarded good late game US play with vet3, and vet3 US units really were very powerful, and for a reason. If you lost your vet3 you couldn't replace it. You had to build a new vet0 and it had to survive in a late game battlefield environment.
So Relic has made some changes. Others are either the inclusion of more "late game" units (perhaps besides Pershing). Or they could even add more veterancy to US units? That vet could kick in pretty late. It might include some sort of global unlock? I am not a game designer. God knows I have enough to do. But why is vet5 limited to the faction whose basic infantry are supposed to be old men and boys or already grizened vets of other fronts?
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
