Slitherine

quote:

Originally posted by sven: Highway you are right. I guess Patton(representing the Allies I suppose)should not have used his inherent advantages in order to be more 'manly'. The Panther was the best tank of the war, but it was not inwincible.(as soviet strike says) It seems to me that there is a group of people who act as though the Tiger should have 95000 base armor rating.(and sorry but it shouldn't) regards, sven

quote:

Originally posted by Highway: Maybe they should give him that superior 5000mm/L100 KwK2050 long-barrel with armor piercing death-rays.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Ammo Sgt - I have to agree with you yet again (and having to argue against increasing Geramn firepower on other threads - what is this board coming to ;) The technology advantage went hand in hand with tactics and small unit leadership advantages to give the Germans the ability to fight out numbered, but not forever... A battlefield exhibits "co-evolution" innovation is powerful, but only until the enemy figures out a counter. "Gestalt" is an ininteresting term in this context and captures the idea nicely.

quote:

Originally posted by AmmoSgt: HighWay exactly my point .. it is tactics and not a 1 on 1 match up of tanks ..T-34's and Shermans are similarily no match 1 on 1 with Heavy german Armor .. but in this game as i think in real life it is the gestalt of the threat arrayed against the gestalt of the opposing force.... Air Arty Infantry on both sides affect the equation as do terrain and weather ..and a 40 ton GW bridge is not Neutral when it comes to a Sherman /Panther Duel , neither is mud mneither is cloud cover ... neither is a bazooka team .. or nebelwerfers for that matter .. you can't "fight" the germans the same way you do the americans or russian or brits each force has it's own timing and rythyms against the other... different degrees of threat from different elements , even different proportion or kills v suppressions in the overall scheme of a battle ..what is good tactics for americans with american gear is suicide for the germans with german gear , or the brits with brit gear... and heeding Pattons Mistake i will not leave out the Russians with Russian gear In fact you could say that the Russians and Brits had similar infantry and cruiser tanks ideas while the Germans had yet another idea of what a tank did .. the French yet another .. and the Americans yet another .... ok so they looked alot alike , armor, tracks, turret, but the differences in purpose as reflected by capability and use , make them all so different that many direct comparisons can be frustrating to the point of meaningless

quote:

Originally posted by Mikimoto: Hello. 1. IMHO the germans had some good ideas about how to use tanks. Assault guns and self propelled tank destroyers were stop-gap measures. They tested and failed like other countries. The Light Divisions were a big failure. The early panzer division performed well, but had a poor complement of infantry and too much tanks. The early motorized divisions evolutioned to panzergrenadier, etc... and their tanks were not invincible. Actually, until the Tiger and panther appears, the russians and allied are better (if only some models). It wonders me how the panzer III last so longer been the mainstay of the armored divisions. And the panzer IV has only two virtues: high mechanical reliability and fine gun (75, long 43/48). Well, Tigers and Panthers were great. Perhaps not so great like I feel... 2. The US had, initially, bad tank doctrine. With experience they were able to upgrade the performance of the armoured divisions. The organization of combat commands are one of the great successes of WWII. US tanks were outgunned by the germans, all along the war. I think in may 45 there were only 25/30% of 76mm shermans. But the sherman (75) fighted very well against pzIV's and Stugs. Light tanks were useful in cavalry and pursuit missions. And tactics, support and flanking gained the day against those few panthers and tigers they defeated. 3. Sometimes I feel that we gamers forget the great success of the Soviet armoured formations. Well, the initial doctrine was masses of tanks supporting infantry. When tanks fighted alone in the first two years, were isolated and masacred. They returned to earlier doctrines in 42/43. They retained the infantry support tanks in the form of the independent tank brigades. But new tank and mechanized corps (actually divisions) began their long journey to success. The soviet mechanized corpos was perhaps the best armour unit of worl war II.

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22: The Americans only attacked Germany to capture the V2s, Tigers, ME262s so they could have them to fend off the USSR. The USSR counterattacked Gerry to get the same equipment to fend off the USA. See? Germany was merely a invention depot for the fighting of future wars. Hitler knew this, so he started attacking other people to use their stuff, against those that would use his stuff. The French, were the most brilliant of them all, as they saw that taking Germany in WWI would assure them of using German equipment to stop an imminent English invasion of France (and it worked for 20 years), and then they were suckered into letting the Brits come across to defend against the Germans who were set on stopping the future US/USSR war. In reality all the fighting wasn't about ruling the country you conquered, but about using that place's permission to use their stuff to fight future wars against someone else :rolleyes:

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22: As Mikimoto said, and also the concept of neutrality. Hitler had tried to work that concept for years with some success by gaining control of future countries without firing a shot, however as the concept had run it's course, and other countries devised an effective counter-neutrality system, with desperate measures he invaded the country with perhaps the cutting edge in the neutrality concept. [ May 21, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22: That is one of the problems with having both effective neutrality concepts and effective cheese; somebody is always looking to get at them. Much to Hitler's dismay, he found that the Dutch neutrality concept wasn't good enough either, or at least not enough to overcome the Allies forgiving him for Poland. In essence, the war for neutrality was lost when Poland was attacked, he was too overconfident firstly in German neutrality concepts, and later in the Dutch ones which persuaded him to attack. To this day, many Germans have questioned whether the Swiss neutrality concepts might have saved the day, and why Hitler didn't attack there as well. BTW, the whole reason Hitler held the panzers back from getting at Dunkirk, so long, was that it was the first attempt to employ Dutch neutrality concepts, so overconfident was he in it's effectiveness. :rolleyes:

quote:

Originally posted by murx: Why Germany didn't invade Swiss ? Simple & easy, there was no army group small enough to do the task :D murx

quote:

Originally posted by murx: Why Germany didn't invade Swiss ? Simple & easy, there was no army group small enough to do the task :D murx