Slitherine

quote:

Originally posted by Lynx: First post here. Hi everyone =) I don't know why there's so many low opinions of the US forces and so much admiration of German. Lynx

quote:

Originally posted by Kettu: About Ambrose. Read two of his books "Citizen soldiers" and "D-day". He's a good writer and the stories are exciting, but he does glorify american soldiers bit too much, enough to make the books seem like shameless propaganda at times, making it little irritating read for me, or perhaps for other "euros" too.

quote:

Originally posted by Kettu: Still, I must again claim, that soviet war effort is strongly undermined. They say it's because there's not really enough accurate data on soviet operations. What do you think?

quote:

Originally posted by Kettu: Hi, Nothing agaist the US as such, but I feel that they've had overpresentation in WW2 wargames (european theather). The war was fought and won in the East, in "the vastness of Russia". Granted, Russians were given material aid and allied bombings reduced german industrial output. Also, allied presence/front in the mediterranian and later France, were the key factor in winning and speeding the end of the war. Now, before I am lynched for saying this, I ask: How many german soldiers were killed in the west and how many in russia? What about tanks? Artillery and other material?

quote:

Soem of the 'pro-German' feeling is, IMHO, a buy-in to the myth of the Wehrmacht invincibility. This myth has been perpetrated by many historians, filmmakers, and politicians to the extent that it makes the WWII German army seem nigh unbeatable in a fair fight. And so it leads to gamers loving the toys they used, and believing them to be the best created during that time.

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22: I find Lynx's question a curious one. I'm not saying it's incorrect in another setting, however in this one here it's often the opposite that is prevalent. Some seem to believe the fascination in German arms or belief that if the Germans weren't the best military nation, they were close, is tantamount to believing they were invincible, which from what I've seen is utter nonsense. It seems to me this specific sort of conflict emerges when the US player wants to brand the German player a traitor or some such. There also seems to be the belief that the Germans couldn't be as strong as German players think them, otherwise they would've won the war. The reality is that it's often the US player who believes the German propaganda and so the German player is required to prove that they were invincible, a thing the German player often never states themselves. I find it odd that nobody I've yet seen, ever debates whether Germany in a one-on-one fight would've beat any other one nation, it's always about that Germany had to conquer the world or they weren't invincible (they lost). That just seems to be the nature of things. Technically Hitler and his cronies claimed invincibility, but playing Gerry isn't being given over to such a ludicrous position, but when that position is imposed upon the Gerry players by others, there's no way such a person can argue through such labels. This is sort of an example of what I'm talking about from Flashfyre: Note the word 'invincible' again. It's Flashfyre's interpretation. Myself, I would never claim Germany was invincible in a fair fight, but they were possibly the strongest; invincible NEVER. There's too many things that could go wrong even for a nation twice as strong as another. For one thing there is the inevitable thing with Germany, and that is that they were so hostile that there would never be such a thing as a fair fight for them. Either they were the ones up by a considerable advantage, hence the aggression, or their aggression brought forth the unfair fight against them, because they were unfair so to speak, in the first place. Basically any nation that gets that strong is going to end up with lots of enemies standing up against them. About the only way any nation gets a so-called fair fight, in reality, is if they are the ones attacked, and usually the aggressors aren't stupid enough to attack unless they're with a good sized advantage in the first place (but it still would be one nation against the other). I'd also like to add that while many US players may put it upon the Gerry players that they believe in German invincibility, when they do not, they have probably fallen into this belief quite probably for the very same reason that many Gerry players find WWII Germany fascinating, and that is that they took so much territory, with only the USSR coming close, and that they could've done so much better in lots of areas with just a basic better idea here or there (so much the story of all nations). I also think that despite what some people may feel is Gerry players dumbing down US stuff, it seems more prevalent the other way around. The US player may feel that there's no way a losing nation should have such good units, but what such people fail to remember is that this game models what were probably the height of German arms, be that in many cases the tanks and the general troops. If you get more into air power and naval power such as this game does not, then Germany models more what they really were, not invincible by any means, but very strong in the areas with which SPWAW deals with (one land unit against another, without the disadvantage of fighting against more than one foe who had superior numbers). I agree with General Mayhem's point about the East Front. If it hadn't been for the German attack there, they probably never would've had the Panther and Tiger series. Maybe speed isn't so impoartant a facotr in war, but some things I lookat in comparing the West Front to German attacks in Farnce, and I wonder how a nation that seems to always be played as so weak there, was able to hold off the Allies for nearly a year. I also have to wonder if the Germans had signed a peace with the USSR, and that was practically impossible, would the Allies had ever landed? Because if they did they certainly never would've considered it without getting up a much larger force to deal with a one front Germany (or 1 1/2, depends on how you look at it). Would the Germans without the USSR in the war, been stupid enough to go off attacking somewhere else just before D-Day started, larger invasion D-Day invasion or not? I may not be correct about any of this, but I think a lot of us don't try to think very much outside our own boundaries. I'm all hurrah for the good ol' US, but silly things like us never losing a war is the sort that ends up with nation's in captivity, particularly if said nations don't have a vast ocean protecting them. Basically the idea that the US has never lost a war, and never will, is basically just the invincibility angle with another spin. It seems to be that people don't believe in more practical reasons why the US would win and wouldn't have to try that hard (or at least not lose), but instead think they have the 'stuff' or are 'superior', just the same nonsense the Germans believed so that they disarm instead of trying to keep a reasonable force. Just how much quicker would Germany had fallen if America had bothered to declare war along with France and Britian, or at least made some real efforts at rearmanent before Japan attacked? If the US has declared war in '39, and subsequently had upped preparedness, perhaps the attack on Pearl would've never happened. That doesn't even begin to address whether if the US had joined Britain and France in standing against Germany by verbal commitment to Poland, whether Hitler would've attacked. Well enough of me.

quote:

I agree with General Mayhem's point about the East Front. If it hadn't been for the German attack there, they probably never would've had the Panther and Tiger series.

quote:

Originally posted by Colonel von Blitz: If my memory serves me correctly, I believe the order to design a tank to replace Pz IV was issued in 1937...by 1940 a prototype considered the ancestor of tiger was ready. So this was well before Operation Barbarossa :) Colonel von Blitz

quote:

Originally posted by 11Bravo: Beats me. I read somewhere that more Americans are of German heritage than any other nationality. English is second. I also read that American soldiers interviewed after WW2 expressed a greater cultural similarity to and fondness of Germans than the other nationalities they came in contact with, like French, British, etc. Think this was in one of Ambrose's history books. Anyway, welcome to the Forum!

quote:

Originally posted by Colonel von Blitz: If my memory serves me correctly, I believe the order to design a tank to replace Pz IV was issued in 1937...by 1940 a prototype considered the ancestor of tiger was ready. So this was well before Operation Barbarossa :) Colonel von Blitz

quote:

I agree with General Mayhem's point about the East Front. If it hadn't been for the German attack there, they probably never would've had the Panther and Tiger series

quote:

I heartily have fought to reduce the German advantages in 39-42(according to you again).

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22: sven: Think about it a minute, as I will only respond to this one remark of yours . I wish you could quote me on that. You have said before that I am Tiger obsessed, well, the Tiger was certainly not a 39-42 issue, right? So what makes you think I would isolate your heartiness to that period? Wouldn't it be more of the latter years, particularly since the US doesn't enter till '43? The only pre-'43 German dumbing down I can think of would involve possibly the 88flak, and I've never heard you speak about the 88. You must be thinking of somebody else, and I'm certainly not going to back something I haven't said.

quote:

Originally posted by General Mayhem: Yep but not with 88 mm gun to my knowledge. Also I've understood Tiger itself was rushed to production prematurely late as 1943. My understanding is that Tiger was never really finished as a tank.

quote:

Also far as I know, while Tiger was awesome the Panther that was much better overall , was itself modeled after Russian T-34.

quote:

PZ-IV's were also desperately added armor and upgunned because Eastern Front. Not because Germans would have anticipated the modifications, but because sheer necessity.

quote:

One could speculate that without Eastern Front, for example early Shermans would have been quite same level with German tanks in 1944.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Goodman: Back to the original question, I think it is very simple. Everyone likes to win. For what ever reason, the Germans created armored vehicles that were very intensive in manhours, with very skilled labor required to manufacture major components of the tanks. Mass production requirements were the single most important aspect of both the T-34 and the Sherman. Jeez, we even tried to rivet the damn hulls until someone noted (having learned the hard way, of course) that rivets flying around inside the tank were a bit dangerous. I have never seen figures, but I'll bet it took two to three times as many manhours to build a Panther or a Tiger. This also caused these tanks to be very difficult to repair in the field. So, as we all know, both the USSR and the U.S. outproduced the German tank industry by at least 3 to 1 (each, for a total of 6 to 1). However, the game rates tanks (in terms of cost) by their performance ratio. I do not even count Tigers in this. They were (in fact) very rare on the battlefield; even more rare after a P-47 or Stormovik pass. Thus, a Tiger can be purchased for about 25% more than a T-34/85, although the Soviets built these tanks at a rate of at least 15 to 1 re the Tiger. Production of Stalin II's was about 3 to 1 relative to the Tiger, but costs just as much. So, you wanna win, get a Tiger or a Panther. They are on sale! Paul

quote:

Thus, a Tiger can be purchased for about 25% more than a T-34/85, although the Soviets built these tanks at a rate of at least 15 to 1 re the Tiger.