RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

mdiehl -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (2/28/2006 10:49:23 PM)

quote:

Tiger is much much better than Sherman in every apect except speed.


Uh, actually no. The Sherman was faster, less prone to mechanical breakdown, had faster turret traverse, and better infantry support armaments. Their armor was comparable if you consider the armor slope, the Tiger making do with a flat surface and thicker armor, and the Sherman with less armor but superior slope. The Tiger's ONLY superiority was in the gun. And that was worth alot. Early Shermans (with the 75) were no match for it because they had to get quite close to kill one. M4A3 series with the 76 could hole the Tiger rather handily out to 1000m, which was fine for most combat ranges in the ETO. The chief problem with Shermans is that by the end of the war there were still a bunch of them running around with 75s.

The Germans' best tank was the Panther, once they'd worked out all the "Oh **** my engine just caught on fire spontaneously" problems with the early engines.

If you want a couple great tanks you have to reach for the US M26, and the Soviet JS2 to find something that could easily get the drop on a Panther.



mdiehl -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (2/28/2006 10:52:08 PM)

quote:

Well apart from Speed the Me262 mounter 4x30 mm Cannon a great weapon ageainst the Bombers... the Schwable made the best interceptor in that time...


That sounds about right. It really really needed another hour of air time though. Its best attributes were pretty much nullified by the fact that it had to refuel almost as soon as it left the runway.



mdiehl -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (2/28/2006 10:58:47 PM)

quote:

Well i think all people in Europe know that axis lost WWII we are just saying that Germany had some of the best equipment of the countrys fighting WWII... lucky for all of us they had it in small numbers


The problem here is that "best" is an adjective that means nothing at all. Unless you delve into the actual merits and drawbacks to designs there is little basis for comparison. That is why Axis fanboys (not saying you are one) continually grasp at straws like "best" but fail to back up their claims with specific comparisons.

Late (76 armed) Shermans were very capable of killing Tigers one on one. The problem was that there were lots of Shermans with 75s, and of course the Allies had the unenviable position of being constantly on the attack. Naturally a Tiger is likely to get the first shot if it's camoflaged and opening up on an attacker.

But if you really wanted to stop the US and UK in 1944 your best choice would have been a StuGIIIG. Because a 76 armed sherman can hole either a Tiger or a StuG and the StuG can hole a Sherman but the Stug is less easily seen and more mobile on the defensive than a Tiger. Since one Stug cost about 1/5 Tiger it would have been my AFV-of-choice for the primarily defensive war waged by the Axis on the western front.



mdiehl -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (2/28/2006 11:02:50 PM)

quote:

BTW, i don't want to be rude, really, but if everyting american was better why they employ Werner von Braun... IIRC both American and Soviets wanted german scienists....


Owing to difficulties faced by his employer, Von Braun happened to be available at the time. Without him the US missile program would have required maybe 18 months more to accomplish what we did. After all, the Redstone was no technological marvel, and despite being a Von Braun design it had plenty of teething problems (most of which featured the rocket flipping fins over nose and blowing up on or near the launch pad).

The US was ahead of Germany in light rockets. We had a proximity fused ground to air missile that would have made flak pretty much obsolete in 1944 if the Axis had been decent enough to give us a strategic bomber to shoot at. By 1945 we had a radio guided one. By 1947 a radar guided one.



Demosthenes -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (2/28/2006 11:11:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Well i think all people in Europe know that axis lost WWII we are just saying that Germany had some of the best equipment of the countrys fighting WWII... lucky for all of us they had it in small numbers


The problem here is that "best" is an adjective that means nothing at all. Unless you delve into the actual merits and drawbacks to designs there is little basis for comparison. That is why Axis fanboys (not saying you are one) continually grasp at straws like "best" but fail to back up their claims with specific comparisons.

Late (76 armed) Shermans were very capable of killing Tigers one on one. The problem was that there were lots of Shermans with 75s, and of course the Allies had the unenviable position of being constantly on the attack. Naturally a Tiger is likely to get the first shot if it's camoflaged and opening up on an attacker.

But if you really wanted to stop the US and UK in 1944 your best choice would have been a StuGIIIG. Because a 76 armed sherman can hole either a Tiger or a StuG and the StuG can hole a Sherman but the Stug is less easily seen and more mobile on the defensive than a Tiger. Since one Stug cost about 1/5 Tiger it would have been my AFV-of-choice for the primarily defensive war waged by the Axis on the western front.


One thing forgotten to be brought up is the "other Sherman", by which I mean the M-10 TDs and M36 TDs.
From Tunisia on - US TDs were quite capable of dealing with all heavy German armor, and the US made many more of those types alone than Germany ever made Heavies (German heavies of course had to be split in deployment between Eastern Front and Western/Mediterranian Fronts).

Also lost are a couple of other facts not being mentioned - first, for most of the war (untill the latter half of 1944) the main tank of the panzer division was the PZKW III, which (in any mark) was never a match for any Sherman.

Also, by Dec 1944, well over half of all M4 mediums in the ETO were late model 76mm gunned Shermans.



mdiehl -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (2/28/2006 11:20:23 PM)

quote:

Also, by Dec 1944, well over half of all M4 mediums in the ETO were late model 76mm gunned Shermans.


Sure. The problem here is the amount of mythmaking that comes out of the ardennes offensive. If you've got one M4A1 with a 75 that has just met a Koenigstiger then it doesn't matter if it's the only Koenigstiger within 20 miles you have an encounter that is sure to scare the crap out of an M4 driver. Of course, the proper and typical US response to such situations was to have division artillery lay 155s on the thing until the road wheels popped off and then take it out with a well placed Bazooka shot.



String -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (2/28/2006 11:33:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Well i think all people in Europe know that axis lost WWII we are just saying that Germany had some of the best equipment of the countrys fighting WWII... lucky for all of us they had it in small numbers


The problem here is that "best" is an adjective that means nothing at all. Unless you delve into the actual merits and drawbacks to designs there is little basis for comparison. That is why Axis fanboys (not saying you are one) continually grasp at straws like "best" but fail to back up their claims with specific comparisons.

Late (76 armed) Shermans were very capable of killing Tigers one on one. The problem was that there were lots of Shermans with 75s, and of course the Allies had the unenviable position of being constantly on the attack. Naturally a Tiger is likely to get the first shot if it's camoflaged and opening up on an attacker.

But if you really wanted to stop the US and UK in 1944 your best choice would have been a StuGIIIG. Because a 76 armed sherman can hole either a Tiger or a StuG and the StuG can hole a Sherman but the Stug is less easily seen and more mobile on the defensive than a Tiger. Since one Stug cost about 1/5 Tiger it would have been my AFV-of-choice for the primarily defensive war waged by the Axis on the western front.


One thing forgotten to be brought up is the "other Sherman", by which I mean the M-10 TDs and M36 TDs.
From Tunisia on - US TDs were quite capable of dealing with all heavy German armor, and the US made many more of those types alone than Germany ever made Heavies (German heavies of course had to be split in deployment between Eastern Front and Western/Mediterranian Fronts).

Also lost are a couple of other facts not being mentioned - first, for most of the war (untill the latter half of 1944) the main tank of the panzer division was the PZKW III, which (in any mark) was never a match for any Sherman.

Also, by Dec 1944, well over half of all M4 mediums in the ETO were late model 76mm gunned Shermans.



Panzer IV not Panzer III, unless you move the date back to the middle of 1943



mdiehl -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (2/28/2006 11:35:53 PM)

quote:

Panzer IV not Panzer III, unless you move the date back to the middle of 1943


That's what I was thinking as well.



Mynok -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (2/28/2006 11:37:59 PM)

quote:

Also lost are a couple of other facts not being mentioned - first, for most of the war (untill the latter half of 1944) the main tank of the panzer division was the PZKW III, which (in any mark) was never a match for any Sherman.


I'm thinking that is a year late. I'll have to go check my books now. There were plenty of III's still in service, but the IV's were the main tank by the end of 43.

Also one must keep in mind that the SS divisions started really sucking the good stuff from the Wehrmacht in 43, so a Wehrmacht panzer division might officially have a majority of IVs, but in reality would have mostly IIIs, while an SS Pz div might have no IIIs other than recon models, even though they might technically be on a TO&E. TO&E really didn't mean squat by the time Shermans started fighting Germans.


EDIT: I see others are seeing an issue there too. However, I do not agree that a IV was not a match for a Sherman. A III was not, but a IV was, and IVs were the main battle tank by the latter half of 43, not 44.



Demosthenes -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (2/28/2006 11:48:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

quote:

Also lost are a couple of other facts not being mentioned - first, for most of the war (untill the latter half of 1944) the main tank of the panzer division was the PZKW III, which (in any mark) was never a match for any Sherman.


I'm thinking that is a year late. I'll have to go check my books now. There were plenty of III's still in service, but the IV's were the main tank by the end of 43.

Also one must keep in mind that the SS divisions started really sucking the good stuff from the Wehrmacht in 43, so a Wehrmacht panzer division might officially have a majority of IVs, but in reality would have mostly IIIs, while an SS Pz div might have no IIIs other than recon models, even though they might technically be on a TO&E. TO&E really didn't mean squat by the time Shermans started fighting Germans.


EDIT: I see others are seeing an issue there too. However, I do not agree that a IV was not a match for a Sherman. A III was not, but a IV was, and IVs were the main battle tank by the latter half of 43, not 44.


As I recall, it was in 1943 that the Whermacht decided to reconfigure the panzer division with PZKW IVs and Vs.
However, I do beleive that was not accomplished until mid 1944 (Whermacht wide) - which is why I referred to the mid 1944 date.



hawker -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (2/28/2006 11:53:44 PM)

I cannot believe my eyes,Mdiehl try to convince everybody that Sherman (any Sherman) is better then Tiger.
My god,what a BS.
SHERMAN IS NO MATCH FOR TIGER.
Maybe in your imagination Mdiehl.



mdiehl -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 12:07:12 AM)

Omigod omigod I cannoot believe mye eyes <swoon>. Now Hawker try to convince everybody that the PzII is superior to the KV-1! Omigod. This is BS. PzII is no match for a KV-1. Maybe in your imagination Hawker.



Demosthenes -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 12:24:59 AM)

Just forthe record (again I think), the PZKW VIE Heavy Tank was - one on one - a better tank than an M4A3 (75) Medium in an open country gun duel...I don't think anyone (read Mdieh) has ever disputed that pertinent fact.
However, the M4 medium series, in total as a weapon system, did have advantages over the PZKW VI in general - when one takes into account such elements as - numbers, mechanical reliability, and an upgraded main armament to the 76mm gun (especially with APCR ammunition).

There are, and were, circumstances when numerous M4s, could and did - outmanuver and close with Tigers and put holes in them.... I think that was the only point ever made, along with the statement that 49,000 M4 mediums is worth a lot more than 1200 Tigers.



keeferon01 -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 12:42:02 AM)

OMG guys a tank debate will last for ever , there is one going on over at the paradox forum for ever [:D]



Demosthenes -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 12:43:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron James

OMG guys a tank debate will last for ever , there is one going on over at the paradox forum for ever [:D]


I was wondering if we should move this debate! lol[:D]



keeferon01 -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 12:49:23 AM)

looks like you know your tanks demosthenes, you ever tried HPS Kursk'43 that simulates that bloody tank battle very well .



Demosthenes -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 12:58:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron James

looks like you know your tanks demosthenes, you ever tried HPS Kursk'43 that simulates that bloody tank battle very well .

I have looked over HPS's Panzer Campaigns (longingly)...I'll have to try it one of these days...but I think I may try North Africa first, before jumping into the massive scale of the Eastern Front (too many units - Oi Veh![:D])



Ursa MAior -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 1:17:19 AM)

Jesus Christ!! I cant believe my eyes! For which reason M4 got his nickname from the germans (Tommy cooker?)? It was as easy to set aflame as the g4m betyy aka ronson. The Tiger was a good weapon but the much neglected Panther has surpassed it (protection firepower mobility). Tiger II was nothing but a moving fortress. Yeah the alleis has won the war but the men who fought on their sides, would ashame themselves by seeing their offspring hehaving like the enemy they fought.



mdiehl -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 1:23:03 AM)

quote:

Jesus Christ!! I cant believe my eyes!
<-->
quote:

would ashame themselves by seeing their offspring hehaving like the enemy they fought.


Physician, cure thyself.



Demosthenes -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 1:24:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Jesus Christ!! I cant believe my eyes! For which reason M4 got his nickname from the germans (Tommy cooker?)? It was as easy to set aflame as the g4m betyy aka ronson. The Tiger was a good weapon but the much neglected Panther has surpassed it (protection firepower mobility). Tiger II was nothing but a moving fortress. Yeah the alleis has won the war but the men who fought on their sides, would ashame themselves by seeing their offspring hehaving like the enemy they fought.


Hmmm, Tommy Cooker...as in burning tank?
You mean like this Tiger?

[image]local://upfiles/19015/AA2E4FC5EC344F1490F9E14C4DEEB2EE.jpg[/image]



Ursa MAior -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 1:30:18 AM)

You guys are simply unbelievable. There is an expression for both of you : imperial arrogance. I dont really have anything to say to you. Where is that damend ignore button ?



Fishbed -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 1:31:09 AM)

quote:

But as it stood the ME-262 was inferior in every useful respect to both the P-51,

Well that's not a goddam "inferior" "superior" debate - these planes simply don't perform the same mission, we're talking about an interceptor and an escort fighter, the later is made to shoot down the first, the first is made to shoot down bombers. But in a bomber-straff run, any plane is a sitting duck, the point is that a Schwalbe is less a sitting duck than other planes as he does it faster...
Maybe that's why these are Doras protecting the Me-262 landings and take-off, not the opposite? [;)]

I mean, ok, in this case, the He111 is inferior to a Gladiator, B-17 to a 190, and Marilyn Monroe to Bill Clinton...

And please don't talk about re-allocating ressources to the Tank's last toy neither - and take a look at the dates, I don't really believe there was something left to save in this war for the german side at the time the first TA-152 shot down its first allied plane... [;)]

AJ



mdiehl -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 1:36:30 AM)

quote:

You guys are simply unbelievable. There is an expression for both of you : imperial arrogance. I dont really have anything to say to you. Where is that damend ignore button


You're doing a fine job making a mockery of yourself. Do carry on please.



Fishbed -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 1:39:47 AM)

quote:

You guys are simply unbelievable. There is an expression for both of you : imperial arrogance. I dont really have anything to say to you. Where is that damend ignore button ?

And why don't we talk about yours?

quote:

Yeah the alleis has won the war but the men who fought on their sides, would ashame themselves by seeing their offspring hehaving like the enemy they fought.

Is there anything being ashamed of overwhelming with number a technologically superior enemy, fighting the wartool of the Nazis while the later are extermining people in camps or burning villages next door?
I guess no. Im just sad the offspring was not even bigger to put an end to this quicker...

AJ



mdiehl -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 1:39:52 AM)

quote:

Well that's not a goddam "inferior" "superior" debate - these planes simply don't perform the same mission, we're talking about an interceptor and an escort fighter, the later is made to shoot down the first, the first is made to shoot down bombers.


That works for me. I'm not the fellow who tried to assert that the ME-262 was superior to every Allied fighter of the day. As a bomber buster the ME-262 was damned good. That said, if the Axis could have built, say, lots of FW-190s in lieu of fewer ME-262s the FW-190s were a better interceptor for the job (and in other ways better all around as fighters).

Maybe it's true that it was cheaper to build two of those mediocre Jumo turbofans than one FW190 engine but my impression is otherwise.



hawker -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 1:56:25 AM)

quote:

You guys are simply unbelievable. There is an expression for both of you : imperial arrogance. I dont really have anything to say to you. Where is that damend ignore button ?


Ursa,why you bother. You cant explain facts to some people,they are no guilty because of that. Just ignore them.
When someone say that Sherman is better than Tiger and P-51 is better than ME-262 the best you can do (if you smart) run away from this thread. Dont read,dont post,just run away. When stupidity rule smart people run.
I will no longer bother with them.



mdiehl -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 4:17:28 AM)

quote:

When stupidity rule smart people run.


Well then, you're in a real pickle. There's no place for you to run from yourself.

quote:

I will no longer bother with them.


You've made this promise before. We all wish you'd keep it.



Fishbed -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 6:10:26 AM)

quote:

Ursa,why you bother. You cant explain facts to some people,they are no guilty because of that. Just ignore them.
When someone say that Sherman is better than Tiger and P-51 is better than ME-262 the best you can do (if you smart) run away from this thread. Dont read,dont post,just run away. When stupidity rule smart people run.
I will no longer bother with them.

Well maybe you should question your own behavior from time to time too - cuz when we were deep into your goddam "Bismarck vs the World" delirium, I saw nobody "running away", nor telling you you were just "stupid" and we were "smart"...
Not telling about the simple bad faith of repeting ad nauseam that the other "side" said the Sherman was a tiger eater for instance - mdiehl clearly stated he didn't put into question Tiger's supremacy in open fields, while we're bound to believe like him that without proper support indeed everywhere else it is in jeopardy of being flanked. In the same fashion, he admitted we can't talk about a plane being superior to another as long as they are not supposed to conduct the same kind of missions (and even if indeed we saw more Schwalbes downed by Mustangs than the opposite btw) so why adding nonsense insult to the complaining...

That's somewhat childish, don't you think?

AJ



pauk -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 7:46:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

BTW, i don't want to be rude, really, but if everyting american was better why they employ Werner von Braun... IIRC both American and Soviets wanted german scienists....


Owing to difficulties faced by his employer, Von Braun happened to be available at the time. Without him the US missile program would have required maybe 18 months more to accomplish what we did. After all, the Redstone was no technological marvel, and despite being a Von Braun design it had plenty of teething problems (most of which featured the rocket flipping fins over nose and blowing up on or near the launch pad).

The US was ahead of Germany in light rockets. We had a proximity fused ground to air missile that would have made flak pretty much obsolete in 1944 if the Axis had been decent enough to give us a strategic bomber to shoot at. By 1945 we had a radio guided one. By 1947 a radar guided one.


I knew it that you will find the answer on that. How i could be so blind to think that Werner and other German scienist were so neccesery for American space program. Without them they american program would take only 18 months more to send man on the Moon....

O stupid Pauk....

PS as for "plenty of teething problems" it seems that only Russians (and the Chinese too) are capable to send man in the space these days.... hmmmm....



Fishbed -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/1/2006 8:01:27 AM)

quote:

PS as for "plenty of teething problems" it seems that only Russians (and the Chinese too) are capable to send man in the space these days.... hmmmm....

Im with Pauk, but one must watch records of Chinese rockets trials over the 40 last years to see how much progress they made, you have everything from the one which forgets to ignite and take off, to the other who makes it for 500m, turns upside down and goes back home. Rocketry's not cool when you have no-one to help you!

I mean, living next to an ICBM launch site is stressing enough without fearing the bug to play it nasty at the startup [:D] - but credits for everything that was done until now is to be given to Chinese scientists only, especially after the divorce with USSR, even if I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some former-USSR scientists joined the chinese team after the break-up...

AJ



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625