Why do so many Flame the US WW2, love the GE. ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Lynx -> Why do so many Flame the US WW2, love the GE. ? (7/10/2001 11:23:00 AM)

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. I'm a German forces preff guy too. But that's for the same reason I preff the Southern forces during the US Civil War. It's not for any political reasons or anything other than my male love of conflict, I like to play the underdog. It's more exiting to win with them. My comment on Tigers. I've recently seen an episode on WW2 german tanks that stated that in fact at any one time no more than 80 Tigers were ever in front line service. Production kept up with losses, at best, and if I was in a Sherman without at least a 10 to one advantage over a Tiger, I'd bail too, but I'd wait till someone bought it before going so I don't get shot for running from the enemy. My opinion on ass whooping. I'm never going to pound my chest that I was a butt whooper if watching a bunch of guys fight one guy then when they're all worn down I wade in and put a coup de gras on the lone guy with the help of the rest of them. The West defeated a briliant manipulator and politician gone mad. It would not have even happened if they weren't so petty with the result of the first fight, which was between a bunch of overly inbred monarchs. I've never hated a nation, just individuals. If I had to face a bunch of guys like the German army with the great propaganda they had, I'd be scared at first too. Any liars out there wana say they wouldn't? Germanic tribes sacked Rome, several times. Anglo Saxon is not the term for the original peoples of England. The Germans have always been a powerfull force because of the discipline of all the peoples of their nation, not their weapons alone. The US army didn't loose in Vietnam because their troops couldn't hack it, it's because their home front didn't want to hack it anymore, but then, there was a social revolution going on at the time. One last point. When Europe unites, which it will as it must in order to stay financially competitive with the soon to be free China, and the soon to be the most populous peoples on earth India as well as the all powerfull US which single handedly crushed the USSR without even bothering with a war, just poker faced them to collapse ( cool ), will the animosity turn to the EU ? =) The above was just a wargamers version of the I Am Canadian comercial =) Glad to be in such an active board again. BTW, you guy's at Matrix, great job. Keep it up, wargaming is being pushed to new levels because of your crew. Lynx



Randy -> (7/10/2001 11:59:00 AM)

:)Hi Lynx, and welcome aboard. You'll find that this is a great forum and the members have a great deal of knowledge (some are still in the military). The Team Matrix guys are really great also. They have really put out a great product. To answer your question, I agree with you. As a kid I always thought the German helmet was "cool", and the German tanks were awesome (which I still think they were). I liked the South also, but had no idea why as a kid. I just thought their uniforms were "cool" also, eventhough I think they were about the same. Once again, welcome aboard,and enjoy. Semper Fi Randy



11Bravo -> (7/10/2001 12:00:00 PM)

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!



Flashfyre -> (7/10/2001 12:22:00 PM)

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. Of course, much credit is due the German arms makers of the time...they revolutionized the methods of warfare; their tank and weapon designs did, at times, far outshine the best that most other nations could make. But, in the long run, lack of raw materials and stable production facilities led, in part, to the downfall of the German nation. Part of the flame wars against the US is, I believe, a backlash to a perceived 'weakening' of the German units in the game. Many are of the opinion that the US equipment is fine as it is; there is no need to 'revamp' anything, because the US had shoddy stuff throughout the war. I disagree with this view, mostly because it shows a lack of study of the various individual units. And not just performance data; it also requires a knowledge of production, transportation, and doctrine for each side. These are the parts of the equation most left out. Personally, I don't prefer either; I am well-aware of the faults and fallacies on both sides. And, I tend to treat the game, not as a game, but as an 'historical possibilities' simulation. The what-ifs are muvh more enjoyable than the 'this is how it happened; relive it' type of play. But I see many who think of this as a great big arcade game, where you have to 'level up' or always use the biggest, baddest, most destructive weapon available. It isn't......and those who think it is do a great disservice to those who built it, and to those brave men who fought it in reality.



General Mayhem -> (7/10/2001 1:07:00 PM)

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
I agree. It is a good question. I don't think US forces necessarily were as tactically gifted as Germans in II world war It also seems US armed forces gladly after war took SS men to teach in special forces training and also one can't be left without thinking that many US armed forces were impressed by German war machine. However, I think these views are partly unfounded. I'm not convinced Germans were really so good and US forces so bad. Germans just had lot of experience when US forces came to Europe. I suspect Eastern Front had anyway made Germans to develop themselves bit further than what they would have achieved by simply what they had on year 39 or 40. So large part of credit of their battle skills, goes in my opinion to Russians who fined their skills a lot. I also think Germans propably pulled after the war from right levers what came to Eastern Front. Because I haven't read lot of Russian information of Eastern Front, and most of it propably in West came from Germans, I suspect what Germans tell about their success there, can be bit 'coloured'. Especially if they wanted after war be good Germans, and exploit cold war mentality in the West. Anyway, I'm not totally convinced Germans always knew how well or badly they actually fought. So they may have many times thought they fought better than they actually did. Atleast their attitude towards Russians as opponents was far from objective. So my opinion is, that for multitude reasons, Germans propably are seen better than they deserve.



Kettu -> (7/10/2001 1:11:00 PM)

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? 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. SPWAW is a healthy exception from the usual line in wargames. SP engine, IMHO, is capable in realisticly depicting the fighting in the east. Also, you can take the small countries and create all the campaigns/conflicts you want. My favorites, however, are Marines in the Pacific (little exception on my account) and Soviets. Don't like playing US army against germans for the reasons I tried to explain above. Regards, Kettu



GrinningDwarf -> (7/10/2001 7:51:00 PM)

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.
Sorry, but as an American and after all of the trash talking about Americans and American soldiers I've been listening to since I was 10 (I'm now 36), Ambrose is a breath of fresh air. I'm not sure what you mean by his "glorify[ing] american soldiers [a] bit too much." Just because he takes pride in what the generation of his father and older brothers did? I notice you Fin's who post here are really proud of being Fin's...which is GREAT for you! You SHOULD be proud of your country! You guys have done some really great things. But let me fill you in on something...in TOO MANY places in America for the last 20 years, there hasn't been NEARLY ENOUGH pride in being an American. In fact, lotsa people I've rubbed shoulders with (here on the Left Coast, i.e. the San Francisco Bay-area of California) have been ashamed and embarrased to be Americans. I used to always want to play the Germans too, because they had all of the 'cool' stuff. Since getting SP...and reading Ambrose..., I've really loved exploring Americans and their equipment, and learning how to beat Tigers with Shermans!



Kettu -> (7/10/2001 8:09:00 PM)

Dwarf. Actually, I think I must take a step back here. Browsing through a finnish war "documentary" -book... I must admit that this is exactly the same kind of hype about finnish soldiers... :p Eh. So, guess it's a "writer's nationality" -thing. Doesn't bother too much when you are reading hype about your own, I guess. 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? Sorry, this is getting into too general subjects. Back to spwaw in a minute. Regards, Kettu



GrinningDwarf -> (7/10/2001 8:32:00 PM)

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?
I think the Cold War had a lot to do with it, with the Soviets being perceived as the enemy and Americans WANTING to downplay Russian accomplishments. However, I think Americans might be getting more interested in learning the Russian point of view. Last year, there was discussion on a Yahoo WW2 forum about war movie topics we'd like to see. I suggested Stalingrad. The general consenus at that forum was that Stalingrad would be a great movie topic, but there wasn't enough interest in the US to make it a commercialy viable project. This year we had "Enemy at the Gates". Regardless of what you think of the movie, American interest is picking up enough so that the movie actually saw daylight.



Kluckenbill -> (7/10/2001 9:13:00 PM)

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?
Also... How many carrier task forces did the Russians have? Remember that in addition to supplying the majority of ground forces in the western european theater and providing the Soviets with enormous amounts of materiel, the US fought and defeated Japan, with help from Britain, Australia and China.



Charles2222 -> (7/10/2001 9:19:00 PM)

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:
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.
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.



sven -> (7/10/2001 9:33:00 PM)

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.
Charles you are absolutely right. It is my fault that the 'Gerry' players try to dumb down the US arty advantages. It is my fault that German Fan feels the need to rate a Tiger as effective as a modern mbt in a ww2 game. I of course(according to you)am of the mind that the sherman could whip the tiger in a mano a mano engagement. I heartily have fought to reduce the German advantages in 39-42(according to you again). I have contended(in a serious fashion)that the Germans were inferior in every way(again according to your posit) Great show me. The 'search' feature is working again. Show me the 'conspiracy'you have been mentioning lately. I can and will if you desire show the voluminous postings of Gerry player on the joke of the US forces. It is the height of simplicity to post the 'whining' about US Arty. The idea that the US players have forced the German ones into their position is laughable. best regards, sven



dbt1949_slith -> (7/10/2001 9:55:00 PM)

I think the reason most people seem to like playing the Germans is that the game makers make them so attractive with their great tanks and disaplined units.Most people play these games to win and the Germans seem to have the best chance. I've noticed while playing the Americans that they don't seem to get enough artillery or air support.I'm always reading of the overwhelming support the Americans had but don't see it too much.Reminds me of what A german soldier said about Americans:"Germans will use 100 soldiers to rescue one tank,Americans will use 100 tanks to rescue one American soldier".I think this really says what kind of support and attitudes Americans had. I also agree that no matter what Americans think the Russians bore the brunt of the ground war.I think it's a combinatiion of pride and the cold war that we think otherwise.



cward -> (7/10/2001 10:05:00 PM)

Well heres my two cents worth.. Regarding the supposedly poor quality of the Sherman. of the rounds fired from the main gun of the tank there was an 8-1 ratio of HE-AP. Tanks were used more in an infantry support role. We had SO much more material that it was a major advantage. The USA supplied enough canned meat (SPAM) to russia during the war, so that 8oz of meat was supplied for EVERY RUSSIAN SOLDIER FOR THE DURATION! (russias war, Richard Overy) Almost all russian trucks were US made, USA on teh doors believed to be Russian for something like "Up Yours Adolf" Other trivia Germany's casualty statistics: By D-Day, 35% of all German soldiers had been wounded at least once, 11% twice, 6% three times, 2% four times and 2% more than 4 times The average officer slot had to be refilled 9.2 times Germany lost 136 Generals, which averages out to be 1 dead General every 2 weeks Germany lost 110 Division Commanders in combat Air attacks caused 1/3 of German Generals' deaths 84 German Generals were executed by Hitler Germany lost 40-45% of their aircraft to accidents Unit Allies Germans Ratio Tanks 5500 1400 3.93:1 Artillery 4800 3200 1.5:1 Others 2000 800 2.5:1



Colonel von Blitz -> (7/10/2001 10:32:00 PM)

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.
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



sven -> (7/10/2001 10:34:00 PM)

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
Shh don't confuse him with Facts Blitz. regards, sven ;)



panda124c -> (7/10/2001 10:50:00 PM)

Everybody loves to play the loser to see if they can do better. Also who wants to play with mass produced toys when someone else has custom made toys. :rolleyes: I like playing the Americans it a challange to take on the 'Profesional' German soldiers with the 'Amature' Americans. I also like to play the Germans because of the neet toys and the large number of different enemies you encounter. I mean who did the Americans fight the Germans, the Japanese, and the Italians (ok the Vichy French). But the Germans fought the Poles, the Dutch, Belgien, the Norwedgin, the French, the British, the Australians, the Canadians, the Russians, the Americans, and many more.



panda124c -> (7/10/2001 10:58:00 PM)

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!
Oh I don't know at the begining of WWI many of the English changed their names to be less German sounding, after all King Greorge was the cousin of Kiaser William (I think that's correct). The American Army was orginized on the line of the Prussian Army. During WWII the Germans had the best weapons unfortunatly (for them) they only had a few of each, where as the American had a couple of good weapons, but they had lots and lots of them. :rolleyes: :)



General Mayhem -> (7/10/2001 11:00:00 PM)

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
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. Also far as I know, while Tiger was awesome the Panther that was much better overall , was itself modeled after Russian T-34. 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. One could speculate that without Eastern Front, for example early Shermans would have been quite same level with German tanks in 1944.



Charles2222 -> (7/10/2001 11:31:00 PM)

Ah, I see I must get technical. My quote:
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
How about the Panther, guys? Can you claim it was not a response to the T34? I said "and" not just "Tiger". In the case of the Tiger, while it may had been drawn up before sight of the T34, it wasn't realized till "after". In other words, you might not ever intend to build everything you draw up unless there's a crying need for it, such as seeing the T34 might change your mind. So if this is correct my statement was quite right. Something in prototype or drawing stage doesn't diminish the point of it being a 'response' if in fact it was.



Charles2222 -> (7/11/2001 12:02:00 AM)

sven: Think about it a minute, as I will only respond to this one remark of yours
quote:

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



sven -> (7/11/2001 12:06:00 AM)

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.
Oh but Charles you feel my 'ilk' is conspiring to 'hurt' the German oob. Show me. I want German fan to take his medicene as well as he takes it when it is to his advantage. show me, sven



Nemesis -> (7/11/2001 12:43:00 AM)

When it comes to war in Europe, it's fate was decided in the east. Soviet Union carried the bulk of the fighting. They inflivted (by far) the largest amounts of casualties to germans. Yes, USA and other allies did help soviets by providing large amount of supplies. And Soviet Union was grateful for that help. But they were a bit disappointed, and who can blame them? During the war, the western aid to soviets was nicknamed "The Second Front" by the russians. And here's a Soviet saying regarding the matter: "Look, american trucks! Look, american food! Look, russian bodies!". Yes, that aid did help alot. But I think that russian effort in the war should not be underestimated. When it comes to war against Japan, however, USA carried the bulk of fighting there. But regarding the war in Pacific, it almost had embarrasing end. USA had fought against Japan for years, and when they were ready to assault the japanese-mainland (Operations "Coronet" and "Olympic", which never happened though), Soviets attacked the japanese, and within short time, they were about to invade the mainland. The war ended just in time. Had in continued for a bit longer, soviets would have occupied Japan.



Colonel von Blitz -> (7/11/2001 12:50:00 AM)

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.
Actually, VK.3001(H) about which I was talking about earlier was first armed with long barreled 75mm KwK L48, but during the development of this vehicle Hitler insisted that a battlefield dominating tank should be developed (and AFAIK, this was pre-1940). This led to up-gunning the vehicle with Geraet 725, but this was to be further changed to 88mm KwK 36, because shortage of Tungsten. Now that is true that the up-gunning was result of intelligence gatherng information about russian heavy and medium tanks, but the order to up-gun the vehicle came much earlier than Operation Barbarossa. Besides, we know that Hitler was quite a megalomanic person, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that he wanted to have heaviest, toughest and meanest toy in his arsenal :D :D ...I believe at least Tiger would have been produced as it was produced 60 yrs ago even without East Front.
quote:

Also far as I know, while Tiger was awesome the Panther that was much better overall , was itself modeled after Russian T-34.
Panther on the other hand was direct result of copying better sides of T-34, no doubt about that. And I agree that this tank, though not having as fearsome reputation as Tiger, was better overall than dreaded Tiger.
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.
This is also an issue I agree with you. And I'd like to add that long barreled StuGs were also a vehicles that had to be developed to be up-armored and up-gunned just because sheer necessity (also because they were cheaper, but anyway)
quote:

One could speculate that without Eastern Front, for example early Shermans would have been quite same level with German tanks in 1944.
One could also speculate that without East Front Germany would have had more steel and other resources available (not wasting them in the east), and as I speculated earlier that Tigers would have been produced even without influence of Russia, that probably would have ment more Tigers going against Shermans :D But this is just sheer speculating leading nowhere, we could do this until were green in the face and still disagree :) Colonel von Blitz [ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel von Blitz ]



gators -> (7/11/2001 12:53:00 AM)

Wouldn't they have needed a navy? :cool:



Charles2222 -> (7/11/2001 1:09:00 AM)

sven: I'm not going to dig up the entire history of attempted Gerry dumb downs, anymore than you'd have any sanity if you tried to quote all the US dumb downs. A bunch of people wanting to dumb down Germany isn't what I offer as proof of a conspiracy. If you want to prove anti-US conspiracies, have at it. I admit there are those individuals, every bit as much as you should admit there are the anti-Gerry individuals. There's no quotes that would convince you if reading the forums hasn't already.



Paul Goodman -> (7/11/2001 1:18:00 AM)

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



sven -> (7/11/2001 1:25:00 AM)

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
Well said.



Charles2222 -> (7/11/2001 1:34:00 AM)

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.
Sounds like opinion to me. Show me the figures if this is possible. Remember, he said T34/85s to Tigers, not T34s to Tigers. Let's see 15-to-1. BTW, again, the common error is made here, we are comparing tanks of different classes. If you want to compare relative information, though the T34/85 would be superior, you have to compare another medium class, the PZIV. Another thing people fail to take into account when comparing a "heavy" to a "medium" and claiming awesome 15-to-1 superiority, is that the Tiger wasn't produced till late '42, while if we're talking T34s as a whole, they were produced pre-war (as was the PZIV).



Brummagem -> (7/11/2001 2:13:00 AM)

From what I've read the Tiger was on the design board long before the mistake of invading Russa was made. Yes it was up gunned after a few run ins with the Russians but then that only made sense. The Panther on the other hand was a direct knee kerk reaction to the T34. IE: this bit of information: Having received the commision's report on November 25 1941, the Heereswaffenamt contracted with two armament firms, Daimler-Benz and MAN, to produce designs for a new medium tank in the 30-35 ton class. To be ready for the following spring, the specifications called for a vehicle with 60mm frontal armor and 40mm side armor, a high velocity 75mm gun and the front and sides to be sloped like the T-34. In April 1942, the two designs were submitted, with an interesting contrast. Daimler-Benz proposal was an almost unashamed copy of the T-34 in layout, with the addition of a few refinements. It had a hull shape similar to the T-34 with turret mounted well forward; the driver sat within the turret cage. A diesel engine was fitted with transmission to the rear sprockets. Paired steel bogies without rubber tyres were suspended by leaf springs. Other features included jettisonable fuel tanks on the hull rear in T-34 fashion. Hitler was impressed with the Daimler-Benz "T-34 type" proposal, although he suggested that the gun be changed from the 75mm L/48 model to the longer L/70 weapon, and prototypes went into production. Leaf springs were cheaper and easier to produce than torsion bars, and the diesel engine would have been an advantage in later years when petrol supply became restricted. However, the Heereswaffenamt preferred the MAN design, since simply copying the T-34 was unpatriotic and there were mechanical features of the T-34 which made copying an impractical proposition for German manufacturers. If you've seen the side view of the Daimler/Benz design you can easily see that it is a copy. Would have hated to drive that thing around in the smoke and mud with one of our own Tigers looking for something to shoot up. I personally think that America should have let Patton push on and take out Russia while he was over there. Stalin turned out to be just as crazy as Hitler and had a damn site more to work with as far as population and natural resources were concerned. As far as bad mouthing the Americans go, well that's been happening for a long long time. Heck Americans like to bad mouth America, how can you expect the rest of the world to not go there if they do it to them selves. America entered WWII ill prepared and ill equiped. That wasn't the soldiers fault, the fault laid squarely on their leaders shoulders. Heck the British caught on quicker then the Yanks did and up gunned the Sherman to a serious contender with the 17 pounder while America continued to pop out steel coffins. In the end though, shear numbers won out. That's what makes Chins and India so scary. Do we actually have enough bullets to stop them. That's my 2 bits.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9208984