RustyHammer
Member
Whether we use a WWII nuke or a 2003 nuke ... doesn't matter to me ... result is the same!
WWII 1943 Platoon vs. Current 2003 Platoon
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
- Status
Tamara
Your right about "Monty", the Brishish public considers him a great leader that should have been the Supreme Commander instead of Ike. Monty was a liar during the war and a liar after the war. There is no doubt that Monty had some serious personal issues in his life. During the victory parade in London Monty refused to in vite his 2nd in command because he did not want to share the limelight. The US had to intervene to get DeGuiand(sp?) invited, and in this they suceeded. DeGuinand(sp) saved Monty's butt (career) several times but Monty's ego ruled. No serious student of WW2 considers Monty a great general, just a great British hero. I have been studying WW2 history pretty much non-stop for over 35 years. Getting other than the Ameican point of view of WW2 is difficult but not impossible and I have focused the last 10 years on the German point of view. The German's common belief (right or wrong) was that the British soldier was #1, Russian #2, and American #3. What they admired most about America was our abundant wealth and supply, not our leadership or our fighting skills. Germany was overwhelmed, not out-fought. We could not have beaten Germany (most believe using the "bomb" wasn't an option)without Russia but it is quite possible Russia could have beaten Germany alone provided we continued to send them supplies. More Russian 2nd Lt's were killed than American privates! Only since the collapse of the Soviet Union has historical truth been released. 10 years ago we did not know that about a million russian soldiers died in the battle of Stalingrad alone
and that one they won!
Your right about "Monty", the Brishish public considers him a great leader that should have been the Supreme Commander instead of Ike. Monty was a liar during the war and a liar after the war. There is no doubt that Monty had some serious personal issues in his life. During the victory parade in London Monty refused to in vite his 2nd in command because he did not want to share the limelight. The US had to intervene to get DeGuiand(sp?) invited, and in this they suceeded. DeGuinand(sp) saved Monty's butt (career) several times but Monty's ego ruled. No serious student of WW2 considers Monty a great general, just a great British hero. I have been studying WW2 history pretty much non-stop for over 35 years. Getting other than the Ameican point of view of WW2 is difficult but not impossible and I have focused the last 10 years on the German point of view. The German's common belief (right or wrong) was that the British soldier was #1, Russian #2, and American #3. What they admired most about America was our abundant wealth and supply, not our leadership or our fighting skills. Germany was overwhelmed, not out-fought. We could not have beaten Germany (most believe using the "bomb" wasn't an option)without Russia but it is quite possible Russia could have beaten Germany alone provided we continued to send them supplies. More Russian 2nd Lt's were killed than American privates! Only since the collapse of the Soviet Union has historical truth been released. 10 years ago we did not know that about a million russian soldiers died in the battle of Stalingrad alone
and that one they won!Med 10
Member
The WW2 German soldier was the finest soldier in the history of war. By the time the Aliies landed at Normandy The Germans had been pounded by round the clock bombing, and did not have air superiority. Also the bulk of the German army was fighting the Russians and inflicting a hell of alot higher kill ratio than 4-1 on them!
If even half of the germans were pulled back to France or for that matter if the Panzers had been allowed to attack the allies on the beaches the outcome of the war would have been much different.
And Tamara, the Varsity that you speak of was fighting in Russia at the time of the D-day landings. France was defended by second rate Germans thrown together by Rommel to defend his Atlantic wall. The majority of the top-notch SS and Panzer Grenadiers were fighting the Soviets.
If even half of the germans were pulled back to France or for that matter if the Panzers had been allowed to attack the allies on the beaches the outcome of the war would have been much different.
And Tamara, the Varsity that you speak of was fighting in Russia at the time of the D-day landings. France was defended by second rate Germans thrown together by Rommel to defend his Atlantic wall. The majority of the top-notch SS and Panzer Grenadiers were fighting the Soviets.
Frohickey
Member
Got to hand it to the Soviets... they bred like rabbits and they had the manpower to hold off the German war machine.
I see us in the same predicament, with the Chicoms. Gen MacArthur was thrown back from the China/North Korean border when the ChiComs came down in tremendous numbers.
Now, after Clintoon giving the ChiComs US military secrets, we could be in trouble when the ChiComs finally integrate these technologies into their armed forces.
I see us in the same predicament, with the Chicoms. Gen MacArthur was thrown back from the China/North Korean border when the ChiComs came down in tremendous numbers.
Now, after Clintoon giving the ChiComs US military secrets, we could be in trouble when the ChiComs finally integrate these technologies into their armed forces.
Thumper
Member
Ubermensh! Ubermensh!
Alas, Med 10 understands
The Germans for the length of the War considered the Western front to be of secondary importance, just as we assigned the Pacific theater secondary importance (15% of our war effort). That does not mean the Japs were not excellent fighters, just that they were (rightly so) not considered the most serious threat. If Overloard had not happened, at best the German's would have had a stalemate with Russia. Germany lost their chance to win WW2 when they lost at Stalingrad(early 1943), the Germans knew it, our leadership knew it, and so did the Russians. By then (1943)Russia was also out producing Germany(and increasing)and their equipment was almost as good. Their leadership and the quality of their soldiers(training) were never better than fair and more often, poor. Thats why they suffered so many losses, thats always been Russia's way to fight a war. While the Allies landed at Normandy, by arrangement Russia attacked (and destroyed)the German Army Center in Belorussia. More German divisons creased to exist in that one battle than were ever deployed in Normandy or France. Even the landing in Normandy required Russian help to draw off some of the re-inforcements! The Russians call WW2, "The Great Patriotic War" I don't like it but they earned it. Thats one of the reasons IKE decided to let the Russian take Berlin AGAINST the wishes of most of his troops. Were the Germans of 1870 to 1943 the best military soldiers in World history? Either them or the Romans, take your pick. If we, the US maintains our military might for the next 10-20 years I think we have a shot at number #1. I think we are #3 in World History right now. Long live America and Hail to the American Veteran!!!!!
side note; Why were the losses so great at Omaha....one unknown German division (352nd) and the fact that Bradly declined to use the special built tanks designed and used by the British called "funnies".
The Germans for the length of the War considered the Western front to be of secondary importance, just as we assigned the Pacific theater secondary importance (15% of our war effort). That does not mean the Japs were not excellent fighters, just that they were (rightly so) not considered the most serious threat. If Overloard had not happened, at best the German's would have had a stalemate with Russia. Germany lost their chance to win WW2 when they lost at Stalingrad(early 1943), the Germans knew it, our leadership knew it, and so did the Russians. By then (1943)Russia was also out producing Germany(and increasing)and their equipment was almost as good. Their leadership and the quality of their soldiers(training) were never better than fair and more often, poor. Thats why they suffered so many losses, thats always been Russia's way to fight a war. While the Allies landed at Normandy, by arrangement Russia attacked (and destroyed)the German Army Center in Belorussia. More German divisons creased to exist in that one battle than were ever deployed in Normandy or France. Even the landing in Normandy required Russian help to draw off some of the re-inforcements! The Russians call WW2, "The Great Patriotic War" I don't like it but they earned it. Thats one of the reasons IKE decided to let the Russian take Berlin AGAINST the wishes of most of his troops. Were the Germans of 1870 to 1943 the best military soldiers in World history? Either them or the Romans, take your pick. If we, the US maintains our military might for the next 10-20 years I think we have a shot at number #1. I think we are #3 in World History right now. Long live America and Hail to the American Veteran!!!!!
side note; Why were the losses so great at Omaha....one unknown German division (352nd) and the fact that Bradly declined to use the special built tanks designed and used by the British called "funnies".
Last edited:
Med 10
Member
telewinz, what do you think of the rumor that the only reason the Russians stopped at Berlin instead of conquering the whole of Germany and perhaps all of western Europe was because the U.S. had the bomb?.
Any serious student of WW2 history would know that the Soviets would have been quite capable of doing so. With an Army of nearly 12 million + reserves, at the end of the war, the Allies would have been hard pressed to stop continued Soviet aggression.
Just some food for thought.
BTW, youre knowledge of Mil-Hist is impressive.
Any serious student of WW2 history would know that the Soviets would have been quite capable of doing so. With an Army of nearly 12 million + reserves, at the end of the war, the Allies would have been hard pressed to stop continued Soviet aggression.
Just some food for thought.
BTW, youre knowledge of Mil-Hist is impressive.
jimbo
Member
Med 10,
"The WW2 German soldier was the finest soldier in the history of war. "
I respectfully and strongly disagree! I would stack Leonidas and 700 of his Spartan countryman or Lars and 700 of his Viking berzerkers or Gengis and 700 of his born-in-the-saddle bowmen against Hans and 700 of his Teutonic clan anyday.
Civilized man does not the best killers make. The ancient, primal and tribal warriors were born and bred from cradle to grave to fight and fight hard.
"The WW2 German soldier was the finest soldier in the history of war. "
I respectfully and strongly disagree! I would stack Leonidas and 700 of his Spartan countryman or Lars and 700 of his Viking berzerkers or Gengis and 700 of his born-in-the-saddle bowmen against Hans and 700 of his Teutonic clan anyday.
Civilized man does not the best killers make. The ancient, primal and tribal warriors were born and bred from cradle to grave to fight and fight hard.
Med 10
Stalin knew we had the bomb before Truman told him, thats why Truman could not understand why Stalin seemed so unimpressed. Stalin also knew we only had 3 or 4 at that time and they would be committed against the Japs. Also it was a deal Ike made with the Russians, his reasons were 1) the russians had done the most and suffered the most so they deserved the prize, Berlin. 2) Ike felt that the "final battle" would cost several hundred thousand allied losses and Berlin wasn't worth the cost. Considering what it cost the russians, he was right. Of course it's possible the Germans may have decided to surrender en mass to Ike in order to escape the Russians. As you know, the Germans in many cases fought thru the Russian lines in order to make it to the Elbe River to surrender to the Americans or British. I agree with you that except for our allied air power, the Soviets would have kicked our butts out of Europe. Patton was a ignorant fool to think he could defeat the Russians. Our tactical air force would have needed to do the dirty work against the Russian Army, just like they did against the German Army. Here is a short list of the facts of WW2, you probably have more to add:
What Allied rifles did the Germans seek to capture and use? Not the Garand, it was the M1 carbine and Russian SVT 40.
What was the most feared tank of WW2? The German Tiger tank
What was the best tank of WW2? The Panther
Why didn't the Germans just copy the T34 tank as the Generals wanted? German industry could not produce the aluminum engine block that was in the T34.
How did the inferior German tanks of 41 & 42 defeat the T-34 in battle? One tank would hit the driver's hatch (had a poor latch) which caused the hatch to fly open and lock. A second tank would shoot their 37mm or 50mm shell thru the hatch opening. Thats what the historians mean by superior German tactics and training!
Why were the Sherman tank crews forced to use the out-gunned and poorly armored Sherman in 44 an 45? Our "tank expert" Patton over-ruled all of the senior US commanders and vetoed the ideal of introducing the M26 6 months earlier because he didn't think it was needed and didn't want a slow down in production
German armor plate and their steel in general was of higher quality than any Allied steel. Thats why the American 90mm still could not equal the German 88 or even the panther's 75mm. In the few engagements between the panther and the Pershing, often times the 90mm would bounce off the frontal armor of the panther even at ranges as close as 100 yards! The steel in the 90mm round just was not hard enough, but the energy was their.
How long did the Vatican hold on to the treaty between German and themselves before they decided not to sign it? Over a year, it wasn't until they felt sure Germany would lose the war that they notified Germany that they were not going to sign.
enough is enough. regards
Stalin knew we had the bomb before Truman told him, thats why Truman could not understand why Stalin seemed so unimpressed. Stalin also knew we only had 3 or 4 at that time and they would be committed against the Japs. Also it was a deal Ike made with the Russians, his reasons were 1) the russians had done the most and suffered the most so they deserved the prize, Berlin. 2) Ike felt that the "final battle" would cost several hundred thousand allied losses and Berlin wasn't worth the cost. Considering what it cost the russians, he was right. Of course it's possible the Germans may have decided to surrender en mass to Ike in order to escape the Russians. As you know, the Germans in many cases fought thru the Russian lines in order to make it to the Elbe River to surrender to the Americans or British. I agree with you that except for our allied air power, the Soviets would have kicked our butts out of Europe. Patton was a ignorant fool to think he could defeat the Russians. Our tactical air force would have needed to do the dirty work against the Russian Army, just like they did against the German Army. Here is a short list of the facts of WW2, you probably have more to add:
What Allied rifles did the Germans seek to capture and use? Not the Garand, it was the M1 carbine and Russian SVT 40.
What was the most feared tank of WW2? The German Tiger tank
What was the best tank of WW2? The Panther
Why didn't the Germans just copy the T34 tank as the Generals wanted? German industry could not produce the aluminum engine block that was in the T34.
How did the inferior German tanks of 41 & 42 defeat the T-34 in battle? One tank would hit the driver's hatch (had a poor latch) which caused the hatch to fly open and lock. A second tank would shoot their 37mm or 50mm shell thru the hatch opening. Thats what the historians mean by superior German tactics and training!
Why were the Sherman tank crews forced to use the out-gunned and poorly armored Sherman in 44 an 45? Our "tank expert" Patton over-ruled all of the senior US commanders and vetoed the ideal of introducing the M26 6 months earlier because he didn't think it was needed and didn't want a slow down in production
German armor plate and their steel in general was of higher quality than any Allied steel. Thats why the American 90mm still could not equal the German 88 or even the panther's 75mm. In the few engagements between the panther and the Pershing, often times the 90mm would bounce off the frontal armor of the panther even at ranges as close as 100 yards! The steel in the 90mm round just was not hard enough, but the energy was their.
How long did the Vatican hold on to the treaty between German and themselves before they decided not to sign it? Over a year, it wasn't until they felt sure Germany would lose the war that they notified Germany that they were not going to sign.
enough is enough. regards
mons meg,
A Roman century would kill ANY WWII bayonet armed platoon in HTH fighting. (Roman enemies typically fought with spears/javellins).
First of all, they are trained for HTH fighting, gun-era soldiers are not and have an aversion to it.
Second of all, Romans are trained to fight HTH in a cohesive unit, while WWII soldiers are not.
Romans carry shields, WWII riflemen do not.
Romans are armored, WWII obviously are not.
Lastly, Romans are physically stronger, and better mentally disciplined. Roman Legionarys built overnight fortifications after marching every 10 miles. Cutting logs and digging trenches every single day of your life in addition to training and killing made some physically tough hombres.
A Roman century would kill ANY WWII bayonet armed platoon in HTH fighting. (Roman enemies typically fought with spears/javellins).
First of all, they are trained for HTH fighting, gun-era soldiers are not and have an aversion to it.
Second of all, Romans are trained to fight HTH in a cohesive unit, while WWII soldiers are not.
Romans carry shields, WWII riflemen do not.
Romans are armored, WWII obviously are not.
Lastly, Romans are physically stronger, and better mentally disciplined. Roman Legionarys built overnight fortifications after marching every 10 miles. Cutting logs and digging trenches every single day of your life in addition to training and killing made some physically tough hombres.
Med 10
Member
OK jimbo, how about the finest fighting force of the modern era?
telewinz, VERY interesting tidbits. especially the deal with the aluminum engine of the T-34!
I agree that the Panther was the best tank of the war but only after a few months went by to work the bugs out.
Here are my takes on the "best of" of WW2:
GPMG: MG-42 {what a cyclic rate! ease of barrel swap}
Light MG: The Bren.
semi auto battle rifle: Garand. {what else}
Bolt action: K-98
SMG: MP-40
Pistol: 1911 I know,{what else}
Fighter: P-51 {FW-190 a close second}
Medium bomber: B-25 mitchell { Mosquito a close second}
heavy bomber: B-24 Liberator. { ruled out B-29 due to little known but atrocious engine probs.}
Battle ship: the Bismark!
Artilery piece: the "88"
Submarine: anything German.
Carrier: {no brainer} anything U.S.
Ground attack aircraft: The Stormovick { these REALLY chewed up the Germans!}
Care to add anything?
telewinz, VERY interesting tidbits. especially the deal with the aluminum engine of the T-34!
I agree that the Panther was the best tank of the war but only after a few months went by to work the bugs out.
Here are my takes on the "best of" of WW2:
GPMG: MG-42 {what a cyclic rate! ease of barrel swap}
Light MG: The Bren.
semi auto battle rifle: Garand. {what else}
Bolt action: K-98
SMG: MP-40
Pistol: 1911 I know,{what else}
Fighter: P-51 {FW-190 a close second}
Medium bomber: B-25 mitchell { Mosquito a close second}
heavy bomber: B-24 Liberator. { ruled out B-29 due to little known but atrocious engine probs.}
Battle ship: the Bismark!
Artilery piece: the "88"
Submarine: anything German.
Carrier: {no brainer} anything U.S.
Ground attack aircraft: The Stormovick { these REALLY chewed up the Germans!}
Care to add anything?
"16-1, for every german loss they inflicted 16 Enemy losses .....and they still lost."
That would include the Eastern Front where the Soviets lost especially early in the war, at times more than 18 to 1. If one looks at troop losses (killed in action, wounded in action {though many wounded returned to action}, and captured), and breaks it down by Eastern and Western Fronts then the ratio on the Western Front does not even favor the Germans depending how you want to stack your statistics. Also the Germans were fighting a defensive war and the Allies had to carry the attack to them. After D-day the Germans were forced in actual manpower to split their forces. In 1943 72 percent of German forces were on the Eastern Front, in 1944 that dropped to less that 50 percent. Statistics can be misleading however; even those that show that America had the lowest rate of combat losses of any of the major powers on either side in the war. The bottom line on combat effectiveness is to look at who won what battles and the war. What major battles did the Germans win against the Americans?
"The German's common belief (right or wrong) was that the British soldier was #1, Russian #2, and American #3. "
Yes, underestimating ones opponent can even lead to losing a war.
This tangent from the original thread all started for me at least because the opinion was offered that the American soldier of WWII was the equivalent of the Italian soldier of the Axis. I think it is clear that that was an absurd, unfounded, and gratuitous insult. I have never claimed that the American soldier was the best or most effective soldier in WWII - at times especially early in the war they were not. However by the wars end they were equal if not superior to any other nations soldiers. That heritage lives on in their grandchildren and great grandchildren that make up our military today.
That would include the Eastern Front where the Soviets lost especially early in the war, at times more than 18 to 1. If one looks at troop losses (killed in action, wounded in action {though many wounded returned to action}, and captured), and breaks it down by Eastern and Western Fronts then the ratio on the Western Front does not even favor the Germans depending how you want to stack your statistics. Also the Germans were fighting a defensive war and the Allies had to carry the attack to them. After D-day the Germans were forced in actual manpower to split their forces. In 1943 72 percent of German forces were on the Eastern Front, in 1944 that dropped to less that 50 percent. Statistics can be misleading however; even those that show that America had the lowest rate of combat losses of any of the major powers on either side in the war. The bottom line on combat effectiveness is to look at who won what battles and the war. What major battles did the Germans win against the Americans?
"The German's common belief (right or wrong) was that the British soldier was #1, Russian #2, and American #3. "
Yes, underestimating ones opponent can even lead to losing a war.
This tangent from the original thread all started for me at least because the opinion was offered that the American soldier of WWII was the equivalent of the Italian soldier of the Axis. I think it is clear that that was an absurd, unfounded, and gratuitous insult. I have never claimed that the American soldier was the best or most effective soldier in WWII - at times especially early in the war they were not. However by the wars end they were equal if not superior to any other nations soldiers. That heritage lives on in their grandchildren and great grandchildren that make up our military today.
Med 10
Member
Mack, where did you get youre stats?
Med 10
Member
16-1
That tells you that the Germans fought smart and relied on aggresive decicion making and brutal tenacity from their NCO's.
Unpredictability and aggresive small unit actions were the hallmark of the Whermacht. Unlike so many other armies of the war, the German infantry unit could still remain an effective fighting force after its officers were killed or wounded.
I'm not taking anything away from the good old GI joes, but man to man they were absolutly pathetic compared to the Germans.
The U.S. could in no way shape or form have beaten the Germans if the germans were not decisively engaged with the Russians.
By the time the allies landed in Europe the Germans were suffering from critical fuel shortages and decreaesd overall production of war material, and the Germans still managed to mount a serious offensive that only stalled when the fuel ran short and the weather cleared up to allow Allied aircraft to bail the groundforces out of trouble.
A little known fact is that the Allies were moving so slow in western europe that the Soviets actually had to put the brakes on thier campaign in the east a few times to allow the Allies to "catch up"
That tells you that the Germans fought smart and relied on aggresive decicion making and brutal tenacity from their NCO's.
Unpredictability and aggresive small unit actions were the hallmark of the Whermacht. Unlike so many other armies of the war, the German infantry unit could still remain an effective fighting force after its officers were killed or wounded.
I'm not taking anything away from the good old GI joes, but man to man they were absolutly pathetic compared to the Germans.
The U.S. could in no way shape or form have beaten the Germans if the germans were not decisively engaged with the Russians.
By the time the allies landed in Europe the Germans were suffering from critical fuel shortages and decreaesd overall production of war material, and the Germans still managed to mount a serious offensive that only stalled when the fuel ran short and the weather cleared up to allow Allied aircraft to bail the groundforces out of trouble.
A little known fact is that the Allies were moving so slow in western europe that the Soviets actually had to put the brakes on thier campaign in the east a few times to allow the Allies to "catch up"
Med 10 & Mac
By and large we agree except:
I feel the US "Fleet" sub of WW2 was the best
I feel the "88" was the best anti-tank, but not the best artillery piece. The Germans felt that the American artillery was better than theirs.
I'd give the nod to the Mosquito because it was the best fighter/ bomber. For most of the war it could also hold its own as a fighter.
Ground attack, you could be right but the Stuka (tank killer version) and the Bristish Tempest were very potent.
Best rifle Kar 43, and of course the '44 assault rifle. For some reason the German infantry was never impressed with the Garand but like I posted, they loved the M1 carbine and Russian SVT 40.
Mack...
That 2+2 =4 does not mean 3 is being underestimated. Saying their was 100 divisions doesn't mean anything if you don't know their current strength at the time. On a whole, Panzer divisions in 44-45 had anywhere from 25% to 75% less personnel and equipment than their western allied counterpart. An American armored division had about 400 tanks +/-, an INFANTRY division had about 200! At best in '44 & 45 a very FEW panzer divisions might have 100 - 150 for a short time but the Germans were unable to replace their losses while the Americans could. If is often recorded that "Panzer" divsions had less than 10 AFV but the Western Press always reported that they were at full strength as if it were 1942! Russian divisions were about half the size of german divisions, and german division were about half the size of American divisions (in all cases their was a great deal of variation) AGAIN, by 1944 the Germans were already well on the way to defeat, Overlord just hastened the end. The only time after 1941 that there were more germans soldiers west of Berlin were those escaping to surrender in 1945. North Africa, Italy, and France were considered secondary fronts compared to Russia. These are historic facts of record as best I can remember (I'm not sitting here with the books in my lap).
Med 10 is 100% correct in his comments, he is just not sugar coating the facts as many Americans are used to. High School history books have never been known for their accuracy or their hard hitting facts.
By and large we agree except:
I feel the US "Fleet" sub of WW2 was the best
I feel the "88" was the best anti-tank, but not the best artillery piece. The Germans felt that the American artillery was better than theirs.
I'd give the nod to the Mosquito because it was the best fighter/ bomber. For most of the war it could also hold its own as a fighter.
Ground attack, you could be right but the Stuka (tank killer version) and the Bristish Tempest were very potent.
Best rifle Kar 43, and of course the '44 assault rifle. For some reason the German infantry was never impressed with the Garand but like I posted, they loved the M1 carbine and Russian SVT 40.
Mack...
That 2+2 =4 does not mean 3 is being underestimated. Saying their was 100 divisions doesn't mean anything if you don't know their current strength at the time. On a whole, Panzer divisions in 44-45 had anywhere from 25% to 75% less personnel and equipment than their western allied counterpart. An American armored division had about 400 tanks +/-, an INFANTRY division had about 200! At best in '44 & 45 a very FEW panzer divisions might have 100 - 150 for a short time but the Germans were unable to replace their losses while the Americans could. If is often recorded that "Panzer" divsions had less than 10 AFV but the Western Press always reported that they were at full strength as if it were 1942! Russian divisions were about half the size of german divisions, and german division were about half the size of American divisions (in all cases their was a great deal of variation) AGAIN, by 1944 the Germans were already well on the way to defeat, Overlord just hastened the end. The only time after 1941 that there were more germans soldiers west of Berlin were those escaping to surrender in 1945. North Africa, Italy, and France were considered secondary fronts compared to Russia. These are historic facts of record as best I can remember (I'm not sitting here with the books in my lap).
Med 10 is 100% correct in his comments, he is just not sugar coating the facts as many Americans are used to. High School history books have never been known for their accuracy or their hard hitting facts.
Tamara
Senior Member
Boy, the revisionism and "grass-is-greener" syndrome are getting pretty thick in here.
The Russkie advance stalled out several times after the crushing success of Operation Bagration because they: a) outran their logistics (which were primitive), b) began running into stiff resistance again, and c) many units at the point of the spear had been ground down by steady attrition. By the time it drove into central Poland, the 2nd Byelorussian front (and its important 5th Guards tank army) was outta beans, bullets and bodies, and once again up against an opponent that was determined to fight rather than run. Summer of '44 saw the German army on both fronts acting more like the French than anything else. If the Russians had had the logistical train to back up Bagration (or, for that matter, if Ike hadn't panicked at Third Army's gains and started insisting on his "broad front" advance) the war could possibly have been shortened. Would the Germans have been able to mount Wacht Am Rhein or Fruehlinsgerwachen if the Ruhr or East Prussia were already in allied hands?
Uncle Joe may've said that he magnanimously was holding up and snicker "waiting for the Western allies to catch up", but if so, he sure didn't have any choice in the matter at the time.
The Russkie advance stalled out several times after the crushing success of Operation Bagration because they: a) outran their logistics (which were primitive), b) began running into stiff resistance again, and c) many units at the point of the spear had been ground down by steady attrition. By the time it drove into central Poland, the 2nd Byelorussian front (and its important 5th Guards tank army) was outta beans, bullets and bodies, and once again up against an opponent that was determined to fight rather than run. Summer of '44 saw the German army on both fronts acting more like the French than anything else. If the Russians had had the logistical train to back up Bagration (or, for that matter, if Ike hadn't panicked at Third Army's gains and started insisting on his "broad front" advance) the war could possibly have been shortened. Would the Germans have been able to mount Wacht Am Rhein or Fruehlinsgerwachen if the Ruhr or East Prussia were already in allied hands?
Uncle Joe may've said that he magnanimously was holding up and snicker "waiting for the Western allies to catch up", but if so, he sure didn't have any choice in the matter at the time.
I certainly don't have the breadth of knowledge on this that some have and I don't have a history book in my lap, but I do recall something about the Soviets holding back on Poland in order to let the Germans put down some Polish Resistance that was more closely aligned with London vice Moscow. And then what was the little forest incident that massacred the Polish officers?....and on and on. And just to prove that NO horse is too dead to kick, #1, #2 and #3, what is the comparable difference between the Bronze and the Gold? And finally, war is a national effort, not just material but moral, ergo nations win wars not just armies. Peace, out!
Tamara
Senior Member
A few ruminations on the "Nazi supertanks":
Interesting info has become available since the end of WWII (and also since the end of the Cold War) on the Koenigstiger and Jagdpanther. Apparently both these vehicles were, indeed, equipped with very hard steel armor. Indeed, it was too hard. Photos of the captured King Tigers used for gunnery tests by the Russians show armor that shattered (especially when hit near defective welds) by large-caliber weapons. This may not have meant much if you were in a short-barreled Sherman or T-34/76c, but it meant a lot if you were behind the sight of a Russian 85- or 100-mm gun, an American 90mm, or even a 17-pounder firing APDS rounds.
Also, here’s a scenario to ponder: A Tiger I is behind a shallow reverse slope at the edge of some woods with only the upper hull and turret showing. Scattered in the woods around it are a handful of Panzerfaust teams. An American tank battalion on the advance stumbles across this setup. The lead platoon engages the Tiger, and two or three Shermans get brewed up. Meanwhile, as the other platoons fan out through the woods to take the Tiger from the flanks or rear, another couple get treads blown off or k-killed by Panzerfaust teams, who then decide that discretion is the better part of valour, and fade back into the woods. About this time, an “Easy Eight†has worked its way around the Tiger, and puts a 76mm shell into the engine compartment, reducing the big Maybach to so much scrap, and peppering the loader with spall from the engine bulkhead. The Tiger crew, with an immobile tank, a wounded loader, and no power traverse for the turret, decides that a crippled track isn’t the place to be when the surrounding countryside is crawling with American armour and Jabos are sure to show up soon, so, grabbing their wounded loader, they sensibly unass their broken panzer and head for the rear with the gear. As each succeeding American platoon comes up, they’re going to see the same thing: a Tiger perched at the edge of the woods. A knocked out tank and a live one look pretty much the same, so each platoon is going to do something called “knocking on the door to see if anyone’s homeâ€: ie popping off a round or two at the stationary German tank. Pretty soon, the Tiger’s mantlet and glacis plate are peppered with gouges from 75mm shells.
Now, a day or two later, when the area is now in the Yank rear, anybody who comes along is going to see five or six burned-out Shermans and one knocked-out Tiger with 20 or 30 divots in its frontal armour. What kind of reports and war stories do you think that’ll lead to?
Interesting info has become available since the end of WWII (and also since the end of the Cold War) on the Koenigstiger and Jagdpanther. Apparently both these vehicles were, indeed, equipped with very hard steel armor. Indeed, it was too hard. Photos of the captured King Tigers used for gunnery tests by the Russians show armor that shattered (especially when hit near defective welds) by large-caliber weapons. This may not have meant much if you were in a short-barreled Sherman or T-34/76c, but it meant a lot if you were behind the sight of a Russian 85- or 100-mm gun, an American 90mm, or even a 17-pounder firing APDS rounds.
Also, here’s a scenario to ponder: A Tiger I is behind a shallow reverse slope at the edge of some woods with only the upper hull and turret showing. Scattered in the woods around it are a handful of Panzerfaust teams. An American tank battalion on the advance stumbles across this setup. The lead platoon engages the Tiger, and two or three Shermans get brewed up. Meanwhile, as the other platoons fan out through the woods to take the Tiger from the flanks or rear, another couple get treads blown off or k-killed by Panzerfaust teams, who then decide that discretion is the better part of valour, and fade back into the woods. About this time, an “Easy Eight†has worked its way around the Tiger, and puts a 76mm shell into the engine compartment, reducing the big Maybach to so much scrap, and peppering the loader with spall from the engine bulkhead. The Tiger crew, with an immobile tank, a wounded loader, and no power traverse for the turret, decides that a crippled track isn’t the place to be when the surrounding countryside is crawling with American armour and Jabos are sure to show up soon, so, grabbing their wounded loader, they sensibly unass their broken panzer and head for the rear with the gear. As each succeeding American platoon comes up, they’re going to see the same thing: a Tiger perched at the edge of the woods. A knocked out tank and a live one look pretty much the same, so each platoon is going to do something called “knocking on the door to see if anyone’s homeâ€: ie popping off a round or two at the stationary German tank. Pretty soon, the Tiger’s mantlet and glacis plate are peppered with gouges from 75mm shells.
Now, a day or two later, when the area is now in the Yank rear, anybody who comes along is going to see five or six burned-out Shermans and one knocked-out Tiger with 20 or 30 divots in its frontal armour. What kind of reports and war stories do you think that’ll lead to?
mons meg
Member
CWL: Isn't that pretty much what I said?
Dannyboy
Member
This is a valid point but there are other factors that can contribute to the stories. Anyone ever hear of SS Captain Michael Wittman? He had 138 tank kills, more than half in a Tiger. His Tiger almost singlehandedly brought the attacking British 7th Armoured Division to a complete halt in Villers-Bocage. When you're fighting guys like this, it's understandable when soldiers get somewhat awestruck. Wittman was so good that he was claimed to have been killed by British Army, RAF, Canadian, and Polish units.
Tamara, I'm impressed
You have read a great deal on WW2 and armored warfare also You have been holding back. Your situation is quite possible but it would be the exception to the rule, even the Italians knew you would not put your tank in an area which favored the infantry, any tank is at a disadvantage in wooded or buildup areas that offer concealment. It did happen of course but only in desperate situations where proper infantry protection was not possible. You are right, it took about 5 Shermans on average to defeat a panther or Tiger tank! Tank destroyers (M18-M36)were seldom used in the offensive against German tanks by the allies. It was tried but they fared even worse than the Sherman, Cruiser, Cromwell, Churchhill, ect. The best tank destroyer(at least at that time) was another tank which had enough gun AND enough armor protection. This was not true of the german mobile anti-tank guns, they had better guns and armor than their allied counterparts and were quite successful, by 1944 more assault ATVs were made by the germans than tanks. they were quicker and cheaper to make and more effective than any American or British tank or anti tank. As far as the tests done on the armor plate, I have never read this study or heard about it, none the less I think you will agree that (as most do) that German steel/armor was better than any allied effort. Also it is a fact that most German armor plate was face hardened during 1943 and after. This was an improvement not a defect, it was intended to increase the penetration reistance of the armor. It suceeded, at least the germans and allies thought so. The face hardening was going on for a year before the allies knew about it. At a British HQ in Africa a German Mark III was on display as a trophy. It was there for over a year until a British officer (R&D Tech) out of boredom decided to take a real close look and discovered the improvement. Again, by '44 the German army was defeated. It just took longer for than to lose than the French. I disagree that they acted like the French and no American, British, or German history has ever hinted that they did. My comments are not revisionism, I do not study that kind material as it does not interest me. I read about the same battle from several perpectives from several authors from different countries. All are recognised experts in their field, thats the best I can do and am doing to get the objective(hopefully) truth. My father was an American Tanker in WW2 serving with the 741st tank battlion, I feel it is unlikely to be bias against the American Army of any time. Also official histories are for the most part based on after action reports from Both sides of the conflicts. As you know, company sized units (and larger) kept records on a day to day bases. It may not be perfect but its the best we have and I think when its all said and done it paints a very accurate picture of WW2.
You have read a great deal on WW2 and armored warfare also
You have been holding back. Your situation is quite possible but it would be the exception to the rule, even the Italians knew you would not put your tank in an area which favored the infantry, any tank is at a disadvantage in wooded or buildup areas that offer concealment. It did happen of course but only in desperate situations where proper infantry protection was not possible. You are right, it took about 5 Shermans on average to defeat a panther or Tiger tank! Tank destroyers (M18-M36)were seldom used in the offensive against German tanks by the allies. It was tried but they fared even worse than the Sherman, Cruiser, Cromwell, Churchhill, ect. The best tank destroyer(at least at that time) was another tank which had enough gun AND enough armor protection. This was not true of the german mobile anti-tank guns, they had better guns and armor than their allied counterparts and were quite successful, by 1944 more assault ATVs were made by the germans than tanks. they were quicker and cheaper to make and more effective than any American or British tank or anti tank. As far as the tests done on the armor plate, I have never read this study or heard about it, none the less I think you will agree that (as most do) that German steel/armor was better than any allied effort. Also it is a fact that most German armor plate was face hardened during 1943 and after. This was an improvement not a defect, it was intended to increase the penetration reistance of the armor. It suceeded, at least the germans and allies thought so. The face hardening was going on for a year before the allies knew about it. At a British HQ in Africa a German Mark III was on display as a trophy. It was there for over a year until a British officer (R&D Tech) out of boredom decided to take a real close look and discovered the improvement. Again, by '44 the German army was defeated. It just took longer for than to lose than the French. I disagree that they acted like the French and no American, British, or German history has ever hinted that they did. My comments are not revisionism, I do not study that kind material as it does not interest me. I read about the same battle from several perpectives from several authors from different countries. All are recognised experts in their field, thats the best I can do and am doing to get the objective(hopefully) truth. My father was an American Tanker in WW2 serving with the 741st tank battlion, I feel it is unlikely to be bias against the American Army of any time. Also official histories are for the most part based on after action reports from Both sides of the conflicts. As you know, company sized units (and larger) kept records on a day to day bases. It may not be perfect but its the best we have and I think when its all said and done it paints a very accurate picture of WW2.Danny boy
I was hoping someone would bring this engagement up. Whitman in his Tiger tank along with a battery of 88's and some help from a company of Mark 4's did just what Danny Boy says. Its' interesting to note that Whitman was killed later not by an allied tank but by a rocket firing typhoon. He and his crew's remains were retrieved not too many years ago and buried with full military honors. Also another very important advantage the Germans had were there optics, The 88's and 75's could defeat MOST allied tanks at 1000 meters or more, the record being a T-34 at 2100 meters by a Tiger's 88. Because of the superior optics the German could ID their targets much sooner than the enemy, who more often than not had to get within 500 meters or less to penetrate the armor of the Panther or Tiger I or II. Also Germans with there superior armor could afford to fire from a stationary position. Allied tanks were taught to shoot on the move, less accurate which was really needed but who could blame them?
I was hoping someone would bring this engagement up. Whitman in his Tiger tank along with a battery of 88's and some help from a company of Mark 4's did just what Danny Boy says. Its' interesting to note that Whitman was killed later not by an allied tank but by a rocket firing typhoon. He and his crew's remains were retrieved not too many years ago and buried with full military honors. Also another very important advantage the Germans had were there optics, The 88's and 75's could defeat MOST allied tanks at 1000 meters or more, the record being a T-34 at 2100 meters by a Tiger's 88. Because of the superior optics the German could ID their targets much sooner than the enemy, who more often than not had to get within 500 meters or less to penetrate the armor of the Panther or Tiger I or II. Also Germans with there superior armor could afford to fire from a stationary position. Allied tanks were taught to shoot on the move, less accurate which was really needed but who could blame them?
Stephen Ewing
Member
A few general thoughts on a very fractured thread:
A) I’m betting on the modern platoon because the situations that favor modern toys are more numerous than the situations that favor the heavier bullets. It’s still not that hard to come up with a scenario where the WW2 platoon wins.
B) Wittman’s cause of death is very unclear. Typhoons and Shermans both have good claims, ISTM, but I’m betting on the Sherman.
C) Forget the tankers for a minute. German 88s knocked out multiple T-34s beyond 3,000 meters, and there is at least one halfway serious claim of a 7,000-meter kill on a T-34. That’s credible shooting even by navy standards.
D) Comparing Patton and Monty says more about the person doing the comparing than about either general, IMO. Neither was nearly as good as he thought he was, both had flaws, and both were very successful regardless. Both were really very good, but I don’t consider either to be the best of his era, or his nationality.
E) The Red Army defeated Nazi Germany. This is pretty much in the realm of fact, rather than opinion. Granted, they might STILL be working their way towards Berlin without boots, fuel, wire, and Studebakers, and the elegance of their work has its critics, but they did the work, and Bagration makes Overlord look like a day at the beach. The Western Allied ground forces measure their success in Europeans freed from Soviet dominion, rather than Nazi, so I’m not diminishing their sacrifice or their success, merely quibbling over which horror they contained. .
F) The U.S. certainly did poorly at Kasserine, but relative to the Russian or British introduction to Blitzkrieg, the G.I. did okay. Like our allies with uglier uniforms, the American fighting man got better as the war went on, he just started later. The gentlemen in the gray or black uniforms seem to have gotten worse, curiously.
G) Don’t forget the Firefly in any armor discussion. Nothing clearly outgunned it, little could really outmaneuver it, and the few that could out-armor it probably wouldn’t run long enough to do so.
H) Blame Leslie McNair for those bad American tank guns. One of the few positive things a strategic bomber ever accomplished was killing him.
I) American artillery’s superiority was in relatively unlimited ammunition supply and fire control better than anybody but the Finns. The hardware wasn’t really that different.
J) For subs, ignoring the clearly superior late-war German boats, the VII-C and its handling make it best against a serious ASW campaign, but if the enemy is utterly incompetent, then the American boats can multiply that advantage. Have to give the nod to the Germans here.
K) Assuming both populations can be motivated (very iffy, at best) the US/UK combo would have run amok on the Russians. Sudden Russian shortages of sundries, combined with Meteors, B-29s, traffic deserts, and American logistic capabilities make this simply murderous. Never mind what happens when the nukes start dropping, all that carrier aviation appears, the Marines arrive, and all those swabbies on fleet vessels get handed rifles. If the Americans had actually planned this, and increased or even maintained military production in 1944 along with abandoning the “90 division gambleâ€, it would have been even more ridiculous.
Egad, this thing wandered.
Steve
A) I’m betting on the modern platoon because the situations that favor modern toys are more numerous than the situations that favor the heavier bullets. It’s still not that hard to come up with a scenario where the WW2 platoon wins.
B) Wittman’s cause of death is very unclear. Typhoons and Shermans both have good claims, ISTM, but I’m betting on the Sherman.
C) Forget the tankers for a minute. German 88s knocked out multiple T-34s beyond 3,000 meters, and there is at least one halfway serious claim of a 7,000-meter kill on a T-34. That’s credible shooting even by navy standards.
D) Comparing Patton and Monty says more about the person doing the comparing than about either general, IMO. Neither was nearly as good as he thought he was, both had flaws, and both were very successful regardless. Both were really very good, but I don’t consider either to be the best of his era, or his nationality.
E) The Red Army defeated Nazi Germany. This is pretty much in the realm of fact, rather than opinion. Granted, they might STILL be working their way towards Berlin without boots, fuel, wire, and Studebakers, and the elegance of their work has its critics, but they did the work, and Bagration makes Overlord look like a day at the beach. The Western Allied ground forces measure their success in Europeans freed from Soviet dominion, rather than Nazi, so I’m not diminishing their sacrifice or their success, merely quibbling over which horror they contained. .
F) The U.S. certainly did poorly at Kasserine, but relative to the Russian or British introduction to Blitzkrieg, the G.I. did okay. Like our allies with uglier uniforms, the American fighting man got better as the war went on, he just started later. The gentlemen in the gray or black uniforms seem to have gotten worse, curiously.
G) Don’t forget the Firefly in any armor discussion. Nothing clearly outgunned it, little could really outmaneuver it, and the few that could out-armor it probably wouldn’t run long enough to do so.
H) Blame Leslie McNair for those bad American tank guns. One of the few positive things a strategic bomber ever accomplished was killing him.
I) American artillery’s superiority was in relatively unlimited ammunition supply and fire control better than anybody but the Finns. The hardware wasn’t really that different.
J) For subs, ignoring the clearly superior late-war German boats, the VII-C and its handling make it best against a serious ASW campaign, but if the enemy is utterly incompetent, then the American boats can multiply that advantage. Have to give the nod to the Germans here.
K) Assuming both populations can be motivated (very iffy, at best) the US/UK combo would have run amok on the Russians. Sudden Russian shortages of sundries, combined with Meteors, B-29s, traffic deserts, and American logistic capabilities make this simply murderous. Never mind what happens when the nukes start dropping, all that carrier aviation appears, the Marines arrive, and all those swabbies on fleet vessels get handed rifles. If the Americans had actually planned this, and increased or even maintained military production in 1944 along with abandoning the “90 division gambleâ€, it would have been even more ridiculous.
Egad, this thing wandered.
Steve
- Status
Similar threads
