NationStates Jolt Archive

Regardless of Hitler's purposed evil on the world. He armed his men well. The germans tested everything, down to the helmets, which is known to be one of the major factors in the battle of The Somme. The germans were plain out superior in many ways.


Do you disagree that the germans were superior?

[Tonight I was going through threads I started when I first came here.. I think this was my second one. I had been watching the History Channel that day about Germany. It bounced back and forth between battles, wars .. etc. I knew almost nothing about WW1 or 2 before then. What I listened to and watched that day excited me I guess and I started this thread. Well.. Wrong War!! haha. Drinking throughout the day didn't help matters either. I use to always relate Germany to Hitler since I was ignorant of history. Now I don't. But anyway.. .. this is the first forum I've ever been involved in. I like the surroundings for the most part, have learnt alot about myself and other people. Have learnt more about history, politics, religion, laws and wars by having my interest sparked.. that caused me to go off and seek information on my own about whatever subject. I'm not proud of my ignorance on the subject in this thread, but it could've been alot worse. At least I wasn't being aggressive like I have been in other posts I've made in the past when I was drunk. In this one I just made the mistake of mentioning Hitler, so soon.]

Hitler should have given his men more winter clothing for the invasion of Russia, and more supplies for Erwin Rommel in N. Africa.

I agree

The germans tested everything, down to the helmets, which is known to be one of the major factors in the battle of The Somme.

Um... wrong war.

The Somme was in WWI.

Hitler was WWII.

Slight difference there.

Hitler should have given his men more winter clothing for the invasion of Russia, and more supplies for Erwin Rommel in N. Africa.

Yes Germans were smart in there tactics and machine. But really the sheer manufacturing might of the Allies overcame superior tech of the time. Also I dont believe the capture of Moscow would have ended the Soviet Union. Think they would have moved east and fought on. Same with Washington being captured. Americans would have still fought on.

First of all, I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but the Battle of the Somme of 1916 took place during the First World War, while Hitler was dictator of Germany during the Second World War (1939 to 1945) - so how Hitler supplied his men has nothing to do with the outcome of the Battle of the Somme. However, in any case...

You're partly correct. However, Hitler's constant attempts to create more wanderwaffe not only widened his assets but made it harder for him to supply parts to his mechanization. Which meant that although his technology was superior to that of his enemies his logistics were horrible, which ultimately produces his shattering defeat. The catch comes when you take in consideration Soviet weaponry in its full essense. The T-34 outclassed the German tanks up the 1941 Panzer IV and was only bettered by the Panzer IV Ausf. G and Panzer IV Ausf. H (1942 and 1943 respectively), which was later negated by the upgrade to the T-34, the T-34/85, and by the Panther. However, the Panther fell considerably short to later Russian mechanization, including the Su series self propelled howitzers and in 1943 the Panthers and Tigers had so many bugs that they were useless in the pivitol(sp?) battles of Kursk and Sicily and North Africa.

Moreover, down to platoon tactics the Germans were matched by American platoons and all the way to division size conglomerations of men.

So, although the Germans, sure, were great soldiers, I do doubt their overarching superiority.

Um... wrong war.

The Somme was in WWI.

Hitler was WWII.

Slight difference there.


The germans were the ones that fought the brits in The Somme

Do I disagree that the Germans were superior during WWII?

Yes. They lost.

Probably that's why so many Germans died in the war and Germany was totally destroyed.


It would have been better if he had cared less and had stayed home in Austria.

Hitler should have given his men more winter clothing for the invasion of Russia, and more supplies for Erwin Rommel in N. Africa.

He couldn't. The Italians had failed to take Malta, and so had the Germans. Because the Axis had allowed British possession of both Malta and the Gibraltar Italian supply convoys were being sunk almost daily, or perhaps daily. Had Malta been taken the supplies the Italians were shipping over to Libyan ports would have been far more than enough to push Rommel accross the North African desert - but it was British aircraft based of Malta which disallowed them from this.

Hitler should have given his men more winter clothing for the invasion of Russia, and more supplies for Erwin Rommel in N. Africa.

he also should have allowed his armies to use tactical retreat in russia, you can't fight a mobile war that isn't a complete one sided route without the ability to do that.

First of all, I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but the Battle of the Somme of 1916 took place during the First World War, while Hitler was dictator of Germany during the Second World War (1939 to 1945) - so how Hitler supplied his men has nothing to do with the outcome of the Battle of the Somme. However, in any case...

You're partly correct. However, Hitler's constant attempts to create more wanderwaffe not only widened his assets but made it harder for him to supply parts to his mechanization. Which meant that although his technology was superior to that of his enemies his logistics were horrible, which ultimately produces his shattering defeat. The catch comes when you take in consideration Soviet weaponry in its full essense. The T-34 outclassed the German tanks up the 1941 Panzer IV and was only bettered by the Panzer IV Ausf. G and Panzer IV Ausf. H (1942 and 1943 respectively), which was later negated by the upgrade to the T-34, the T-34/85, and by the Panther. However, the Panther fell considerably short to later Russian mechanization, including the Su series self propelled howitzers and in 1943 the Panthers and Tigers had so many bugs that they were useless in the pivitol(sp?) battles of Kursk and Sicily and North Africa.

Moreover, down to platoon tactics the Germans were matched by American platoons and all the way to division size conglomerations of men.

So, although the Germans, sure, were great soldiers, I do doubt their overarching superiority.

Yes I read where the Russian T=34 could mow over the Panzer

he also should have allowed his armies to use tactical retreat in russia, you can't fight a mobile war that isn't a complete one sided route without the ability to do that.

He ultimately did with Model's shield and sword tactics. It utterly failed the Germans.

Yes Germans were smart in there tactics and machine. But really the sheer manufacturing might of the Allies overcame superior tech of the time. Also I dont believe the capture of Moscow would have ended the Soviet Union. Think they would have moved east and fought on. Same with Washington being captured. Americans would have still fought on.
the germans built lovely machines but there was an analogy about tanks in ww2 that always stuck with me.

the germans built tanks like fine watches.
the soviets(and to a lesser extent the americans) built them like tractors.

in the end which do you think will prevail on the rough and rugged battlefeilds of the world.

Hitler, although a moral mole-hill, Was a brilliant man. He had some of the finest Military Stratigists at his command(Rommel), and His technology was superior. He made every effot to protect his "Superior Race", as he called it. But his constant inovation was his downfall, as he was constantly rebiulding production lines to produce better things. Bad logistics, is all.

The germans were the ones that fought the brits in The Somme

Uh... dude, I know that.

Read what The Macabees wrote; the Somme was in 1916, Hitler didn't even appear on the scene until 1933.

Regardless of Hitler's purposed evil on the world. He armed his men well. The germans tested everything, down to the helmets, which is known to be one of the major factors in the battle of The Somme. The germans were plain out superior in many ways.


Do you disagree that the germans were superior?
Germans are supperior!
The Somme is more linked to WWI-So is this a parody to find NAzis?

Contrary to popular belief Hitler issued the Winter uniforms-One problem Roads were bogged
Russians like blowing tracks up and hence there was no way to get supplies to the troops.

Von Arnim(Conservative) would have been better off in Africa from Day one and Rommel in the East(Liked to Roam)as Africa was meant to be a defensive front.

Uh... dude, I know that.

Read what The Macabees wrote; the Somme was in 1916, Hitler didn't even appear on the scene until 1933.

I will look it up.

Hitler should have given his men more winter clothing for the invasion of Russia, and more supplies for Erwin Rommel in N. Africa.
Winter coats in Russia wasn't Hitler's problem, that was Napoleon's problem. Hitler's problem was the spring thaw turning the ground into mud and getting all the vehicles stuck.

They ended up having to use horses to to try to get through the mud

Regardless of Hitler's purposed evil on the world. He armed his men well. The germans tested everything, down to the helmets, which is known to be one of the major factors in the battle of The Somme. The germans were plain out superior in many ways.


Do you disagree that the germans were superior?

the somme was first ww and the helmets stuck to the heads of the germans in russia, the brass boot nails froze to their feet and they were the right size so the germans couldnt put any extra socks or trousers on. thats why operation barbarossa was a faliure

He couldn't. The Italians had failed to take Malta, and so had the Germans. Because the Axis had allowed British possession of both Malta and the Gibraltar Italian supply convoys were being sunk almost daily, or perhaps daily. Had Malta been taken the supplies the Italians were shipping over to Libyan ports would have been far more than enough to push Rommel accross the North African desert - but it was British aircraft based of Malta which disallowed them from this.
There was no strong push on MAlta.
Malta was pivitol indeed
1/8 of Panzer Armee supplies reached Rommel just before Tel El Alamien.
Ultra negated German Supperiority.

He started off rather effective.

He got really idiotic afterwards.

Thankfully, the more violent forms of evil are usually, ultimately, idiots.

It's the quiet evils that you really have to worry about. :eek:

Yes Germans were smart in there tactics and machine. But really the sheer manufacturing might of the Allies overcame superior tech of the time. Also I dont believe the capture of Moscow would have ended the Soviet Union. Think they would have moved east and fought on. Same with Washington being captured. Americans would have still fought on.
Actually, it was just numbers. The Russian had so many men, that the Germans just couldn't shoot them fast enough. How many casualties did the Russians take? Something like 20 million.

Considering that Germany faced 4 super powers at the time, it did fairly well. But against such odds, nobody would win. Due to Hitler's defeat, Germany lost a load of territory (after losing a load of territory after WW1), so this seems to me to be the largest failure of this time, to me. Had Hitler won, Germany would be somewhat larger - no idea if that would be good. I don't know if we'd still have national socialism, in the form as it was, since Hitler would be long dead. I wonder what the benefits would have been, had the Nazis prevailed. Sure, they would have murdered even more people, but as the victors, they surely could have found some justification (and drag some losers from the allies in front of some court)...

Winter coats in Russia wasn't Hitler's problem, that was Napoleon's problem. Hitler's problem was the spring thaw turning the ground into mud and getting all the vehicles stuck.
Yes
2 things
The Greece campaign was partly to blame for the late start of Barbarossa
The main prob was the River bug was flooded.

Russian Campaign
great start
Rain boggs Panzers etc down
Thaw sets in germans can move on frozen ground
Freeze hits.

That was all 41

2
Clothes
after the first winter things stagnated as the russians(All warm) could come out of there dens and shoot jerry(Cold as The Grinch)

Winter coats in Russia wasn't Hitler's problem, that was Napoleon's problem. Hitler's problem was the spring thaw turning the ground into mud and getting all the vehicles stuck.
The cold was one of the problems which stopped the German invasion. winter of 1941 was unusually cold, and the German soldiers were underdressed while their machinery malfunctioned in the low temperatures.

Ein Deutscher']Considering that Germany faced 4 super powers at the time, it did fairly well. But against such odds, nobody would win. Due to Hitler's defeat, Germany lost a load of territory (after losing a load of territory after WW1), so this seems to me to be the largest failure of this time, to me. Had Hitler won, Germany would be somewhat larger - no idea if that would be good. I don't know if we'd still have national socialism, in the form as it was, since Hitler would be long dead. I wonder what the benefits would have been, had the Nazis prevailed. Sure, they would have murdered even more people, but as the victors, they surely could have found some justification (and drag some losers from the allies in front of some court)...
I believe Germany ended WW2 with more territory then it had in WW1. Germany got the Rhineland back as well as part of Poland.

The cold was one of the problems which stopped the German invasion. winter of 1941 was unusually cold, and the German soldiers were underdressed while their machinery malfunctioned in the low temperatures.
See the post above yours.

Isn't germany still ahead in many ways? I know Russia makes things with the KISS fator, which I agree with. USA is always "we can make it better , faster". But isn't germany usually like we made it to work the way it is intended period and it does.?

Actually, it was just numbers. The Russian had so many men, that the Germans just couldn't shoot them fast enough. How many casualties did the Russians take? Something like 20 million.
Yeah maybe from Stalin himself.LOL

Under Hitler there was no strategic thinking.
Guderian was Aye. ;)

Early on there was apocket which most Generals wanted to sweep up Guderian said nope Panzer go East and he did leaving infantry to clean up pockets.

When Guderian said Consolidate everyone said nope


Kursk
THe German knew the russians were there in force they knew of the deep lines of the tank traps Hitlers folly sealed the East there.

Himmler and Panzer army(polish River-Ah Vistula)the river was already in Russian hands when the group was created.??? :confused:

Contrary to belief Battle of The Bulge was a loss for America.

Do I disagree that the Germans were superior during WWII?

Yes. They lost.

Krioval's got a point. They lost. So, at least on some level, they were not superior during WWII.

I believe Germany ended WW2 with more territory then it had in WW1. Germany got the Rhineland back as well as part of Poland.
Yeah but didnt they lose all of Eastern Prussia including Danzig/Gdansk(again)
Still didnt have Sudetenland.

One things for sure see a Rumanian punch them for betraying the South Eastern Army(4th?)trapping 16 divisions on one side of the river.

They got there comeuppance though Russia still kicked there arse.LOL

Krioval's got a point. They lost. So, at least on some level, they were not superior during WWII.
Even the best get overwhelmed sometimes. :(

Hitler didnt really care about the people though during the bombings he said let them suffer cowards blah blah blah.

I believe Germany ended WW2 with more territory then it had in WW1. Germany got the Rhineland back as well as part of Poland.
Germany after WWII was roughly half the size of Germany in WWI.

See the post above yours.
What about it?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWsomme.htm

The Germans treated thier men better, gave them better fighting/defensive surroundings. They gave thier men dry comfortable surroundings. I know that propaganda was a major mix into this. The soldiers feeling that what they were doing what was right, had Alot to do with it.

Te germans took great care in learning/testing all the technologies that came thier way.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWsomme.htm

The Germans treated thier men better, gave them better fighting/defensive surroundings. They gave thier men dry comfortable surroundings. I know that propaganda was a major mix into this. The soldiers feeling that what they were doing what was right, had Alot to do with it.

Te germans took great care in learning/testing all the technologies that came thier way.
Hitler has nothing to do with Somme. You are confusing WWI with WWII.

Yep, i was informed earlier. So now I'm just stated Germans period.



Edit: I need to read up on propaganda prior Hitler. Although I don't blame Hitler for all Germanic propaganda.

During WWI neither side really treated soldiers well, both the Germans and Allies condemned hundreds of thousands of soldiers to certain death by having their men charge no man's land knowing that not many would get out alive and only a few hundred yards would be gained at horrific cost. The Allies were probably more notable for technological advancements during WWII because of the invention of the tank by Britain. Though in WWII Germany definitely had more innovative technology.

Yep, i was informed earlier. So now I'm just stated Germans period.



Edit: I need to read up on propaganda prior Hitler. Although I don't blame Hitler for all Germanic propaganda.
Well that would be Goebels. ;)

The Allies were probably more notable for technological advancements during WWII because of the invention of the tank by Britain. Though in WWII Germany definitely had more innovative technology.
Tank was WWI and Australian(Hate to say it)

Well that would be Goebels. ;)


Tank was WWI and Australian(Hate to say it)
typo, I meant WWI.

Hitler cared more about his men? You're implying that in a similar situation, there are other nations which do not care quite so highly for their armed forces. Presumably the Allies, since they're the best group to contrast Germany's WWII-era military with?

Hitler launched his entire nation on a mad crusade to dominate, ultimately, the entire world. He sacrificed anyone and everyone that he could in order to achieve his goal. He didn't really care about anyone. He had his vision; that was all that was important. The soldiers were simply meant to be fed to the war machine of Germany.

Anyone who starts a needless war can't be that concerned about his military.

I saw something on the history channle about Roy Allen. I /bow to him. I've watched many a shows that described the way natzi holds were handled. No I do not agree with them. It was In Humane in many cases. And againt the Geneva Convention. A friend of mine that was screweing my bf at the time once said "All's fair in Love and War" . I didn't know any better then, but now I do. All is not fair.

No matter what happened , I still believe that Germans were ahead of the rest of us in alot of ways. Intellect doesn't gain my respect, only Wisdom... it's few and far bewtween. But the Germans hold my respect in a few ways.

Ein Deutscher']Considering that Germany faced 4 super powers at the time, it did fairly well. But against such odds, nobody would win. Due to Hitler's defeat, Germany lost a load of territory (after losing a load of territory after WW1), so this seems to me to be the largest failure of this time, to me. Had Hitler won, Germany would be somewhat larger - no idea if that would be good. I don't know if we'd still have national socialism, in the form as it was, since Hitler would be long dead. I wonder what the benefits would have been, had the Nazis prevailed. Sure, they would have murdered even more people, but as the victors, they surely could have found some justification (and drag some losers from the allies in front of some court)...
The problem is he chose to face two of those superpowers when he didn't need too. Had he held off on attacking the Russkies and unallied himself from the Japanese he probably wouldn't have been facing the russians or americans.

Actually, it was just numbers. The Russian had so many men, that the Germans just couldn't shoot them fast enough. How many casualties did the Russians take? Something like 20 million.

That reminds me of something

That being Exactly how the soviet Union fought it's battles. It used an attritional battle plan designed to split the German defenses through overwhelming firepower. The First attackers were usally poorly armed conscripts, the following divisions Mechanised Infantry with close-in Fire support from armour. Plus Artillery. Lots of Artillery. Kursk being a good example.

It wasn't meant to reduce casulaties, it was meant to accept breakthroughs were bloody, and negated the advantage of more experienced tank crews and soldiers enjoyed by Germany at that time. Slowly however, the Soviet Unioun improved in those aspects.

Of course, this is all from really sketchy memory. Don't take it for gospel.

About the numbers of casulties, Russia lost about 22 million soldiers. The next highest was Gramany... they lost 8 million. And Hitler wasn't concerned with his men. He fought a war that was basicly alone against everyone. Who did he have backing him? Japan? They were too far away and got knocked out by 2 bombs. Italians? Yeah right :rolleyes: They did what militarily? Oh yeah, they attacked Ethiopia... the place fighting with bows and arrows, and an Air Force of... let me see... oh yeah, ONE PLANE! Wow, Hitler realy loved his men to send them against the world with basicly only himself on his side basicly.(Sarcasm, for those who can't figure that out...)

Regardless of Hitler's purposed evil on the world. He armed his men well. The germans tested everything, down to the helmets, which is known to be one of the major factors in the battle of The Somme. The germans were plain out superior in many ways.


Do you disagree that the germans were superior?
i'm a german. i think the german soldiers were superiors. but not the government. hitler let the troops fight although the battle was lost. he sent men to russia although winter was coming without special clothes. but the soldiers themselves were superiors!!

Tank was WWI and Australian(Hate to say it)

Tell me more.

Yep, i was informed earlier. So now I'm just stated Germans period.



Edit: I need to read up on propaganda prior Hitler. Although I don't blame Hitler for all Germanic propaganda.
Of course not, WW2 would not have happened without WW1. The Germans were not only defeated, but had their noses rubbed in it. That gave them a lot of reason to be very pissed off and resentful, not to mention the eocnomic depression they sank into. Hitler came along with a message of pride and empowerment when they German people needed to feel that, but he took it WAY overboard. Point being, Hitler would not have risen to power if the Treaty of Versailles didn't treat the German people so harshly.

Actually, it was just numbers. The Russian had so many men, that the Germans just couldn't shoot them fast enough. How many casualties did the Russians take? Something like 20 million.IIRC, they took a million casualties in the battle of Stalingrad, over half of which were from their own troops.

Also, I think I remember about Hitler having won the Iron Cross

Hitler cared more about his men? You're implying that in a similar situation, there are other nations which do not care quite so highly for their armed forces. Presumably the Allies, since they're the best group to contrast Germany's WWII-era military with?

Hitler launched his entire nation on a mad crusade to dominate, ultimately, the entire world. He sacrificed anyone and everyone that he could in order to achieve his goal. He didn't really care about anyone. He had his vision; that was all that was important. The soldiers were simply meant to be fed to the war machine of Germany.

Anyone who starts a needless war can't be that concerned about his military.
Read Mein Kampf. Hitler did not aspire to world domination, he aspired to reunifying the Germanic people. At a point in history when the German people felt very beaten up, abused and generally not good, Hitler came along with a message of pride and reunification for his people. Nationalism is VERY appealing to a battered people.

I saw something on the history channle about Roy Allen. I /bow to him. I've watched many a shows that described the way natzi holds were handled. No I do not agree with them. It was In Humane in many cases. And againt the Geneva Convention.
There were no Geneva Conventions at the time, those took place as a result of WW2.

Do you disagree that the germans were superior?

Yup. That makes me and Erwin "Give me two Australian divisions and I'll conquer the world for you" Rommel then.

There were no Geneva Conventions at the time, those took place as a result of WW2.

1864 was after World War II? Really?

1864 was after World War II? Really?
Hitler was a vegatarian tramp-turned genocidal dictator

Geneva Convention started in 1864 (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JNVP)

Hitler was a vegatarian tramp-turned genocidal dictator

Next time quote something vaguely relevant before trolling.

Yes I read where the Russian T=34 could mow over the Panzer

The panzer? There was only one model? Yes the T-34 was superior to the Mark IIs and IIIs, it was on par with some models of the IV but not those equiped with extra armor plating and up gunned models. When it came to Vs and VIs it was no match at all.
But my that time later production Soviet tanks were being deployed so parity was pretty much achieved again. T-43s and IS-2Ms were able to deal with heavy German tanks.

Of course not, WW2 would not have happened without WW1. The Germans were not only defeated, but had their noses rubbed in it. That gave them a lot of reason to be very pissed off and resentful, not to mention the eocnomic depression they sank into. Hitler came along with a message of pride and empowerment when they German people needed to feel that, but he took it WAY overboard. Point being, Hitler would not have risen to power if the Treaty of Versailles didn't treat the German people so harshly.

Exactly. I'm getting fed up with all this "Hitler was just a great orator who brainwashed everybody and nobody but him was at fault" crap fed to Australian Students, and probably everyone else. Or at least hat was I saw it, things have hopefully changed.

Three sides are to blame for Hitler, The sides who stripped Germany of everything, Hitler and the German people, and the people such as chamberlain that never tried to stop him.

Now, onto this buisness of Hitler caring for his men. I don't think he did out of the goodness of his heart, personally I get the impression he saw them as a means to an end, and keepnig casualties low, morale and equipment levels high, and so on was merely ensuring he achieved his aims.

However, Many Countries eventually matched him. The RAF was the German Air-force Equal, The Soviet Union eventually matched Germany in expierienced tank crews, and so on.

Note. The T-34/85 was the superior of the IV's, even when upgraded, as far as I remember. Or maybe that was the KV, not sure. The 85 mm gun was even a threat to V's and VI's (Panthers and Tigers, right?) at some distances.

I think this discussion is getting out of hand: people are discussing El Alamein, the battle of Moscow, winter tactics, etc... There are many reasons why the Axis lost the war but also a lot of reasons why the Axis didn't win the war.

Back to the main question: were German arms superior to the Allied armies?

Yes

-On armament (except air force and naval units) right up to 1942 when the Allied powers developed better and quality tanks like T34 and the good-old Sherman M4A1. The panther was the last decent tank model the Axis could make (and even that one had some birth problems). The Tiger II was probably the superior heavy tank of Europe yet it was slow, easily outmanoevered and had many technical problems because of insufficient testing the models because of lack of time.

-German infantry had always been better then the Allied forces. The entire society of the Nazis was built to make better soldiers. The youth programmes included sports for better physique, small arms training and discipline. These are the key assets in making a strong infantry soldiers. One might say Germany was buidling children-soldiers and judging at the ages of Berlin defenders they were!

Against the Russian hordes the German armies were indeed superior yet really outnumbered. The only reason why the Russians weren't in Berlin by 1943 or even 1944 is the sheer disciplined retreat and combat tactics for stalling them.
I read something in Ambroses D-Day, I think, not sure... "When Allied forces met German forces in equal strength in tanks and infantry, the Germans would always come out on top."

Here begineth the T-34 tank rant...

The panzer? There was only one model? Yes the T-34 was superior to the Mark IIs and IIIs, it was on par with some models of the IV but not those equiped with extra armor plating and up gunned models. When it came to Vs and VIs it was no match at all.

I would quess that he means the Panther (AKA Panzer mark V). As far as it not being a match, I beg to differ: certainly the way the Soviets fielded them, such as at Kursk (more specifically at Prokhorovka), proved their superiority. They certainly weren't as heavily armoured as the Panthrs, nor did they have those lovely Weiss optics systems, but their bodies were better designed leading to better slopes and thus greater effective thickness and they didn't have the weak spots of the Mark V (such as the turret sides), and to top it all they had far greater maneuverability than the German tanks. Their advantages in speed was demonstrated again when facing the Tigers at Kursk too - they were able to get in close and circle the enemy tanks faster than the German vehicles could rotate their turrets.

At a distance the German's certainly had the advantage with their 88 and 75 main guns, but when it came up close and nasty, which is the way the Soviets attempted to employ the T-34s, then the prize goes to the USSR. The later model T-34s (the 85 mil versions) evened up the disparity at a distance, somewhat too.

Never mind the fact that the Panzer V and VI were famously prone to overheating and had notoriously bad gear boxes - compare this to the T-34s which were as hardy as tractors and could pretty much be rebuilt by uneducated peasents in simple workshops.*

* I exagerate somewhat here, but not much.


But my that time later production Soviet tanks were being deployed so parity was pretty much achieved again. T-43s and IS-2Ms were able to deal with heavy German tanks.

The T-34s used correctly (ie. up close) and according to Soviet doctrine (ie. in a swarm) showed that they were more than a match for both Mark V and Mark VI Panzers as early as '43 at Kursk as I already said. In face of objection to the fact that they required some superiority of numbers to turn tank-on-tank battles to their advantage I would say that this is irrelevant, as that was a key part of the design philosophy behind them: build them cheap and hard and in great numbers, and like the later war Sherman models** it is just an accepted fact that you might lose several of your tanks to one of theirs, but you still get the job done.


** what was the ratio of late war Sherman loses expected to take down a Tiger? Something like six to one - but if you can produce and supply enough, you still come out ahead.

-On armament (except air force and naval units) right up to 1942 when the Allied powers developed better and quality tanks like T34 and the good-old Sherman M4A1.

It wasn't until they started putting 76mil guns in the Shermans later than this model that they had even a chance against Panthers or Tigers*, and even then it took several Ronsons to get the job done... after all the 'only tank worth having' when facing the Germans Pzkfw's at Normandy was the Firefly.




* let us not forget that up until the introduction of calibres larger than 75 mil on Shermans the acknowledged most likely way to take out Panzer V's from the front and VI's from any face was to ricochet a shell off the base of the gun mantlet and down towards the turret ring... suffice to say these kind of hits were the result of luck rather than skill.

Note. The T-34/85 was the superior of the IV's, even when upgraded, as far as I remember.

Definitely, though the IVf's could certainly pick them off at a distance.


Or maybe that was the KV, not sure. The 85 mm gun was even a threat to V's and VI's (Panthers and Tigers, right?) at some distances.

For example the sole KV-II which held off the entire 6th Panzer Division for almost two days at Rossenie.

For example the sole KV-II which held off the entire 6th Panzer Division for almost two days at Rossenie.


Didn't it kill something along the lines of 7 halftracks, 12 tanks and a few self propelled guns? I have the exact figures somewhere. Was that a Kv-II, btw? I thought those never entered major production.

Back to the main question: were German arms superior to the Allied armies?

Yes

-On armament (except air force and naval units) right up to 1942 when the Allied powers developed better and quality tanks like T34 and the good-old Sherman M4A1. The panther was the last decent tank model the Axis could make (and even that one had some birth problems). The Tiger II was probably the superior heavy tank of Europe yet it was slow, easily outmanoevered and had many technical problems because of insufficient testing the models because of lack of time.

It should be remembered that although the Germans did produce some incredibly good tanks they were perpetually faced by the problem of models coming out of the prototype stage too often, leading to far too many failures in the field and general unreliability. Add this to the fact that they are trying to field a ludicrous amount of different specialised versions and slightly different models (all pushed into production as some bigwig's pet project) while already facing an extreme lack of motorised transport to cart spare parts to the field amidst other their more obvious logistical nightmares and the German equipment as a whole starts to look like an exercise in gross inefficiency.

Didn't it kill something along the lines of 7 halftracks, 12 tanks and a few self propelled guns? I have the exact figures somewhere. Was that a Kv-II, btw? I thought those never entered major production.

I believe it was a KV-II... checks Google... yup, seems to have been one. Not a bad kill list, even if it does look laughably small compared to Wittman at Villers-Bocage.


oops. tank nerd hijack.

Now, onto this buisness of Hitler caring for his men. I don't think he did out of the goodness of his heart, personally I get the impression he saw them as a means to an end, and keepnig casualties low, morale and equipment levels high, and so on was merely ensuring he achieved his aims.
I don't think Hitler saw his men as tools. He was in the service himself, was a highly decorated corporal who refused promotion so that he could continue doing the most dangerous jobs. I think he genuinely cared for the German people and particularly the soldiers.

I think he genuinely cared for the German people and particularly the soldiers.

On this subject is anyone able to fish out Hitler's no retreat order when faced with the Soviet counter-attack from the grim recesses of the internet... it rather puts the lie to him caring about his men.

If anyone can be said to have particularly cared for their men, then it is probably the US army in Europe (post early Operation Torch anyhow) - who realised first that the most efficient way of gaining ground and neutralising the enemy while minimalising their own losses was by victory in the field of logistics: why send in a company of infantry to face the dug in enemy when you can first drop 155s on them, then send in airstrikes, then bring up SPAs to pound them, then send in a team of Shermans to shake them up a bit more, and then send in the grunts to clean up whatever is left?

I think that if Hitler was going to win and win well then he should have waited until all of the weapons research was done and all the upgrades were completed (the Z plan for one) Then he should have standardised the most advanced weapons he had, manufactured them in large quantities, use the extra time to give his men additional training, then invade Europe in about 1946.

I think that if Hitler was going to win and win well then he should have waited until all of the weapons research was done and all the upgrades were completed (the Z plan for one) Then he should have standardised the most advanced weapons he had, manufactured them in large quantities, use the extra time to give his men additional training, then invade Europe in about 1946.

This ignores the fact that at the start of the war the Germans did in fact have technological superiority in most areas*. I certainly agree that standardising the various different types of over-specialised vehicles and equipment would have been a good ides however, however if he had delayed until '46 then his intentions would have probably been even more clear for the world to see, leading to a paralleled technological development and investment in their eventual opponents. Having said this though the France, the lowland countries and probably the UK would still have lagged behind somewhat. It also raises the question of why wait only till '46 - another a couple of years would give even more advanced (although untested by battle) designs, as would waiting a few more years after that...


* excepting such tanks as the French Char-B1bis and the the Czech 35-t.

well, there were some ugly battles with the US Army as well

They lost more men in the "Hürtgenwald" than in the whole Vietnam War



But back to the point:

I have some relatives that were sent by Hitler to Russia..and he didnt really care about them

After some time, Hitler often let his forces get surrounded by the red army, so they would bind more enemy forces. Hitler didnt want those people to survive or even have a chance to get out (your only way of getting out was: #a gettting wounded and flown out (btw, if you wounded yourself and they noticed, you were shot) #b getting captured, which meant 10 years of fun in sibiria, #c in a wooden box)





many people confuse action and reaction. It was the Axis that started the war, and I am thankfull that the allies won, and stayed for quite some time to keep the russians out (especially in Berlin)

It was the Axis that started the war, and I am thankfull that the allies won, and stayed for quite some time to keep the russians out (especially in Berlin)

You are thankful that the Allies (including the Soviets, obviously) won and that the Allies (including the Soviets, obviously) stayed in Berlin to keep the Soviets out?

Rommel wanted to retreat at N Africa, after being pushed back.
Hitler ruled it out, saying that each soldier should fight to the last bullet.
So the soldiers got slaughtered.
Rommel got out, but never forgave Hitler for condemning German soldiers to an uneccesary waste of life.

Hitler himself did not supply the German soldiers with weapons, the arms industry did that, encouraged by Hitler's speeches.

Did Hitler care for his soldiers? Militarily equipment wise, yes, in deployment? No. Morally? No.

The weapon Hitler provided above all was the belief Germans were the master race. It made German soldiers fight hard, and good, believing they were superior to anyone they faced on the battlefield.

That is the manipulation of the mind for you, and when it works, it works to a devastating effect.

I don't think Hitler saw his men as tools. He was in the service himself, was a highly decorated corporal who refused promotion so that he could continue doing the most dangerous jobs. I think he genuinely cared for the German people and particularly the soldiers.

seems to be an element of mythbuilding going on here, hitler did not refuse promotion he was not offered it, his superiors did not consider that his bearing and leadership qualities would command respect as a sergeant. He got his medal from a jewish officer just to add insult to injury lol--but yes he was not lacking courage on the front to be fair.

On subject of equipment it is true to say that Germany understood usage of tanks far better than the other nations at the outset of world war 2, though in terms of quality many of the French tanks were superior. this did shift in time as better tactics and tanks were introduced.

But as to caring for his men... does a man who cares for his men give orders to hold to the last man in situations where the battle is lost?? eg stalingrad, does he not accept retreat as a method of preserving forces and choosing better ground??

If he cared for his men would he not listen to them?? ME262 utilised as a ground attack bomber when designed as a fighter, V1 and V2's flying off to hit london while allied forces are landing in Normandy.

Ernst Roehm, leader of the SA who's dying words were heil hitler or some such, shot down in the night of the long knives because he was considered a threat?/ a most loyal supporter from the earliest days how much did hitler care about him?

When did Hitler ever do anything to safeguard the lives of his men??? equipment testing is part of a system that was in place prior to hitlers rise, the basic desgn of the german helmet had not changed from WW1, though i still think the older spiky ones looked cooler lol, the scientists and military generals were not created in 1933 they were there already, hitler took what was there and used it, but one should be wary of assigning him some kind of mythical power for `creating' that which he used to destruction.

Hitler was a fanatic pure and simple who used everything and everyone around him without a thought for anything apart from what HE wanted. He sacked the generals who dared tell him no with the resultant increase in bad decisions and tactics and loss of the war. could he have won against such numbers--probably not--but could he have done better if he stfu and let his generals run the show--almost certainly.

I don't think Hitler saw his men as tools. He was in the service himself, was a highly decorated corporal who refused promotion so that he could continue doing the most dangerous jobs. I think he genuinely cared for the German people and particularly the soldiers.
I don't think he refused a promotion. They way I remember it is that his officers didn't trust him enough to give him a promotion.

Regardless of Hitler's purposed evil on the world. He armed his men well. The germans tested everything, down to the helmets, which is known to be one of the major factors in the battle of The Somme. The germans were plain out superior in many ways.


Do you disagree that the germans were superior?

Hell No, if you can fight the world for such along time as they did they were a superior force.
Just look at it from an historical and military standpoint and you will see.
The only reason they lost was because the world was to big and the other nations outnumberd the Germans in manpower, but the allies lost more people because of that.

Back to the main question: were German arms superior to the Allied armies?

Yes

-On armament (except air force and naval units) right up to 1942 when the Allied powers developed better and quality tanks like T34 and the good-old Sherman M4A1. The panther was the last decent tank model the Axis could make (and even that one had some birth problems). The Tiger II was probably the superior heavy tank of Europe yet it was slow, easily outmanoevered and had many technical problems because of insufficient testing the models because of lack of time.



I'm sorry but no. The Sherman M4A1 was great only in numbers and allied aircover. On it's own, against a Tiger or Panther, it's chances were not good unless it got to the rear of the German Tank.

The UK modified Sherman Firefly on the other hand, was a class act.

The most superior heavy tank of Europe was the Soviet IS-2 which had a 122mm gun, able to take out Tiger I and II's, Panthers, and anything the Germans had.
It was classed as a heavy Tank, the same class as a Tiger 1 and 2, both weighed little more than a Panther, a medium Tank.

It had agility, firepower, armour, and reliability. The Tigers did not have agility, and because of their over complication, also did not have reliability, their interlinked wheels seizing up in the mud or on frosty mornings, where the ice would freeze up the wheels.





-German infantry had always been better then the Allied forces. The entire society of the Nazis was built to make better soldiers. The youth programmes included sports for better physique, small arms training and discipline. These are the key assets in making a strong infantry soldiers. One might say Germany was buidling children-soldiers and judging at the ages of Berlin defenders they were!


True, to a point. However, German infantry were trained to work as a team, with a single minded state built in, so they were great in numbers, as their co-ordination was excellent.

However, the allied soliders were trained to use individual initiative in situations, this is especially true of The British Airbourne and American 82nd and 101st Airbourne, in which each were drilled to perform individual actions, and encouraged to use individual initiative in their acts.

The German war machine was a machine, and individualism was not encouraged, unit work was, to crush the opposing force in a Blitzkreig manner.






Against the Russian hordes the German armies were indeed superior yet really outnumbered. The only reason why the Russians weren't in Berlin by 1943 or even 1944 is the sheer disciplined retreat and combat tactics for stalling them.


By about '43 and '44, The Soviet Red Army was different from '41, they had been through what was called 'The Stalingrad school of Street fighting' and were experts at urban and rural warfare.

The retreat and combat tactics shown by the Germans was copied from the Soviets in '41, who used the combat and retreat, combat and retreat, as well as destroying anything the Germans could get their hands on, in a scorched earth policy, leaving the Germans without supplies.


I read something in Ambroses D-Day, I think, not sure... "When Allied forces met German forces in equal strength in tanks and infantry, the Germans would always come out on top."


Bastogne, Pegasus Bridge, SAS actions in North Africa disprove this.

I don't think Hitler saw his men as tools. He was in the service himself, was a highly decorated corporal who refused promotion so that he could continue doing the most dangerous jobs. I think he genuinely cared for the German people and particularly the soldiers.
This is news to me. Hitler, afaik, was among the lowest ranks and got wounded early during the first world war. He definitely was not "highly decorated".

The UK modified Sherman Firefly on the other hand, was a class act.

Yay! For someone else on here that agrees with me on the Firefly - never mind that, someone else who knows what it is is good enough.


Airbourne ... Airbourne

'Airborne'. Sorry.

I'm sorry but no. The Sherman M4A1 was great only in numbers and allied aircover. On it's own, against a Tiger or Panther, it's chances were not good unless it got to the rear of the German Tank.

Lets not forget here, however, that the allied doctrine until the up-gunned Sherman variants came on the scene was to use tank destroyers to take out tanks: mid-period Shermans were still basically just infantry support tanks with an ability to take out lightly armoured enemy vehicles.

Ein Deutscher']This is news to me. Hitler, afaik, was among the lowest ranks and got wounded early during the first world war. He definitely was not "highly decorated".
Iron Cross for bravery, methinks.

Yay! For someone else on here that agrees with me on the Firefly - never mind that, someone else who knows what it is is good enough.


Hooray for a fellow Firefly fan! It was the best Sherman of the war, The Americans came up with their own copy of it after refusing to take the Firefly, if I remember right.

A Firefly took out Michael Vittman, the Tiger ace, in his Tiger.

Also Hobart's funnies were great innovations too. The Americans refused to take them for D-Day, whereas the British and Canadians did. That may be a contributing factor for the lack of Shermans on Omaha. The majority of them sank.




'Airborne'. Sorry.

Whoops! My mistake. Sorry.

It is fair to assume that Italy can be blamed for the late start of the Russian campaign that porved Hitler's undoing. Hitler, informed of the winter problem, wanted to begin the invasion at the end of April. Given the speed at which the Germans advanced this would have meant that by the winter they easily held Moscow. But Mussolini, still convinced of Italy's superpower status invaded Serbia only to find himself bogged down and on the backburner. Hitler had to bail Mussolini out by capturing Belgrade and conquering Serbia in order to gain Italian troops for the Russian campaign which was now beginning in the June. This was crucial in that by the winter, Germans would be close to Moscow, the heart of Russia and where Stalin had placed his best men (Siberian paras) as Hitler's tanks stopped due to the cold.

Lets not forget here, however, that the allied doctrine until the up-gunned Sherman variants came on the scene was to use tank destroyers to take out tanks: mid-period Shermans were still basically just infantry support tanks with an ability to take out lightly armoured enemy vehicles.

Certainly, although air power played a significant role as well to combat the German tanks.

It is fair to assume that Italy can be blamed for the late start of the Russian campaign that porved Hitler's undoing. Hitler, informed of the winter problem, wanted to begin the invasion at the end of April. Given the speed at which the Germans advanced this would have meant that by the winter they easily held Moscow. But Mussolini, still convinced of Italy's superpower status invaded Serbia only to find himself bogged down and on the backburner. Hitler had to bail Mussolini out by capturing Belgrade and conquering Serbia in order to gain Italian troops for the Russian campaign which was now beginning in the June. This was crucial in that by the winter, Germans would be close to Moscow, the heart of Russia and where Stalin had placed his best men (Siberian paras) as Hitler's tanks stopped due to the cold.

The Balkans and Greece campaigns delayed the invasion of The Soviet Union by about 1-2 months. And of course, more German soldiers thus were stuck in The Balkans and Greece rather than joining in the invasion of The Soviet Union.

A Firefly took out Michael Vittman, the Tiger ace, in his Tiger.

Has this ever been decided for sure? - there still seem to be several different stories going round - the Canadians, Poles and British all claim responsibility for 'taking him out', and some of these stories do include ambush by Firefly, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that examination of his Tiger showed that it was actually probably an aerial attack that settled the issue.

I don't think he refused a promotion. They way I remember it is that his officers didn't trust him enough to give him a promotion.

I think he was a gentleman towards his fellow soldiers though. He forbidded the desecration of WWI war cemeteries in France for example as he'd served there.
At least he had some principles.

Has this ever been decided for sure? - there still seem to be several different stories going round - the Canadians, Poles and British all claim responsibility for 'taking him out', and some of these stories do include ambush by Firefly, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that examination of his Tiger showed that it was actually probably an aerial attack that settled the issue.


I'm going to look it up on the net, but I'm pretty sure that in a documentary I saw about it, amongst all the causes explored, the Firefly was the most likely, they even named the name of the Brigade the Firefly was from, and that the British Firefly crew had fired on Tigers that morning.

The other theiory was an RAF Typhoon, but this was ruled out due to trajectory of impact or something like that.

I'll get back to you. I'm not sure myself now.

The germans were the ones that fought the brits in The Somme
wow

You said Hitler...Hitler wasnt in charge of Germany unitl 1933...WW1 ended in 1918

Here we are, it says here a British firefly of the Northamptonshire Yeomanry killed Whittman and his crew. It describes it near the bottom of the article:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen3.htm

Here we are, it says here a British firefly of the Northamptonshire Yeomanry killed Whittman and his crew. It describes it near the bottom of the article:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen3.htm

I'm still not entirely convinced - it states that it was proved, but doesn't say quite how. Not that I have a case to prove here or anything.

Tank was WWI and Australian(Hate to say it)

The idea of a tracked vehicle for use on the battlefield was proposed by an Australian to the British War Office in 1912, but no action was taken. The British later developed the tank during 1915-16, without the involvement of Australia.

So, yes, some australian guy had the idea of tanks before the British developed them. But, if we're talking ideas, H.G.Wells had proposed the idea of tank warfare in a 1903 story, which supposedly served as inspiration for the Landships Committee (headed by Winston Churchill) that formed the first tank corps. Wells was apparently even upset that the Committee stole his ideas without asking.

Yeah, supurior, thats why we kicked their ass.

German weapon technology was superior; however, Hitler gave many naive military orders that helped the Allies defeat the Germans. The best asset America had in World War II was our economy and our large output capacity. In short, America out-produced Hitler.

I'm still not entirely convinced - it states that it was proved, but doesn't say quite how. Not that I have a case to prove here or anything.

Well, here they have the Firefly theory on another website, as well as the Typhoon theory:

http://glidereng.bravepages.com/sherman.htm

Not the best concrete evidence, but it's the best I could find on the web.

Yup. That makes me and Erwin "Give me two Australian divisions and I'll conquer the world for you" Rommel then.
Id Heard "If i had the New Zealand Division i could have taken over the world."

If your right im somewhat dissapointed. :(

But in anycase there is no question the two finest Divisions on the Allied side where the 2nd/9th and the 2nd New Zealand Division

The idea of a tracked vehicle for use on the battlefield was proposed by an Australian to the British War Office in 1912, but no action was taken. The British later developed the tank during 1915-16, without the involvement of Australia.

So, yes, some australian guy had the idea of tanks before the British developed them. But, if we're talking ideas, H.G.Wells had proposed the idea of tank warfare in a 1903 story, which supposedly served as inspiration for the Landships Committee (headed by Winston Churchill) that formed the first tank corps. Wells was apparently even upset that the Committee stole his ideas without asking.
Yes but Australia was OWND by Britain.
How about we just say Da Vinci invented the Tank! ;)
Pedantic.

I am certainly against the evil things Hitler did. However, I must agree that in a battle sernse, Hitler was a genious. Like many of the other great military leaders in history, such as Alexander the Great and Musselini, he came close to acheiving his ultimate goal, only to be halted near completion.

About the numbers of casulties, Russia lost about 22 million soldiers. The next highest was Gramany... they lost 8 million. And Hitler wasn't concerned with his men. He fought a war that was basicly alone against everyone. Who did he have backing him? Japan? They were too far away and got knocked out by 2 bombs. Italians? Yeah right :rolleyes: They did what militarily? Oh yeah, they attacked Ethiopia... the place fighting with bows and arrows, and an Air Force of... let me see... oh yeah, ONE PLANE! Wow, Hitler realy loved his men to send them against the world with basicly only himself on his side basicly.(Sarcasm, for those who can't figure that out...)
Japan didnt declare war on Russia hence Japan never backed Germany.
Ethiopia was before WWII

I am certainly against the evil things Hitler did. However, I must agree that in a battle sernse, Hitler was a genious. Like many of the other great military leaders in history, such as Alexander the Great and Musselini, he came close to acheiving his ultimate goal, only to be halted near completion.
Unless that was Sarcasm that was a wasted first post.
Hitler was a fool on Strategic matters only the refusel of men like Rommel and Guderian got the Reich to where it was and then when they could not disobey orders anymore did there lines crumble.

Of course not, WW2 would not have happened without WW1. The Germans were not only defeated, but had their noses rubbed in it. That gave them a lot of reason to be very pissed off and resentful, not to mention the eocnomic depression they sank into. Hitler came along with a message of pride and empowerment when they German people needed to feel that, but he took it WAY overboard. Point being, Hitler would not have risen to power if the Treaty of Versailles didn't treat the German people so harshly.
The taking of all German-Austo-Hungarian entities before 1870 was more than entitled to The Reich.
Stuff the Treaty of Versailles
Stuff Woodrow Wilson

Note people
The Sherman* and T-34 were equal to Panzer iv in the sense they could both knock each other out at some range.
The T-34 was undoubtable the best of these 3 with its unique armour design.

*BWO yeah "Ronsons" and the Firefly was the British advancement of the Sherman. ;)

The taking of all German-Austo-Hungarian entities before 1870 was more than entitled to The Reich.

Could you clarify what you mean by this statement please?

Id Heard "If i had the New Zealand Division i could have taken over the world."

Would you settle for "two ANZAC divisions"?

Um... wrong war.

The Somme was in WWI.

Hitler was WWII.

Slight difference there.

0wn3d. :p

On a serious note, technically Hitler wasn't mean to his troops, no. Maybe because he knew they had the power to overthrow him.
He was on the other a complete asshole to everyone who disagreed with him or was jewish/gay/disabled.

Hitler, although a moral mole-hill, Was a brilliant man. He had some of the finest Military Stratigists at his command(Rommel), and His technology was superior. He made every effot to protect his "Superior Race", as he called it. But his constant inovation was his downfall, as he was constantly rebiulding production lines to produce better things. Bad logistics, is all.

Yes, he was such a genious that his best military stratigists, tried to assassinate him because they thought he was insane.

I think Hitler's genious lied in Facism and it's structure that kept him in power. Also the fact that the German army aka Nazi's studied many cultures and technologies around the world to make thier equipment. The fact that Germany had the greatest military stratigists was luck on his part. Hitler was a great speaker and some people say his brilliance came from his ability to listen to his underlings. The fact that Germany lost the war in Russia was because Hitler did not listen to his generals who said it was a bad idea. They knew of the winter and feared retaliation from the Brits or possibly America. This is why I attribute the German armies genious to the actual army not Hitler.

As for if the German Army was superior?

I think they were better prepaired intially as thier government did revolved around it's military unlike every other nation at the time.

Here begineth the T-34 tank rant...



I would quess that he means the Panther (AKA Panzer mark V). As far as it not being a match, I beg to differ: certainly the way the Soviets fielded them, such as at Kursk (more specifically at Prokhorovka), proved their superiority. They certainly weren't as heavily armoured as the Panthrs, nor did they have those lovely Weiss optics systems, but their bodies were better designed leading to better slopes and thus greater effective thickness and they didn't have the weak spots of the Mark V (such as the turret sides), and to top it all they had far greater maneuverability than the German tanks. Their advantages in speed was demonstrated again when facing the Tigers at Kursk too - they were able to get in close and circle the enemy tanks faster than the German vehicles could rotate their turrets.

At a distance the German's certainly had the advantage with their 88 and 75 main guns, but when it came up close and nasty, which is the way the Soviets attempted to employ the T-34s, then the prize goes to the USSR. The later model T-34s (the 85 mil versions) evened up the disparity at a distance, somewhat too.

Never mind the fact that the Panzer V and VI were famously prone to overheating and had notoriously bad gear boxes - compare this to the T-34s which were as hardy as tractors and could pretty much be rebuilt by uneducated peasents in simple workshops.*

* I exagerate somewhat here, but not much.




The T-34s used correctly (ie. up close) and according to Soviet doctrine (ie. in a swarm) showed that they were more than a match for both Mark V and Mark VI Panzers as early as '43 at Kursk as I already said. In face of objection to the fact that they required some superiority of numbers to turn tank-on-tank battles to their advantage I would say that this is irrelevant, as that was a key part of the design philosophy behind them: build them cheap and hard and in great numbers, and like the later war Sherman models** it is just an accepted fact that you might lose several of your tanks to one of theirs, but you still get the job done.


** what was the ratio of late war Sherman loses expected to take down a Tiger? Something like six to one - but if you can produce and supply enough, you still come out ahead.

It has been awhile since I studied this but I think only the D model Panther was prone to engine fires. Also I think I remember the kill ratio of Tiger to Sherman was 18-1 but that may have been earlier versions of the Sherman or I may be remebering it wrong. Been a long time.

I don't want to start on a T-34 rant. Well, I do actually, so I will. One bit at a time, I shall compare the T-34s with their German contemporaries. Bear with me. :D

The original T-34/76 was more than a match for the main German anti-tank tank of its day (bearing in mind that at this jucture the Pzkpfw. IV was a support tank), the Pzkpfw. III. The T-34/76 proved impervious to the Pz. III's 37mm gun, and to the 50mm gun introduced in mid-1941 as a crash-programme to upgun the Pz. III, whose turret could fortunately accept a larger gun. Even so, and when (AFAIK) upgunned to a 75mm, the Pz. III's poor protection rendered it of little use against the T-34/76. When the Pz. IV introduced the long-barrelled Kwk 75 gun in the Ausf F (again, IIRC) and subsequent versions of the Pz. IV, it temporarily redressed the balance somewhat (though the T-34/76 also received an upgrade, from the Mod. 1941 to the Mod. 1943 with the 76mm L/41.5 gun), but was totally outclassed by the T-34/85. The T-34 was consistently better protected, both in terms of thickness and sloping of armour, and far more mobile than the Pz. III or IV thanks to a superior, higher-powered diesel engine and much wider tracks.

Now, the Panther (Pzkpfw. V) was a superb tank, and there's no denying it. It outclassed the T-34/76 and was the equal of the T-34/85 in several areas. At long ranges, the T-34's cruder, stadiametric rangefinders were far less precise than the sophisticated coincidence rangefinders which were as I recollect fitted to the Panther. The Panther's protection, in terms of armour thickness and distribution, was in most respects equal to that of the T-34 (itself not particularly heavily armoured on its flanks or rear, as with most tanks), and it was, after the inital versions had ironed out their powertrain problems, a fairly reliable tank. However, it suffered against the T-34/85 in agility (in as much as it had little) and in terms of reliability; the Panther was a superb fighting machine, but that came at the price of complexity, high maintenance load and so forth. The Panther was a fine tank, but only as long as it had the appropriate logistics available on call - which became increasingly rare on the Eastern front.

The Tiger was another matter. The Tiger could smash almost any tank created in WWII, and the sole chance a T-34 had against a Tiger was to get round the Tiger's side or better still the rear. As has been noted, the best way to do this was to mob the Tigers - which was the method duly adopted by the Soviets. In a stright, one-on-one fight, the T-34 would have to have an exceptional crew to sneak up on and destroy the Tiger, IMO.

Hitler, although a moral mole-hill, Was a brilliant man. He had some of the finest Military Stratigists at his command(Rommel), and His technology was superior. He made every effot to protect his "Superior Race", as he called it. But his constant inovation was his downfall, as he was constantly rebiulding production lines to produce better things. Bad logistics, is all.

No, he wasn't. He was a total and complete thug, which in my opinion eliminated any brilliance he might have had.

Imagine what would the world be like today if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, left England alone and the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbour?

The US would have stayed out? The atomic bomb would have been developed by the Germans? Europe would be much different today, controlled by Germany, Italy and Russia. Germany probably would have controlled much of Africa? Japan and Russia would have divided China?

Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan would have control of the world's oil supply?

Just random thought......

Also I think I remember the kill ratio of Tiger to Sherman was 18-1 but that may have been earlier versions of the Sherman or I may be remebering it wrong. Been a long time.

I seem to remember that post D-Day the general figure was something like there being 6 or 8 Shermans required to take out one Tiger. This is 6 or 8 Shermans together in one place and working together - a couple to draw fire, a couple to try flanking from one direction, maybe a couple to try flanking from the other... - so a kill ratio of 18 to 1 wouldn't surprise me seeing as how it would include all those isolated allied tanks which wouldn't last long against an 88.

I'm always shocked and amazed, (I don't know which one more) at the immense amount of military knowledge that's floating aroun among seemingly normal civilians. As a canadian, it boggles my mind that people are intimately aquainted with weapons large and small. Strange.

Would you settle for "two ANZAC divisions"?
Absolutly i know how good the 2nd/9th and 2ndNZ were but if Rommel thought he could take over the world with 2 Aussie then fine if he had 2 NZ Divs he could have taken over the Universe!LOL

I know he said the Australians and New Zealanders were fine soldiers the best in the 8th Army.

But if he wants Aussies then Nuts. :mp5: :(

Imagine what would the world be like today if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, left England alone and the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbour?

The US would have stayed out? The atomic bomb would have been developed by the Germans? Europe would be much different today, controlled by Germany, Italy and Russia. Germany probably would have controlled much of Africa? Japan and Russia would have divided China?

Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan would have control of the world's oil supply?

Just random thought......
When Japan attacked USA Germany declared War on USA But did JApan attack Russia no so Russia could move like 10 Siberian Divisions to thump the German advance eastwards.

No, he wasn't. He was a total and complete thug, which in my opinion eliminated any brilliance he might have had.
Bormann.Koche,Himmler were Thugs
Hitler was a cultivated fool.
Apparently Hitler never signed the deaths of the Jews to the east?
But directive 4? stated any acts normally untoward on the battle field would not be punished. ;)

Superior?

The idiots obviously didn't pay attention to history in their attempted conquest of Russia.

I don't give a rat's ass what anyone says about them, they were bigots who slaughtered millions of innocent people.

I find it funny that there are so many idiots out here who want to praise Hitler for being a genius and recognize that he was able to manipulate and brainwash people to do his bidding. The guy is burnging in hell right now and that's the bottom line.

I believe Germany ended WW2 with more territory then it had in WW1. Germany got the Rhineland back as well as part of Poland.

Actually Poland got some part of Germany, while the Soviet Union took parts of Poland. Poland was shifted westward

When Japan attacked USA Germany declared War on USA But did JApan attack Russia no so Russia could move like 10 Siberian Divisions to thump the German advance eastwards.
Not if Germany hadn't attacked Russia which is what my premise was based on in part.

When Japan attacked USA Germany declared War on USA But did JApan attack Russia no so Russia could move like 10 Siberian Divisions to thump the German advance eastwards.

They had no way to attack Russia. They hit the US @ Pearl Harbor because they could use the strength of their navy and air force. They didn't have the same advantage with Russia. Their forward batallions were well trained but not equipped or ready to take on Russia withot their navy and air force backing them up. Japan trying to attack Russia would've been pointless and only would've drained their resources.

Either way, the Germans got their asses handed to them in Russia. History always repeats itself and Hitler was too busy with his head buried up his ass to realize that.

They had no way to attack Russia. They hit the US @ Pearl Harbor because they could use the strength of their navy and air force. They didn't have the same advantage with Russia. Their forward batallions were well trained but not equipped or ready to take on Russia withot their navy and air force backing them up. Japan trying to attack Russia would've been pointless and only would've drained their resources.

Either way, the Germans got their asses handed to them in Russia. History always repeats itself and Hitler was too busy with his head buried up his ass to realize that.
Not true Manchuria.
See how Russia likes to be squeezed. ;)
Wolud have allowed Germany to sweep thru the USSR with nothing to hold them back not even Winters.