The "myth" of superior German equipment?

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

I'd say it comes down to the impression that the Germans looked at the war on an operational/tactical level, while the Allies looked at the war on a strategic level.

And in a six year war fought with millions of soldiers on both sides, incorporating a massive part of the economy in the war effort, etc it is clear which of the two is the correct and superior view.

Sounds like Iraq and Afghanistan.

[NefariousKoel]

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Political Correctness be damned!! Behold the glory of being an unapologetic Axis Fan-Mann

The sub photo, amongst your spam, is of US fleet boats.

This one:


Axis fanboy fail.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

I'd say it comes down to the impression that the Germans looked at the war on an operational/tactical level, while the Allies looked at the war on a strategic level.

Hitler planned on a short war. Which meant that to him, the strategic was less important.

When it became a long war, the Germans were sure to lose.

The Japs too had planned a short war.
-

Judging by the casualties of WWII...
*pauses, puts on glasses*
optimism has detrimental effects on health.
YEEAAAAHH

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

ORIGINAL: DTurtle
I'd say it comes down to the impression that the Germans looked at the war on an operational/tactical level, while the Allies looked at the war on a strategic level.

Hitler planned on a short war. Which meant that to him, the strategic was less important.

When it became a long war, the Germans were sure to lose.

The Japs too had planned a short war.

It's pretty hard to sell a long war and a losing one at that.

[SLAAKMAN]

NutKase,

The sub photo, amongst your spam, is of US fleet boats.

(They are in disguise.) [:'(]

NK-
When do you ship off to Afghanistan? Oh let me guess...never? Deserter. [8|]

[henri51]

Two things: one has to compare weapons from the same period, so obviously weapons developed in 1944 were generally superior to weapons developed in 1940.

Someone mentioned that the Sherman Firefly was equal to the German MkIV. Whether it was or not, the Sherman with the gun equal to the Panthers' was distributed with only a few per battalion, the rest of the battalion being mostly  Shermans with the weaker gun. As far as I know, there were never any  tank companies equipped with a majority of Fireflies.

OK a third thing: the Panther was originally copied from the T34, but when Hitler saw the model, he rejected it on the basis that it looked too much like the Soviet tank. Obviously when the Panther finally came into general use in 1942, the T34s they were facing were mostly upgunned and up-armored T34s. It is clear that both the Soviets and Americans opted for quantity over quality, a choice that the Germans did not have due to limited  productivity.

It is difficult to compare artillery, since the West and the Soviets had so much of it compared to the Germans, but clearly at least the US had better command and control over artillery. But I don't think that the West or Soviets had anything that was as good or better than the 88, an AA weapon that was also used as an effective AT weapon.

Another "weapon" worth mentioning is Intelligence: the Germans lost a number of important battles due to a large extent to failure of intelligence, including being surprised by the first appearence of T34s, and the Battle of Stalingrad (there are many others).From the little I know, I would rank them from best to last: British, Soviet, US, Germans and Japanese (Italians???). It is difficult to rate the US intelligence in Europe, because by the time they got in the war, the Germans were  on the defensive (some might argue that they didn't need any...), but one has to give them credit for breaking both the Japanese and German codes (although the latter should perhaps be credited to the Poles for cracking the code and to the British for capturing the Enigma machine -and not the US as in the recent movie).

Henri

[Obsolete]

As far as I know, there were never any  tank companies equipped with a majority of Fireflies.

I could be wrong, but wasn't that Canadian armoured company which eventually ambushed the Black Barron on the fateful day, primarily made up of Fireflies?

[sprior]

By "Black Barron" do you mean a German git in a tank?

[sprior]

Shame the Centurion didn't ship a month earler.

[GrumpyMel]

Again, I think a large part of the issue comes from the fact that the Germans were expecting hostilities in the late 30's to early 40's (because they were planning on initiating them) and thus were investing in the machinery and doctrines to fight the next war.

Whereas, a large portion of the Western Allied leadership refused to accept the possibility of another World War...and with thier economies still suffering from the Depression naturaly didn't want to invest to the degree neccesary to fight it.

I think this is true from a doctrinal as well as an equipment standpoint. If your public policy is based upon conflict avoidance....you're naturaly not going to put alot of weight behind dynamic millitary thinkers who are planning for the next big conflict...and wanting investments to build the equipment neccesary for it. The Allies certainly had thier fair share of forward looking millitary thinkers....folks like Liddle-Hart & Billy Mitchell... but unlike the germans, they weren't getting alot of support from the top levels of government. They also had some excellent (for the day) designs...like the Spitfire, A-13 Cruiser & Souma but they weren't really planning or geared to build them in significant numbers until very late in the game. Unlike the Germans, who knew for a long time they were gearing for war.

Thus is the early conflicts, the Allies were beat both on a doctrinal and (for the most part) equipment standpoint. It takes time to adjust those doctrines and designs and gear up for building them....and I think that's a large part of where the reputation german equipment had comes from. You even see the legacies of that stretch far into the war. For example, the Sherman couldn't really go toe to toe with contemporary German tanks because it wasn't designed with the intention to do so. The US millitary intended that anti-tank guns and later tank-destroyers be the primary opponents of enemy armor....when they actually got around to designing a tank that would fill that primary role...they put out a very solid design, the M-26 Pershing. I actualy think the Allies did a pretty good job in adapting, considering how reluctant thier early leadership was to prepare for conflict.

As far as Russia, they entered the 20th Century as one of the most backwards economies in Europe.....and it's pretty hard to dig yourself out of that hole when every few years you go through a wave of killing or imprisoning 90% of the people with the talent and ambition to drive your country forward because they are seen as a threat to the leadership. Again, I'm amazed that they were able to put out systems that were as effective as they were. Heck, I think more then half the Soviet aircraft designs implimented during the war were done WHILE their designers were in prison camps.

[sullafelix]

" Black barron "

If you mean Michael Wittmann I believe it has been proven that his tank was destroyed by Allied aircraft. Fireflies were few and far between. They were distributed as the above writer mentioned.

[Obsolete]

If you mean Michael Wittmann I believe it has been proven that his tank was destroyed by Allied aircraft.

It was never PROVEN that air-power took out his Tiger. It was only speculated for a long time from a photo & other circumstantial evidence as to the main theory on how 007 went down.

The last I remember, modern analysis of the field, testimony, and facts have put the answere primarily on a pack of Fireflies which had been preparing and laying in wait to ambush him for days.

[Chris Bisson]

I believe Fireflies were divided up so each platoon of tanks had a single firefly in it. So there would be 1 Firefly and 4 Shermans or 1 Firefly and 4 Cromwells to a platoon.

[sullafelix]

Well the problem is that there was never a " pack " of fireflies. Also the Germans by that time were hanging on by their fingernails so an offensive was out of the question. So I don't know how an attacking force could " lay in wait ".

A group of Shermans that included one or two fireflies I can believe. The other point is that at the ranges that the story uses you would only need one firefly to knock out a tiger.

I have read several different versions of him being killed by a group of tanks. But in all of them the tiger was pounded to death by numerous volleys of gunfire. The tank in the picture doesn't look that way. It is not shot full of holes.

[t001001001]

NutKase,
[blockquote]quote:

The sub photo, amongst your spam, is of US fleet boats. [/blockquote]
(They are in disguise.)

NK-
When do you ship off to Afghanistan? Oh let me guess...never? Deserter.



Nef pointed out that you posted picts of US fleet subs to glorify nazi crap (they lost the war b/c their stuff was over built crap, just in case anyone didn't already know).

All ur doing is making a fool of urself.  Please continue.

[t001001001]

27 different models of mark A, mark B, mark C.   Nonsense.  They lost b/c they were stupid.  Their gear was junk drawn by a horse carriage.  The Nazis were just plain dumb.  A pack of rednecks outclassed im easily.  No problem.  'get er done'.

80 million Sherman tanks and a billion trucks. yeha. That's right.

[SLAAKMAN]

Nef pointed out that you posted picts of US fleet subs to glorify nazi crap (they lost the war b/c their stuff was over built crap, just in case anyone didn't already know).

All ur doing is making a fool of urself. Please continue.

Fool of myself? I already am a fool so its no big loss. Why does he need you to answer for him? And when are you going to tow the line in Afghanistan you Egglayer?

[planner 3]

It has been said that Hitler ranted after Kursk that 'had I known that bas$%^*& had 35000 tanks I never would have attacked Russia" the same can be said for US production. It's not a question of who had the best equipment, it's who comes in with the BEST PRODUCTION. One lucky shot from 6 Shermans equals 1 less Panzer, sooner or later numbers dominate. Just an old mans opinion.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Platoon Crusher

I believe Fireflies were divided up so each platoon of tanks had a single firefly in it. So there would be 1 Firefly and 4 Shermans or 1 Firefly and 4 Cromwells to a platoon.

At the time I think they had four tank platoons called Troops. So there would be 3 Shermans and a Firefly or 3 Cromwells and a Firefly.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

... The last I remember, modern analysis of the field, testimony, and facts have put the answere primarily on a pack of Fireflies which had been preparing and laying in wait to ambush him for days.

I also read somewhere that Wittmann was ambushed by one or more tanks, but are you suggesting that the Fireflies were specifically targeting Wittmann?