Matrix Games Forums

Hmm...

This appears to be one of those doors that swings both ways. Germany, circa WW2, produced some fine weapons. Examples that I'd cite:

Flak 36
MG42
Panzerfaust

Conversely, I find devotees of German weaponry somewhat myopic in there failure to acknowledge the genius behind the P-51. I suggest that, not because it was necessarily dominant in the skies over Berlin, but because it had flown five-hundred miles to get there. Had the Luftwaffe had a similar capability in 1940, "the Battle of Britain" would have had a different outcome, I suspect.

Am I wrong in any of these regards?[&:]

If anything -you are probably understating

The P51 not only had to fly 500miles -it had to be able to hold its own when it got there.

All sides had various pieces of equipment that could be acknowledged as being dominant in certain areas. Dominance of German equipment isn't so much a myth as a generalisation.

A lot of innovative equipment was developed by the Germans - Prince of Eckmuhl mentions the MG42 - a direct inspiration for the US M60. Also the Gewehr Stg44 - the forerunner for the assault rifle of today.

Also the MP40- an innovative design because it was all metal and could be machine mass produced.

But the US had the M1 rifle - one of the first semi-automatic rifles and the 50.cal machine gun - still in service today

The British bren gun was an excellent light support weapon. The Lancaster was an outstanding heavy bomber. The Mosquito was a superb all round light bomber

As for the USSR - simply the T34- it changed the way tanks were designed.

Generalisations are dangerous.

ORIGINAL: nicwb

If anything -you are probably understating

The P51 not only had to fly 500miles -it had to be able to hold its own when it got there.

All sides had various pieces of equipment that could be acknowledged as being dominant in certain areas. Dominance of German equipment isn't so much a myth as a generalisation.

A lot of innovative equipment was developed by the Germans - Prince of Eckmuhl mentions the MG42 - a direct inspiration for the US M60. Also the Gewehr Stg44 - the forerunner for the assault rifle of today.

Also the MP40- an innovative design because it was all metal and could be machine mass produced.

But the US had the M1 rifle - one of the first semi-automatic rifles and the 50.cal machine gun - still in service today

The British bren gun was an excellent light support weapon. The Lancaster was an outstanding heavy bomber. The Mosquito was a superb all round light bomber

As for the USSR - simply the T34- it changed the way tanks were designed.

Generalisations are dangerous.

And the Japanese had those Long Lance torpedoes. [:D]

Early-war German tanks were indeed not superior to French models (the Matilda was not a good tank, because it only had heavy armour going for it (same with the Char B)). However, the Germans had radio throughout every echelon of their armoured formations, and good communications are a HUUUUUUUGE force multiplier.

Well maybe we could find a general "rule":
 
a) Ground

Germany was mostly better on the Ground with the good handweapons, tanks (even if some of em where to hastily developed, suffered breakdown, too high fuel consumption or where generally unfit for combat - like early KT and Sturmtigers). We can savely say however that the Panther was the best tank of the war, 2nd would be T34 imo. Means as soon their initial faults were wiped out. Models MKIII+IV were also good and more reliable but nothing special (still old hull shape). Tiger1 was good in a sense that it could wreak havoc when employed correctly and not piecemeal and in wrong terrain like in the first battles this one was employed tactical mistakes caused by Hitler. Also their arty was good, but more the FLAK and PAK weapons, not so much the 105+150mm howitzers. Most cost effective arty were probably Stugs.
 
Allies were close however, remarkable stuff is thinly spread in the tank department, only later the better ones come: M4/76w, T34/85, Josef Stalin, Comet, Pershing, M36 TD, SU100. The handweapons were good with Brens, Bazookas, M1 Garand, Lee Enfield. Arty: In the AA department, both sides are close with the Allies had the Bofors, the Germans 20mmm Vierling, but the Allied had no 88mm Flak gun. AT both sides close, but here again, no 88mm. But the 6pdr, 17pdr and US 76mm were good enough for the job. The howitzer and mortar battle goes to the Allies: 120mm Russian mortar, 4.2 in US Mortar, 25pdr, 105+155 howitzers with good firecontrol and fast reaction.
 
3 points Ger, 2 points Allies
 
b) Air

Even if Germany was better at the beginning with Bf109, Ju87 (this one was only usable however if no serious fighter opposition existed). In the middle phase another good fighter: FW190, but the Bf109 frame suffered over time cause further develpoment was not easy with the old model to keep up with the newer designs. As written above the only remarkable mass produced bomber was Ju88 + successors. You could add the close air support plaane Hs129, but not enough in numbers. The Germans mostly used FW190s as a fighter bomber. The Allies had much more better bombers and later also good longrange fighters (only Spitfire can be named as an early model). They had much more models that excelled in the fighter bomber rule (P47,P38,Typhoon). Transports are a draw. Recon also. Special ground attack planes were IL2 and Boston/Havoc. I don´t addd M262 + Arado bombers cause they were too late and few in numbers.
 
3 points Allies, 1 point Germany
 
c) Sea:

Well Ger was no seapower, their only hope were U-boats. All the battleships were in the end useless or caused not enough trouble to sink them finally. Germany wasted much of their DD force in the Norway campaign and it is not known to me how good these ships were, probably as good as early Allied design, but later Allies were much better. The U-boats were technically good, but the losses suffered in this campaign were far too high especially in trained CREWS. The Allied CVs,BBs and CAs count more towards Japan, so they are neclected here.

2 Allies - 1 Germany
 
 
5 Ger, 7 Allies overall - not taking into account political matters only equipment.....

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

I think it's a mixed bag...in part the myth has been exagerated ...

Like the myth of the German scientist, although different Allied factions raced to capture these researchers for themselves at the end of the war.

The German Kar98 rifle was neither better nor worse than the other bolt-action rifles at the start of the war, with the possible exception of the Soviet Mosin-Nagant. The Bren was basically the same as the BAR, so they don't count against the MG34.

If any of you ever wore WW2 era British Battle dress,then naturally the German Uniform wins hands down!Its the most terrible material ever made!

German uniforms were tailored by Hugo Boss. [:D]

ORIGINAL: andym

If any of you ever wore WW2 era British Battle dress,then naturally the German Uniform wins hands down!Its the most terrible material ever made!

That's why the gave it to the U-Boat crews to wear.

Quantity has a quality all of it's own. - J. Stalin.

ORIGINAL: andym

If any of you ever wore WW2 era British Battle dress,then naturally the German Uniform wins hands down ...

How about the Greek battle "dress" that resembled a tutu?

Light and (f)airy...[:D]

If i buy into the idea that German superior equipment was a myth. Then i am forced to declare German equipment as inferior. Then allied equipment is superior?

If i buy into the idea that German equipment is superior, and not a myth. Then allied equipment is inferior?

The "Myth" of any weapons system has a lot to do with those on the receiving end.

I tend to believe each weapons system used during WWII was both superior and inferior, depending on time and which side of the weapon you are on. This leads me to the "myth".

This Myth of superior German equipment simultaneously with Allied equipment, is tragic and glorious.

To slay the Myth of superior German equipment, the allies created and manned its own Super superior Anti-Myths.

The Myth of U-Boat, sunk by the Anti-Myth of Hedgehog and Sonar, deployed on a Destroyer. Stuka Myth, became fodder for Spitfire, Hurricane and Radar in the skies over England. Panzer myths destroyed by the combined might of T-34, Sherman and Firefly. 88mm myths broken by Stalins Organs and Priest.

The Allies went even further with monsters that the axis could not hope to slay enough of. Flying Fortress, Liberator, Lancaster, four-engine dragons escorted by the muses Mustang, Thunderbolt and Lightning. Liberty became the life line. Essex a sea going war machine Posiden would envy. Jeep, a light 4-wheeled Hermes.

Once upon a time, there was a myth called the Club, it competed with the Spear and Rock. Which was superior Club, Spear, or Rock?
If a German during WWII used a club, would it become Superior if faced by a Russian with a spear or an American with a rock?

Patton knew the answer. Do you?

Thanks for your time. I hope you enjoy your myths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men.
- General George Patton Jr

ORIGINAL: sprior

ORIGINAL: andym

If any of you ever wore WW2 era British Battle dress,then naturally the German Uniform wins hands down!Its the most terrible material ever made!

That's why the gave it to the U-Boat crews to wear.

"The type worn was the grey/green denim battledress uniform as it was a work style uniform but also comfortable and cool to wear within the hot confines of the U-Boat. You may already be aware but vast stocks of the said uniform were captured after the capitulation of the B.E.F. at Dunkirk. Enterprising Kriegsmarine officers saw these and decided to utilise them for their U-Boat crews."

The wool type was much less popular. I hated mine which I had as a cadet in the 1980's.

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

... To slay the Myth of superior German equipment, the allies created and manned its own Super superior Anti-Myths.

To counter the invincible blitzkrieg myth, the US said: the Germans had tanks, but we have tank destroyers!

Of course, at that time a TD was a WW I French 75 mounted on a halftrack.

Really doesn't matter how "superior" or "better" their stuff was.

They lost.

Does anybody know in what way allied artillery was better than the German?
 
More accurate?
 
Better logistics?
 
-
 

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Does anybody know in what way allied artillery was better than the German?

More accurate?

Better logistics?

-

I believe it is fire control.

i think Guderian told the story how after a tank training with the russians, russian officers wouldn't believe him that there was no heavier german design than the early panzer IV models.
in early war german doctrine was superior and the minds behind them got the weapons they needed to support their mobile warfare.