Why do so many Flame the US WW2, love the GE. ?

[Charles2222]

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

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

.

I wish you could quote me on that. You have said before that I am Tiger obsessed, well, the Tiger was certainly not a 39-42 issue, right? So what makes you think I would isolate your heartiness to that period? Wouldn't it be more of the latter years, particularly since the US doesn't enter till '43? The only pre-'43 German dumbing down I can think of would involve possibly the 88flak, and I've never heard you speak about the 88. You must be thinking of somebody else, and I'm certainly not going to back something I haven't said.

[sven]

Originally posted by Charles_22:
sven: Think about it a minute, as I will only respond to this one remark of yours .

I wish you could quote me on that. You have said before that I am Tiger obsessed, well, the Tiger was certainly not a 39-42 issue, right? So what makes you think I would isolate your heartiness to that period? Wouldn't it be more of the latter years, particularly since the US doesn't enter till '43? The only pre-'43 German dumbing down I can think of would involve possibly the 88flak, and I've never heard you speak about the 88. You must be thinking of somebody else, and I'm certainly not going to back something I haven't said.

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

show me,
sven

[Nemesis]

When it comes to war in Europe, it's fate was decided in the east. Soviet Union carried the bulk of the fighting. They inflivted (by far) the largest amounts of casualties to germans.

Yes, USA and other allies did help soviets by providing large amount of supplies. And Soviet Union was grateful for that help. But they were a bit disappointed, and who can blame them? During the war, the western aid to soviets was nicknamed "The Second Front" by the russians. And here's a Soviet saying regarding the matter:

"Look, american trucks! Look, american food! Look, russian bodies!".

Yes, that aid did help alot. But I think that russian effort in the war should not be underestimated.

When it comes to war against Japan, however, USA carried the bulk of fighting there. But regarding the war in Pacific, it almost had embarrasing end. USA had fought against Japan for years, and when they were ready to assault the japanese-mainland (Operations "Coronet" and "Olympic", which never happened though), Soviets attacked the japanese, and within short time, they were about to invade the mainland. The war ended just in time. Had in continued for a bit longer, soviets would have occupied Japan.

[Colonel von Blitz]

Originally posted by General Mayhem:
Yep but not with 88 mm gun to my knowledge. Also I've understood Tiger itself was rushed to production prematurely late as 1943. My understanding is that Tiger was never really finished as a tank.

Actually, VK.3001(H) about which I was talking about earlier was first armed with long barreled 75mm KwK L48, but during the development of this vehicle Hitler insisted that a battlefield dominating tank should be developed (and AFAIK, this was pre-1940). This led to up-gunning the vehicle with Geraet 725, but this was to be further changed to 88mm KwK 36, because shortage of Tungsten.

Now that is true that the up-gunning was result of intelligence gatherng information about russian heavy and medium tanks, but the order to up-gun the vehicle came much earlier than Operation Barbarossa. Besides, we know that Hitler was quite a megalomanic person, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that he wanted to have heaviest, toughest and meanest toy in his arsenal ...I believe at least Tiger would have been produced as it was produced 60 yrs ago even without East Front.

Also far as I know, while Tiger was awesome the Panther that was much better overall , was itself modeled after Russian T-34.

Panther on the other hand was direct result of copying better sides of T-34, no doubt about that. And I agree that this tank, though not having as fearsome reputation as Tiger, was better overall than dreaded Tiger.

PZ-IV's were also desperately added armor and
upgunned because Eastern Front. Not because Germans would have anticipated the modifications, but because sheer necessity.

This is also an issue I agree with you. And I'd like to add that long barreled StuGs were also a vehicles that had to be developed to be up-armored and up-gunned just because sheer necessity (also because they were cheaper, but anyway)

One could speculate that without Eastern Front, for example early Shermans would have been quite same level with German tanks in 1944.

One could also speculate that without East Front Germany would have had more steel and other resources available (not wasting them in the east), and as I speculated earlier that Tigers would have been produced even without influence of Russia, that probably would have ment more Tigers going against Shermans

But this is just sheer speculating leading nowhere, we could do this until were green in the face and still disagree

Colonel von Blitz

[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel von Blitz ]

[gators]

Wouldn't they have needed a navy?

[Charles2222]

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

[Paul Goodman]

Back to the original question, I think it is very simple. Everyone likes to win. For what ever reason, the Germans created armored vehicles that were very intensive in manhours, with very skilled labor required to manufacture major components of the tanks. Mass production requirements were the single most important aspect of both the T-34 and the Sherman. Jeez, we even tried to rivet the damn hulls until someone noted (having learned the hard way, of course) that rivets flying around inside the tank were a bit dangerous. I have never seen figures, but I'll bet it took two to three times as many manhours to build a Panther or a Tiger. This also caused these tanks to be very difficult to repair in the field. So, as we all know, both the USSR and the U.S. outproduced the German tank industry by at least 3 to 1 (each, for a total of 6 to 1). However, the game rates tanks (in terms of cost) by their performance ratio. I do not even count Tigers in this. They were (in fact) very rare on the battlefield; even more rare after a P-47 or Stormovik pass. Thus, a Tiger can be purchased for about 25% more than a T-34/85, although the Soviets built these tanks at a rate of at least 15 to 1 re the Tiger. Production of Stalin II's was about 3 to 1 relative to the Tiger, but costs just as much. So, you wanna win, get a Tiger or a Panther. They are on sale!

Paul

[sven]

Originally posted by Paul Goodman:
Back to the original question, I think it is very simple. Everyone likes to win. For what ever reason, the Germans created armored vehicles that were very intensive in manhours, with very skilled labor required to manufacture major components of the tanks. Mass production requirements were the single most important aspect of both the T-34 and the Sherman. Jeez, we even tried to rivet the damn hulls until someone noted (having learned the hard way, of course) that rivets flying around inside the tank were a bit dangerous. I have never seen figures, but I'll bet it took two to three times as many manhours to build a Panther or a Tiger. This also caused these tanks to be very difficult to repair in the field. So, as we all know, both the USSR and the U.S. outproduced the German tank industry by at least 3 to 1 (each, for a total of 6 to 1). However, the game rates tanks (in terms of cost) by their performance ratio. I do not even count Tigers in this. They were (in fact) very rare on the battlefield; even more rare after a P-47 or Stormovik pass. Thus, a Tiger can be purchased for about 25% more than a T-34/85, although the Soviets built these tanks at a rate of at least 15 to 1 re the Tiger. Production of Stalin II's was about 3 to 1 relative to the Tiger, but costs just as much. So, you wanna win, get a Tiger or a Panther. They are on sale!

Paul

Well said.

[Charles2222]

Thus, a Tiger can be purchased for about 25% more than a T-34/85, although the Soviets built these tanks at a rate of at least 15 to 1 re the Tiger.

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

[Brummagem]

From what I've read the Tiger was on the design board long before the mistake of invading Russa was made. Yes it was up gunned after a few run ins with the Russians but then that only made sense.
The Panther on the other hand was a direct knee kerk reaction to the T34. IE: this bit of information:
Having received the commision's report on November 25 1941, the Heereswaffenamt contracted with two armament firms, Daimler-Benz and MAN, to produce designs for a new medium tank in the 30-35 ton class. To be ready for the following spring, the specifications called for a vehicle with 60mm frontal armor and 40mm side armor, a high velocity 75mm gun and the front and sides to be sloped like the T-34. In April 1942, the two designs were submitted, with an interesting contrast. Daimler-Benz proposal was an almost unashamed copy of the T-34 in layout, with the addition of a few refinements. It had a hull shape similar to the T-34 with turret mounted well forward; the driver sat within the turret cage. A diesel engine was fitted with transmission to the rear sprockets. Paired steel bogies without rubber tyres were suspended by leaf springs. Other features included jettisonable fuel tanks on the hull rear in T-34 fashion.

Hitler was impressed with the Daimler-Benz "T-34 type" proposal, although he suggested that the gun be changed from the 75mm L/48 model to the longer L/70 weapon, and prototypes went into production. Leaf springs were cheaper and easier to produce than torsion bars, and the diesel engine would have been an advantage in later years when petrol supply became restricted. However, the Heereswaffenamt preferred the MAN design, since simply copying the T-34 was unpatriotic and there were mechanical features of the T-34 which made copying an impractical proposition for German manufacturers.

If you've seen the side view of the Daimler/Benz design you can easily see that it is a copy. Would have hated to drive that thing around in the smoke and mud with one of our own Tigers looking for something to shoot up.

I personally think that America should have let Patton push on and take out Russia while he was over there. Stalin turned out to be just as crazy as Hitler and had a damn site more to work with as far as population and natural resources were concerned.

As far as bad mouthing the Americans go, well that's been happening for a long long time. Heck Americans like to bad mouth America, how can you expect the rest of the world to not go there if they do it to them selves. America entered WWII ill prepared and ill equiped. That wasn't the soldiers fault, the fault laid squarely on their leaders shoulders. Heck the British caught on quicker then the Yanks did and up gunned the Sherman to a serious contender with the 17 pounder while America continued to pop out steel coffins.

In the end though, shear numbers won out. That's what makes Chins and India so scary. Do we actually have enough bullets to stop them.

That's my 2 bits.

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by GrinningDwarf:


I think the Cold War had a lot to do with it, with the Soviets being perceived as the enemy and Americans WANTING to downplay Russian accomplishments.

OK, now we're getting far off topic. But are you familar with the Russian/Soviet doctrine called "Maskirovka"? I just read a very interesting work on the matter, and it has sure changed my view of the entire war in the East, as well as the Cold War. Believe me, the Russians wanted to downplay some of their own accomplishments as well, and hype some others. It boggles the mind. Eventually, the US (and its allies) called the cards and the rest is..uh...history.

Short example: On the Western Front, the Wehrmacht had an almost complete control of the Allied OOB and present units despite suffering from the allied aerial superiosity. On the Eastern Front however, with the Luftwaffe controlling the skies, the Germans continously and time and time again misjudged Soviet troops, plans, points of attacks, Soviet target, etc. Now, was this because the Germans sent all their good intelligence to the West and the green intelligence recruits to the East? :rolleyes:

OK. Way off topic. I'm done.

[jambo1]

Just to add my 2 cents worth....I like playing the US against the Germans or the Russians, I don't expect as many crews to make elite status, but with the right tactics , victories are many. LOGISTICS is the key to US victories, I only play campaigns, so I start with as many cheap light(fast) tanks as possible and infantry w/ AT ability (of any sort) and after some really careful battles I can upgrade to lots'o'Shermans. My Uncle commanded a troop of Cdn Shermans in Europe and I've adopted his stated tactic of infantry sneaking forward and spotting the offending Tiger/Panther then flanking it. This worked, but was costly, as SPWaW shows starkly. 5-6 Shermans was preferable for this tactic to work.. My Uncle lost his legs leading his troop on just such an attack, he always lead from the front....however he did lead a full life after the war dying in his 70's.

[Belisarius]

What did Ike say? The victory was due to four things; The Jeep, the C-47 Skytrain, the bazooka and the Bomb?

Nonetheless, not only did the Allies have lots and lots of material, they also had the systems to distribute it. Not a small feat at all, it's extremely impressive. In the same way as German tactics was impressive.

[DataKing]

Originally posted by Nemesis:
When it comes to war in Europe, it's fate was decided in the east. Soviet Union carried the bulk of the fighting. They inflivted (by far) the largest amounts of casualties to germans.

An interesting tidbit concerning this that you may find enlightening. If you take all of World War II and break it down into man-hours of combat (i.e. every hour that 1 soldier was in a combat situation = 1 man-hour of the war) then approximately 90% of World War II was fought on the eastern front.

Source: Doctor Norman Saul, Professor of Russian History at the University of Kansas.

That's obviously the lion's share.

[AmmoSgt]

I think the problem here is not who had the best tank ... but one of being able to recreate tactics.. Just as surely as Blitzkreg was the better tactic in 1940 ..Combined Arms was the Better Tactic in 1943 ... SPWAW tries to Balance the Game for Gaming purposes on the proposition of restricting the weapons Ratio to Blitzkreg Ratios ..In Effect then, Various Allied Nations are resricted by the pricing scheme into a test of how well at Germany Army Blitzgreg Ratios they can use their gear against German Gear ... German Gear was designed for Blitzkreg style Tactics ..Allied Gear wasn't .... for example the US Army had more Bn's of 155mm Arty and larger in the ETO ( 71 Bn of 155 How , 30 Bn 155 Gun, 6 Bn 155 SP, 38 8" How Bn, 5 Bn 8" gun , 15 240mm How Bn ) for a total of 165 Bn of Heavy Arty than it did Tanks 118 tank Bn's in the entire Army including both Medium and light tanks ....
even if you throw in Tank destroyer Bn's Thats another 56 Bn that served in the ETO at any time during the war the 63 Bn of smaller than 155mm Arty Bn's that served in the ETO more than Balances that out ..
... Pricing of the Units no longer allows that balance of units to be maintained and ammo load outs Prevent any attempt to play with those proportions to be a sustainable proposition in the game ... The Abilities of US Arty to respond in the Nature of the Doctrine TOT http://www.peakpeak.com/~darylpoe/tanks/artillery/doctrine.html has been under cut by the ammo load out , while German Artillery ( and other nations, aside from the Brits and STONK, for that matter ) has been given a response time much faster than actually achieved in Battle .. If you don't care to read the whole website the gist of it is US Arty was on call from Platoon Leaders on up with an Average response time of Under 2 minutes while the Germans could only call from Co HQ's and Higher HQ,s with an expected response time of about 12 minutes .. I have found only one source giving a faster response time of 10 minutes from call to first impact for the Germans .. and the German Doctine was that fire would be from pre dedicated Batteries while US Doctrine allowed and encouraged Response from any Battery in range ... If you add to this the Allied Air ability to bring massive ammounts of tactical air into the picture ...You have the very nightmare that so many say would not be fun to play ... The US Army was not in the ETO for fun ... but this is a game ... not a simulation, it does not pit US Army Doctirine and US Army equipment against German Doctrine and German Army Equipment .. the superiority of Combined Arms over Blitzkreg... and TOT Doctrine over the Antiquated German system is Obvious from the Out come of the war ..the Germans never Had the Material or the Srategic Genius ( of say a Sommerall) to be able to carry off the next level of tactical evolution ... so in the interest of Balance and perhaps a bit in the Interest of not having to raise the level of Sophistication of Tactical Understanding the game pits the Allies against the Germans but restricts the Allies to proportions and ammo load outs that are more suited to old fashion Blitzkreg Tactics , and allows the German Army and all other Armies to use sophisticated Arty call proceedures such as Platoons calling Arty, and faster on call times than would have actually been used .. by nations other than the US ..Granted the British STONK system was almost as fast but that didn't happen until after Dunkirk and no other nation had the capacity to mass produce dry cell batteries to power portable radios necessary to provide the fast communication times needed for advanced tactical concepts such as Combined Arms and TOT ... and please when you flame me do NOT misuse the term Combines Arms in the haphazard way that comes from common usage ..I am refering to a Tactical Concept advananced and evolved from past tactics and only achievable when Massive support beyond European Armies Dreams is readily available ... This Game is a balanced game in that small concessions to actual Nation Doctrine is given to color but not Differentiate the Armies involved and with small tweaks allows the German Army to play as itself against Allied Armies forced into their mold ...

[Charles2222]

AmmoSgt:

Average response time of Under 2 minutes while the Germans could only call from Co HQ's and Higher HQ,s with an expected response time of about 12 minutes

Could this difference largely have to do with tactics? Because if the person doing this study compares German vs. US on their fronts, as opposed to the total German use of artillery, it could be a VERY different matter. German artillery in the West I would assume was probaly more of the defensive nature, while their advances were often much quicker than most anyone's, therefore heightening the amount of time the artillery could get in place and be called upon. When they mention average time, you have to wonder about all the situations that were considered. I heard the Russians were abysmally slow compared to the Germans in artillery quick response, and given that report's estimation of such a greay difference of Gerry and US I have to wonder.

the superiority of Combined Arms over Blitzkreg... and TOT Doctrine over the Antiquated German system is Obvious from the Out come of the war ..

Hmm, let's compare the tactics from another angle. Get ready. The inferiority of blitzkreig took a month to take the French, who were in some ways superior to the Germans in numbers. The Allies in the West Front took almost a year against a foe I think which at the time of D-Day was down either 2-to-1 or 3-to-1. I didn't know that the blitzkreig was exclusive to combined arms either. Have you ever read on why German Panzer divisions were the model for combined arms?

I'll have you know, as well, that this game has NOTHING to do with blitzkreig. Blitzkreig is more a strategic doctrine than a tactical one. I've yet to see a single cut off army wilt as one that had been cut off during a blitzkreig might. Supply isn't cut off in other words (which of course isn't strictly confined to blitzkreig tactics, it's just that blitzs seem to net larger catches).

[Flashfyre]

Charles_22, do you EVER agree with any of the posts in a given thread? I am beginning to think not, because you COMPLETELY missed my point...missed by so much, I don't think you're even in the same ballpark.

Let me re-state my opinion as to why many gamers favor the German side, in this or any other wargame: "There is a perceived invincibility of the German armed forces, a myth continually refined and hyped until it becomes, in the minds of many untutored scholars, the TRUTH. It is this quality, one of superior arms and tactics, that leads them to play the German side, in the mistaken belief that they will win their game, because they are the BEST."

And, as I stated (but you apparently chose not to acknowledge), I am not a pro-German player, nor a pro-US player; I favor no nation. I recognize that each one has it's strengths and weaknesses, and that victory may be achieved with substandard units, if the tactical doctrine employed minimizes the effects of the negatives, while maximizing the strengths.

As a parting note, I am delighted that you chose, out of all the posts, something of mine to quote and respond to. Makes all my hard work seem worthwhile.

Looking forward to the next round......

[Charles2222]

Flashfyre: I choose generally to correct errors I may detect, and that is why you generally see me in disagreement. Many of my posts have been along the order of helping a newbie or with new ideas, but then whether you notice such things is none of my concern. I help where I can. Apparently my disagrements stick out to you because they are so fresh and also because they stir you unlike my ideas for a better game or slight OOB correction.

I choose to not respond to your statement of balance for a number of reasons: A) I don't always respond, nor see a need to respond to every point someone makes, whether I agree or not. B) I don't believe everything everyone says, so why bother? I'm trying to look into things which I have a bit of knowledge and comment only on those. Whether you mean it or not doesn't enter into the scope of such an outlook as mine. I work for a Fortune 500 company and I've seen the friendliest backstabbers you'll ever want to know. C) Your last comment states your position in my regard. You must think I enjoy this. I DO NOT. Why do you expect me to comment on your non-bias when you're becoming more biased against me? If I enjoyed this 'attack the alleged Gerry lover' nonsense I'd be in the AOW forum and I am not.

Fare thee well

[Flashfyre]

You "choose generally to correct errors I may detect" and "Apparently my disagrements stick out to you because they are so fresh and also because they stir you unlike my ideas for a better game or slight OOB correction."

Let me see if I understand this....you want corrections on the errors you detect. But the majority of your responses to other's detection of errors tends to the disagreemnet and substantial diatribes on their unfeasability. So...if I were to find an error, say, in the US Oob that did not allow a player to purchase an Airborne MMG Platoon by itself, would you agree with me that it should be fixed?

Or is there a reason why the US player should NOT be allowed to buy this unit?

Choose a side of the fence to be on, my man. Straddling it can be dangerous to certain areas of the anatomy.

[AmmoSgt]

Chucky babe pretty dang Obvious you didn't read the link ..geeze

[ July 11, 2001: Message edited by: AmmoSgt ]