I hope the game turns out good.
I can't wait to play this assuming they make the game as fun as it seems to be from what they have released.
Like where did you think nazi germany learned their blitzkrieg techniques? They realized if you use mechanized infantry while staying on the move, the enemy cant react in time to counter. Tanks and armored trucks changed the game completely. Now soldiers could be moved to the front lines extremely fast and protected, and tanks at the time were near impenetrable unless you had crews to counter them, but even at the time, infatry anti tank weapons were nearly useless till HEAT rounds were invented.
[QUOTE=bdd458;50870023]Deluxe, you don't need to buy the collector's edition for it.
I'm starting to feel like a broken record at this point, but where exactly do you think the weapons and tactics used in WWII were pioneered?
The answer lies in WWI. The war was an evolution from beginning to end, with new weapons and tactics throughout the entire war. While certainly BF1 isn't most realistic (such as some weapons are more plentiful than they actually were) it's entirely plausible and in line with how the war was by 1918, and where its evolution would have went if the war went on for even another year.
Completely accurate? No, but that's really where tactics and weapons were in 1918, a shift towards automatic and semi-automatic weapons, with a focus on the individual infantryman, squad, and platoon. By the end of the war, the most important unit on the battlefield was no longer the regiment or company, but [B]was[/B] the individual soldier. It [B]was[/B] the squad. It [B]was[/B] the Platoon.
I'm going to quote Dr. Stephen Bull from his book "Trench: A History of Trench Warfare on the Western Front", and specifically a paragraph from the conclusion chapter of the book.[/QUOTE]
well you are a broken record at this point because any idiot who spent 2 minutes reading wikipedia knows that ww1 wasn't only sitting in a trench dying of 50 diseases. yes ww1 [B]started[/B] a major shift in warfare, but it's not the same as throwing experimental technology and weapons around like candy
saying that that it where "ww1 was in 1918" is bullshit when actual service rifles are the end of the war only makes up 20% of the game's weapons and the tanks easily go 4 times their top road speed offroad
[QUOTE=Jund;50873669]well you are a broken record at this point because any idiot who spent 2 minutes reading wikipedia knows that ww1 wasn't only sitting in a trench dying of 50 diseases. yes ww1 [B]started[/B] a major shift in warfare, but it's not the same as throwing experimental technology and weapons around like candy.
saying that that it where "ww1 was in 1918" is bullshit when actual service rifles are the end of the war only makes up 20% of the game's weapons and the tanks easily go 4 times their top road speed offroad.[/QUOTE]
WWI [I]was[/I] the revolution, it didn't just start it. The way wars were fought for the rest of the 20th century was pioneered by the soldiers, designers, and leaders of the 1914-1918. The lessons learned from the war were then applied later, [I]in some cases by the same individuals who were there in the first place[/I]. It was the change, it was the revolution, plain and simple.
And even then, so what? Nothing they're throwing in the game has been made up (at least from what we've seen), it all existed in one for or another - in production and used by someone at some point. If not widespread it at least existed. And quite frankly, while I would love to see more of a focus on bolt-actions (I love me some RO2 and Verdun), it's a fucking Battlefield game that's playing with all the available history.
And I restate, that is where tactics and weapons were moving. The war wouldn't have lasted another year, it would have been impossible for Germany to sustain it both at the front and home - but if the war had continued, you would have seen an even greater proliferation of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry. There's a reason all of those odd weapons existed, because there was a demand, and that demand existed because that's where leaders wanted to go.
and fucking cry me a river about the tank speeds, I can guarantee that the speeds of vehicles in other Battlefield games aren't realistic either.
Like seriously, this is my dream AAA WWI game - sparks an interest in the period for people, and other developers and what not to make the more hardcore and realistic games, to start using it as a setting, instead of it just getting brushed aside with "trenchfoot simulator 2k15" or "its just like wwii!!!one!!"
[QUOTE=bdd458;50873741]WWI [I]was[/I] the revolution, it didn't just start it. The way wars were fought for the rest of the 20th century was pioneered by the soldiers, designers, and leaders of the 1914-1918. The lessons learned from the war were then applied later, [I]in some cases by the same individuals who were there in the first place[/I]. It was the change, it was the revolution, plain and simple.
And even then, so what? Nothing they're throwing in the game has been made up (at least from what we've seen), it all existed in one for or another - in production and used by someone at some point. If not widespread it at least existed. And quite frankly, while I would love to see more of a focus on bolt-actions (I love me some RO2 and Verdun), it's a fucking Battlefield game that's playing with all the available history.
And I restate, that is where tactics and weapons were moving. The war wouldn't have lasted another year, it would have been impossible for Germany to sustain it both at the front and home - but if the war had continued, you would have seen an even greater proliferation of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry. [b]There's a reason all of those odd weapons existed, because there was a demand, and that demand existed because that's where leaders wanted to go.[/B]
and fucking cry me a river about the tank speeds, I can guarantee that the speeds of vehicles in other Battlefield games aren't realistic either.
Like seriously, this is my dream AAA WWI game - sparks an interest in the period for people, and other developers and what not to make the more hardcore and realistic games, to start using it as a setting, instead of it just getting brushed aside with "trenchfoot simulator 2k15" or "its just like wwii!!!one!!"[/QUOTE]
except it wasn't, because semi-auto service rifles weren't even accepted by most militaries until 30-40 years later. the cei-rigotti wasn't even used in the war, but since you love the game so much you're willing to overlook most things i suppose
it would be as silly as having a gulf war game filled with flechette guns
it's okay to like the game and ww1 history, but defending its historical accuracy is a laugh and a half
[editline]12th August 2016[/editline]
i mean this may come as a shock to some people but just because ww1 wasn't 4 years of trenchfoot doesn't mean that bf1 is accurate by any means
[QUOTE=Jund;50873669]well you are a broken record at this point because any idiot who spent 2 minutes reading wikipedia knows that ww1 wasn't only sitting in a trench dying of 50 diseases. yes ww1 [B]started[/B] a major shift in warfare, but it's not the same as throwing experimental technology and weapons around like candy.
saying that that it where "ww1 was in 1918" is bullshit when actual service rifles are the end of the war only makes up 20% of the game's weapons and the tanks easily go 4 times their top road speed offroad.[/QUOTE]
If the only weapons in the game were the main rifles of every country, it'd be a fucking shitty tiny selection with almost zero variety. That'd be a REALLY shitty way to do weapons in a WWI. If you're doing a shooter set in a specific time period and you're not going for super realistic accurate stuff, you absolutely should put every possible gun you can that existed in any capacity at that time. If it's even remotely possible that a weapon could have been used by any soldier anywhere during the war, it absolutely should be in the game.
[QUOTE=simkas;50874043]If the only weapons in the game were the main rifles of every country, it'd be a fucking shitty tiny selection with almost zero variety. That'd be a REALLY shitty way to do weapons in a WWI. If you're doing a shooter set in a specific time period and you're not going for super realistic accurate stuff, you absolutely should put every possible gun you can that existed in any capacity at that time. If it's even remotely possible that a weapon could have been used by any soldier anywhere during the war, it absolutely should be in the game.[/QUOTE]
uhhhhh no?
[url]http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/ww1-rifles.asp[/url]
and here's a list of "every possible gun you can that existed in any capacity at that time" that was actually used in the war
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_infantry_weapons_of_World_War_I[/url]
Based purely off of the uniforms the Germans have in game you can tell DICE is going for a late war focus where mobile infantry tactics were first exploited.
[QUOTE=Jund;50874084]uhhhhh no?
[url]http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/ww1-rifles.asp[/url]
and here's a list of "every possible gun you can that existed in any capacity at that time" that was actually used in the war
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_infantry_weapons_of_World_War_I[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah, and it seems like pretty much all of those are going to be in the game. Except ones that were only used somewhere thousands of miles away from where the game actually takes place.
Why the fuck are you people getting so bent out of shape over a fucking Battlefield game having weapons which weren't actually used in war? I'm sure DICE put a great deal of effort into making the past games as realistic as possible when they let Americans use Chinese rifles or Czech SMGs.
It's a fucking game you clowns, the weapons are included because they'd be fun to use.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50874196]Why the fuck are you people getting so bent out of shape over a fucking Battlefield game having weapons which weren't actually used in war? I'm sure DICE put a great deal of effort into making the past games as realistic as possible when they let Americans use Chinese rifles or Czech SMGs.
It's a fucking game you clowns, the weapons are included because they'd be fun to use.[/QUOTE]
and why the fuck are you people getting so bent out of shape like i'm saying the game's bad because it isn't accurate?
first it's "the game's accurate" then it's "the game isn't accurate but fuck you" like i insulted your dead mother's favorite video game or some shit
honestly if reading this troubles you so much have you tried turning off your computer or closing your eyes?
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50873649]Like where did you think nazi germany learned their blitzkrieg techniques? They realized if you use mechanized infantry while staying on the move, the enemy cant react in time to counter. Tanks and armored trucks changed the game completely. Now soldiers could be moved to the front lines extremely fast and protected, and tanks at the time were near impenetrable unless you had crews to counter them, but even at the time, infatry anti tank weapons were nearly useless till HEAT rounds were invented.[/QUOTE]
Good thing the Nazis weren't well mechanized and the Americans and Soviets where, eh?
[QUOTE=Destroyox;50874253]Good thing the Nazis weren't well mechanized and the Americans and Soviets where, eh?[/QUOTE]
german engineering at 1930-45 was incredible, you had the PanzerIII tanks that were completely ahead of the pack with a top speed of 25mph on roads while supporting 2 inch thick armor and had future proofing by making the turret ring larger to be able to be modulated in future weapon enhancements. This was in 1939 which at the time the americans had the M2 tank which was instantly obsolete by the time WW2 had started, compared to the PanzerIII being used the entire war due to how great the technology was at the time. Soviets only had the T-26 at the time and that was just again obsolete by the start of WW2.
germans were extremely advanced mechanically and doctrine wise by the start of WWII, and most of it was learning from finding the weakness in older war doctrines and how to counteract it. The easiest way is to just bumrush the enemy instead of hunkering down, then hunker down afterwards.
The germans solely saw amazing success in the beginning of the war due to how other countries saw war at the time, and exploited it entirely with their technology and combat doctrines.
If the war had gone on just one more year I'm sure semiautomatic rifles would have become widespread.
[video=youtube_share;znvzXr3cLD4]http://youtu.be/znvzXr3cLD4[/video]
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50874551]german engineering at 1930-45 was incredible, you had the PanzerIII tanks that were completely ahead of the pack with a top speed of 25mph on roads while supporting 2 inch thick armor and had future proofing by making the turret ring larger to be able to be modulated in future weapon enhancements. This was in 1939 which at the time the americans had the M2 tank which was instantly obsolete by the time WW2 had started, compared to the PanzerIII being used the entire war due to how great the technology was at the time. Soviets only had the T-26 at the time and that was just again obsolete by the start of WW2.
germans were extremely advanced mechanically and doctrine wise by the start of WWII, and most of it was learning from finding the weakness in older war doctrines and how to counteract it. The easiest way is to just bumrush the enemy instead of hunkering down, then hunker down afterwards.
The germans solely saw amazing success in the beginning of the war due to how other countries saw war at the time, and exploited it entirely with their technology and combat doctrines.[/QUOTE]
Didn't the Germans get the blitzkrieg idea from the Miracle at the Vistula when the Russians tried to invade Poland, and the Polish bumrushed them from behind and threw the entire Russian ranks into disarray because they thought they had been compromised?
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;50875395]If the war had gone on just one more year I'm sure semiautomatic rifles would have become widespread.[/QUOTE]
then how come they weren't widespread even by the end of ww2?
[editline]12th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50875486]Didn't the Germans get the blitzkrieg idea from the Miracle at the Vistula when the Russians tried to invade Poland, and the Polish bumrushed them from behind and threw the entire Russian ranks into disarray because they thought they had been compromised?[/QUOTE]
nah it was an extension of the heavy maneuver warfare experienced in the eastern front, Hutier tactics used at the end of the war in the western front, and Guderian's armored division theory
BF1 is a bit weird with it's """"historical accuracy"""".
Yes, a lot of the weapons that are in BF1 were during the time period, but weren't actually used in the war and/or were experimental. So, in a way, it's accurate in that time period, but not really, since they were never used.
All in all, it's a Battlefield game. It's already wildly inaccurate considering that, since a majority of people who are fans of the series, wouldn't be so keen on a true WW1 simulator. If you really wanted to play a game that [I]really[/I] drew from WW1 accurately, try Verdun instead perhaps.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50874551]german engineering at 1930-45 was incredible, you had the PanzerIII tanks that were completely ahead of the pack with a top speed of 25mph on roads while supporting 2 inch thick armor and had future proofing by making the turret ring larger to be able to be modulated in future weapon enhancements. This was in 1939 which at the time the americans had the M2 tank which was instantly obsolete by the time WW2 had started, compared to the PanzerIII being used the entire war due to how great the technology was at the time. Soviets only had the T-26 at the time and that was just again obsolete by the start of WW2.
[/QUOTE]
The Germans were so advanced in the late 1930s because they were specifically planning their whole "murder all the poles" campaign, while the allies were bumbling around with the Great Depression.
The M2 tank was obsolete and even the US knew it, hence why it never saw combat. The M3 had a stupid design but it worked long enough - and outgunned anything that wasn't a SPG at the time - for the M4 to come out.
German engineering was godawful in that it was never designed for mass production. Their equipment was great when it worked, but the man-hours that went into it meant that even if they were the size of the USSR they could have never won the war, in terms of manufacturing capacity. That's before we even get into their penchant for making machines as complicated as possible, which bit them in the ass when they decided to invade Russia.
USA was all about churning out one reliable design as fast as possible, the Soviets churned out tanks with parts designed only to last as long as the crew, and the Germans labored over tanks and constantly redesigned shit [I]mid production[/I], hence why there's a goddamn bajillion Panzer variants with their own special snowflake modifications.
Very good video about it, starting at ~26 minutes
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ[/media]
[QUOTE=Omilinon;50875798]BF1 is a bit weird with it's """"historical accuracy"""".
Yes, a lot of the weapons that are in BF1 were during the time period, but weren't actually used in the war and/or were experimental. So, in a way, it's accurate in that time period, but not really, since they were never used.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it the same for BF4 or other BFs too? A lot of the weapons seen in the game aren't really used or barely used at all but they are accurate for the time period. Suddenly everyone is complaining when it's WW1.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50874551]german engineering at 1930-45 was incredible, you had the PanzerIII tanks that were completely ahead of the pack with a top speed of 25mph on roads while supporting 2 inch thick armor and had future proofing by making the turret ring larger to be able to be modulated in future weapon enhancements. This was in 1939 which at the time the americans had the M2 tank which was instantly obsolete by the time WW2 had started, compared to the PanzerIII being used the entire war due to how great the technology was at the time. Soviets only had the T-26 at the time and that was just again obsolete by the start of WW2.
germans were extremely advanced mechanically and doctrine wise by the start of WWII, and most of it was learning from finding the weakness in older war doctrines and how to counteract it. The easiest way is to just bumrush the enemy instead of hunkering down, then hunker down afterwards.
The germans solely saw amazing success in the beginning of the war due to how other countries saw war at the time, and exploited it entirely with their technology and combat doctrines.[/QUOTE]
Of course they saw huge success in the beginning of the war. They were fighting armies that were either backwater shits or armies that had their heads up their asses. British and French tanks were designed to be an infantry support weapon, while the Germans allowed their tanks to roam free.
They never had to challenge the US and USSR at the start, these 2 also took lessons to heart. Hence why the Russians had the KV-1 and T-34 well and ready before the Germans ever attacked, and the Americans started focusing their armor to be more effective. M4 Sherman was a damn nice tank.
[QUOTE=Jund;50875533]then how come they weren't widespread even by the end of ww2?[/QUOTE]
Post-war military funding was at an all time low due to the war's cost and then eventually the Great Depression. Semi-autos were widespread for the Americans in particular and even the Soviets had some SVT-40s, even though they weren't that good.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;50876664]Post-war military was at an all time low due to the war's cost and then eventually the Great Depression. Semi-autos were widespread for the Americans in particular and even the Soviets had some SVT-40s, even though they weren't that good.[/QUOTE]
so you're saying that the germans could afford to make tiger 2s but couldn't afford to make a semi-auto service rifle?
[QUOTE=Jund;50876672]so you're saying that the germans could afford to make tiger 2s but couldn't afford to make a semi-auto service rifle?[/QUOTE]
No I was saying why Semi-Autos weren't in service before WW2 besides the US.
Specifically with the Germans and their semi-autos, frankly they were pretty crap. Lots of weapons already in production had a way higher priority for supply reasons. Only change for Germany was the invention of the STG44 where they tried to pump out as many as they could with the goal of making it their service rifle, but they just couldn't get the numbers high enough.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;50876682]No I was saying why Semi-Autos weren't in service before WW2 besides the US.
Specifically with the Germans and their semi-autos, frankly they were pretty crap. Lots of weapons already in production had a way higher priority for supply reasons. Only change for Germany was the invention of the STG44 where they tried to pump out as many as they could with the goal of making it their service rifle, but they just couldn't get the numbers high enough.[/QUOTE]
you're saying that the reason militaries didn't adopt semi-autos is due to economics, but by the time of ww2 the economies of the major world powers were resurging, especially with the rabid land grabbing done by the axis. the m1 was even adopted right in the middle of the great depression, and the depression barely affected japan and russia
no the real reason semi-autos weren't wholly adopted during ww2 is because of fundamental combat doctrine differences between the nations, which meant that even if ww1 lasted another year there would have been absolutely no way that semi-autos would have become widespread (nevermind the magical ability of simply "finding" a few million semi-auto rifles to equip your men with)
Well I know for certain the French actually used a semi-auto is somewhat substantial numbers in WW1. You gotta keep in mind though that France and Brattain were in no shape to start replacing all their rifles for economical and political reasons. I think the reason why Germany didn't do it either is quite obvious. In fact, a lot of countries were actually starting to phase in Semi-Autos by WW2 (even Poland),
Basically Brits and French didn't want to develop semi-autos because they already had plenty of bolt-actions and didn't want to spend tons of money on a war they desperately tried to avoid.
[QUOTE=Jund;50876672]so you're saying that the germans could afford to make tiger 2s but couldn't afford to make a semi-auto service rifle?[/QUOTE]
Also don't forget the Hitler's huge boner for the K98, which he wanted to arm everyone with.
[QUOTE=Saber15;50876264]The Germans were so advanced in the late 1930s because they were specifically planning their whole "murder all the poles" campaign, while the allies were bumbling around with the Great Depression.
The M2 tank was obsolete and even the US knew it, hence why it never saw combat. The M3 had a stupid design but it worked long enough - and outgunned anything that wasn't a SPG at the time - for the M4 to come out.
German engineering was godawful in that it was never designed for mass production. Their equipment was great when it worked, but the man-hours that went into it meant that even if they were the size of the USSR they could have never won the war, in terms of manufacturing capacity. That's before we even get into their penchant for making machines as complicated as possible, which bit them in the ass when they decided to invade Russia.
USA was all about churning out one reliable design as fast as possible, the Soviets churned out tanks with parts designed only to last as long as the crew, and the Germans labored over tanks and constantly redesigned shit [I]mid production[/I], hence why there's a goddamn bajillion Panzer variants with their own special snowflake modifications.
Very good video about it, starting at ~26 minutes
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ[/media][/QUOTE]
except that special snowflake design completely decimated US/soviet/UK tank design for at least 3 years. UK got the gist of german tank combat, and when relaying that to the US, the US was like "eh, i doubt we will see as many tigers/panthers" and immediately found out right after when their M4s could not even scratch the front of either tank, or the sides unless it was straight up 0 degree aim while being a lot closer then the fatal range of the tiger/panther. Sure, german tanks took longer to produce and had some stupid variants, but in the beginning of the war, they were easily taking shots from everyone but the soviets.
[QUOTE]U.S. awareness of the inadequacies of their tanks grew only slowly. All U.S. M4 Shermans that landed in Normandy in June 1944 had the 75 mm gun. The 75 mm M4 gun could not penetrate the Panther from the front at all, although it could penetrate various parts of the Panther from the side at ranges from 400 to 2,600 m (440 to 2,840 yd). The 76 mm gun could also not penetrate the front hull armour of the Panther, but could penetrate the Panther turret mantlet at very close range.[119] In August 1944, the HVAP (high velocity armour-piercing) 76 mm round was introduced to improve the performance of the 76 mm M4 Shermans. With a tungsten core, this round could still not penetrate the Panther glacis plate, but could punch through the Panther mantlet at 730 to 910 m (800 to 1,000 yd), instead of the usual 91 m (100 yd) for the normal 76 mm round. Tungsten production shortages meant that this round was always in short supply, with only a few available per tank, and some M4 Sherman units never received any.
Whereas Sherman tanks used a high flash powder, making it easier for German tankers to spot them, German tanks used a low flash powder, making it harder for Allied crews to spot them. Shermans, even though they were around 15 tons lighter than Panthers, had worse cross country mobility due to their narrower tracks. A US corporal stated:
I saw where some MkV tanks crossed a muddy field without sinking the tracks over five inches, where we in the M4 started across the same field the same day and bogged down.[page needed]
The 90 mm M36 tank destroyer was introduced in September 1944; the 90 mm round also proved to have difficulty penetrating the Panther's glacis plate, and it was not until an HVAP version of the round was developed that it could effectively penetrate it from combat range. It was very effective against the Panther's front turret and side.
The high U.S. tank losses in the Battle of the Bulge against a force largely of Panther tanks brought about a clamour for better armour and firepower. At General Eisenhower's request, only 76 mm gun-armed M4 Shermans were shipped to Europe for the remainder of the war. Small numbers of the M26 Pershing were also rushed into combat in late February 1945. A dramatic newsreel film was recorded by a U.S. Signal Corps cameraman of an M26 stalking and then blowing up a Panther in the city of Cologne, after the Panther had knocked out two M4 Shermans.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50876747]Sure, german tanks took longer to produce and had some stupid variants, but in the beginning of the war, they were easily taking shots from everyone but the soviets.[/QUOTE]
Considering that the only reason that German tanks had any superiority on Eastern Front in the begining of Barbarosa is because they were basically dealing with outdated supporting armor (since the main armored force was relegated for Offense which was supposed to happen a few days post-Barbarosa) which was haphazardly thrown at the enemy, in what can be at best be called the most historical iteration of Tank Spam, without proper supply lines and often leaving them without proper support (i.e. infantry and artillery would pull back, leaving armor to fend for itself, where it would either be demolished because it's outdated trash (T-2/46 series, BT series (love the cute buggers, but they were not built for armor/armor combat)) or complex heavy designs (KV-series) that simply could not fall back, and thus ended up being finished off by artillery) is hardly a good measure.
Most German tanks could not have taken on a KV-1 head on, and T-34's were a nasty surprise in their own rights. It's just that most armor encountered by Germans were fucking reserve designs from early 30's or was literally left behind in the clusterfuck of the retreat into the depths of USSR. But anyway, that's just me wanking off to soviet technology, because someone has to counteract wehraboos.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50876747]except that special snowflake design completely decimated US/soviet/UK tank design for at least 3 years. UK got the gist of german tank combat, and when relaying that to the US, the US was like "eh, i doubt we will see as many tigers/panthers" and immediately found out right after when their M4s could not even scratch the front of either tank, or the sides unless it was straight up 0 degree aim while being a lot closer then the fatal range of the tiger/panther. Sure, german tanks took longer to produce and had some stupid variants, but in the beginning of the war, they were easily taking shots from everyone but the soviets.[/QUOTE]
the germans definitely had the best medium tanks by the late 30s but calling their engineering incredible compared to everyone else is a bit of a stretch seeing as how they were kinda plotting during the years before that to murder everyone and take over the world while everyone else was busy with revolutions, fixing their economy, or massacring other asians while sucking at making tanks
they were really better only because they had a head start, not because of them being german
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50874551]german engineering at 1930-45 was incredible, you had the PanzerIII tanks that were completely ahead of the pack with a top speed of 25mph on roads while supporting 2 inch thick armor and had future proofing by making the turret ring larger to be able to be modulated in future weapon enhancements. This was in 1939 which at the time the americans had the M2 tank which was instantly obsolete by the time WW2 had started, compared to the PanzerIII being used the entire war due to how great the technology was at the time. Soviets only had the T-26 at the time and that was just again obsolete by the start of WW2.
germans were extremely advanced mechanically and doctrine wise by the start of WWII, and most of it was learning from finding the weakness in older war doctrines and how to counteract it. The easiest way is to just bumrush the enemy instead of hunkering down, then hunker down afterwards.
The germans solely saw amazing success in the beginning of the war due to how other countries saw war at the time, and exploited it entirely with their technology and combat doctrines.[/QUOTE]
When you say incredible German engineering, do you mean the PzIII and PzIV which were unable to penetrate a Kv-1 nor T-34 when deployed for Operation Barbarossa? Could it possibly be the Panther, a tank that had more losses due to mechanical failures than actual enemy fire? Maybe it's the Tiger, with a horrible operational range of a few kilometers before running out of fuel or breaking down? A tank that was quickly replaced with the Tiger II, another unreliable nightmare of a tank?
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50876747]except that special snowflake design completely decimated US/soviet/UK tank design for at least 3 years. UK got the gist of german tank combat, and when relaying that to the US, the US was like "eh, i doubt we will see as many tigers/panthers" and immediately found out right after when their M4s could not even scratch the front of either tank, or the sides unless it was straight up 0 degree aim while being a lot closer then the fatal range of the tiger/panther. Sure, german tanks took longer to produce and had some stupid variants, but in the beginning of the war, they were easily taking shots from everyone but the soviets.[/QUOTE]
The special snowflake design ethos is stupid, because it's a logistical nightmare to keep those tanks running at peak efficiency if parts on one don't fit another, and the modifications ('lets replace the commander's hatch with this slightly different one') made on the assembly line don't have any serious effect on the tank's performance. The base design for the Panzers and Tigers may have been better for sheer combat for their tonnage, but the production philosophy meant that they were far more complicated than they had any right to be and used non-standardized parts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.