World War II - A Look At History - General

[QUOTE=Gurant;28767280]I like this topic. I'm a collector of everything WW2. It's mostly junk, but atleast I have something to spend money on. [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/mwtZS.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Is any of that stuff real or is it all replicas?

To clarify the trolling of previous pages, many German soldiers did [b]not[/b] commit war crimes, especially those under the command of Rommel and Guderian. German high command in fact, delivered a directive to commanders not to stop war crimes simply because they did not have time, [b]but[/b] many commanders, the aforementioned two chiefly among them, made sure that no war crimes were committed under their command. The perpetrators of most of the suffering and crimes against humanity was the Nazi Party and the SS, who were just glorified party members with guns. In regards to Russian war crimes, there really is no way to look at it other than Soviet soldiers were pointed at Germany and told to, in essence, kill everything in their way. The real shame in the Soviet military is that they viewed their men as expendable means to an end. In general, Russia, has historically held less regard for human life, of course, they 'won' the war, so their atrocities are overlooked, while all Germans are painted with a negative light. In my humble opinion, anybody who fought and died for their country has earned respect, but those that butchered the citizens of their own and other countries deserves none.

So, Sourcream&onion, you are a subcriber of the belief that the Soviets' sole attributes in WWII were its army's immense size and its limitlessness supply of expendable human resources?

[QUOTE=Patjo_sweden;28772857]Is any of that stuff real or is it all replicas?[/QUOTE] both, the officer caps are replicas, and one of the uniforms and some other stuff. I don't mind if they're replicas, I just like to collect them :)

YB-28 vs B-29

[QUOTE=Gurant;28767280]I like this topic. I'm a collector of everything WW2. It's mostly junk, but atleast I have something to spend money on. [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/mwtZS.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Woah, is that a MP-40?

[QUOTE=TinSoldier;28775270]YB-28 vs B-29[/QUOTE] Fuck that, Projekt C vs B-36!

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochus_Misch[/url] Wow, the last man left from Hitlers final days...

[img]http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_01/SpitfireMainDM_468x277.jpg[/img] Spitfire. <3

[QUOTE=TicTac;28808691][img_thumb]http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_01/SpitfireMainDM_468x277.jpg[/img_thumb] Spitfire. <3[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.modelkitsworld.com/media/catalog/product/cache/13/thumbnail/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/0/4/04679_I_Messerschmitt_Bf_109_E_4.jpg[/IMG] Checkmate. [sp] (Yes, I know that's a Hurricane going down, but it's all I could find)[/sp]

We here in Norway got Germans watching our country in the WWII time... Anybody got the "Nazi Iron Cross" 1939 model except for my family? Hooray for stairs :v:

Oh jeezuz, I saw 5 Mosins at the local Sports store. :fappery:

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;28825310]Oh jeezuz, I saw 5 Mosins at the local Sports store. :fappery:[/QUOTE] I have seen 10 at once. Swear it wasn't in the Soviet camp at a Re-enactment show.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;28773502]So, Sourcream&onion, you are a subcriber of the belief that the Soviets' sole attributes in WWII were its army's immense size and its limitlessness supply of expendable human resources?[/QUOTE] I never said that or implied it in my post, are you looking to pick an argument of some kind?

[QUOTE=Sourcream&onion;28773158]The real shame in the Soviet military is that they viewed their men as expendable means to an end.[/QUOTE] Okay. You could elaborate on this further, and maybe give a difference that distinguishes it from the Western Allies view of "expendable" men. The Soviet Army that defeated Germany in 1944-1945 was a different beast from the Stalin-raped Army of the early period of war. Here's a little something I'll post from one my David Glantz books: [quote]In the First Period of War, the Red Army had frittered away an enormous numerical advantage because it lacked the skill to deploy and maneuver its forces. During the Second Period, neither side had an overwhelming strategic advantage in numbers, but the Soviets had slowly developed the maneuver and deception skills necessary to create a favorable correlation of forces at the critical point. During the Third Period, the Soviets had both the numbers and the skill to destroy the German forces, but the manpower crisis necessitated a continued emphasis on sophisticated maneuver attacks. Massive frontal assaults occurred but more infrequently, and they were usually examples of failure on the part of Red Army commanders.[/quote] [quote]By contrast, the Third Period of War marked the full development of Soviet force structure, equipment, and operational and tactical concepts. Before considering this development, however, it should be recognized that the Soviets, like the Germans, suffered from severe manpower shortages. The staggering civilian and military casualties of the war, the large factories needed to maintain weapons production, and the demands of rebuilding a shattered economy in land reclaimed from the Germans all strained the supposedly inexhaustible supply of Soviet manpower. The manpower needed to build new specialized units could come only by reducing the number of replacements provided to existing front-line units. Moreover, with the Soviets almost continuously on the offensive, they inevitably suffered heavier casualties at the tactical level than the German defenders. As a rule of thumb, during the Third Period of the War the Soviet combat units directly involved in an offensive suffered 22 to 25 percent casualties in order to accomplish their objectives.[/quote]

Man, Saving Private Ryan is such a good movie.

I love to study this war. There is just so many what-ifs to explore in it...Only if we could get a good game that would let you fully explore these what ifs. The best game that I played that came the closest to it was Axis&Allies that came out in 2004.

I'm doing a speech on PTSD among war veterans, specifically World War II veterans. I'm mostly only finding information on Vietnam and Korean war vets. Anyone know where I could find some good information on World War II veterans, specifically?

man hitler was a big dork.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;28771683]Yep, the ONLY strength of the Soviet Army was in their numbers and nothing else. They were never a competent army. The Soviets continually ignored human losses and lend lease was critical for Soviet victory. Hitler was the cause of virtually all German defeats, and the Soviets relied for success on mass rather than maneuver. :downs: Come on, what's with this obsession of labeling the Soviet military as a gigantic Slavic horde? This isn't the Cold War anymore.[/QUOTE] My, my. What baseless vitriol, next you'll be telling us the RAF was an utterly futile organisation whose existence was detrimental to the allied war effort. To be honest the majority of things said in this thread are in fact total nonsense and people seem to have learnt all of their military history relating to this period from video games/Hollywood films. [QUOTE=ze beaver;28539631] Now to start a debate (or a flamewar...) which tank influenced post-war designs the most, Panther or T-34?[/QUOTE] Just to point out that the Panther (PzKpfw V) was actually designed specifically as a "T-34 killer". Thus the question isn't really a valid one as the T-34 was literally the reason for the development of the PzKpfw V. Yep.

[QUOTE=Mr.Haughty;28979340] Just to point out that the Panther (PzKpfw V) was actually designed specifically as a "T-34 killer". Thus the question isn't really a valid one as the T-34 was literally the reason for the development of the PzKpfw V. Yep.[/QUOTE] There is still an argument, Just because it was designed to take out a tank doesn't mean it could be inferior or superior.

ive always wondered how society would be like if the nazis won.

[QUOTE=Polaco202;28979414]There is still an argument, Just because it was designed to take out a tank doesn't mean it could be inferior or superior.[/QUOTE] The question posed had nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. Just to point out old chap, [QUOTE=ze beaver;28539631] Now to start a debate (or a flamewar...) [b]which tank influenced post-war designs the most, Panther or T-34?[/b] [/QUOTE]

Something like [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvR15G8yEhg&playnext=1&list=PLEC33CFF4743723C3]Fatherland[/url] and maybe. Vichy France and France being one again, occupied countries like Belgium, Netherlands freed again (occupied to prevent a allied invasion). Several country's around the world adapting to include racial laws. SS scaled down to a police force. And something like Apartheid is created. (Thats all I can think of at 7 AM)

[QUOTE=Hick2;28573464]T-34, Slanted armour is still used today, aswell as the design premise which is used in almost every tank.[/QUOTE] Though these days it all depends on what the armour is made of pretty much. Sabot rounds don't care about thickness or whether your armour is slanted, it just peels through it. I would say that the tiger and panther shaped the direction in which tanks went, it forced the Soviets and western allies to come up with designs to counter them. But then i guess that's also the work of the t-34 and KV-1 as the tiger and panther were counters to them. [QUOTE=Polaco202;28979414]There is still an argument, Just because it was designed to take out a tank doesn't mean it could be inferior or superior.[/QUOTE] Ergonomically, the panther was a much better tank. It was much more comfortable, the gun outranged that of the t-34/76 and the t-34-85, the armour was thicker and gave better protection, and the gun also gave much better armour penetration and it certainly had a much higher kill ratio than the t-34. However, it was much more diffcult to produce than the t-34 and as it turned out, logistics counted more than ergonomics and well... you know the rest.

[QUOTE=Mr.Haughty;28979340]My, my. What baseless vitriol, next you'll be telling us the RAF was an utterly futile organisation whose existence was detrimental to the allied war effort. To be honest the majority of things said in this thread are in fact total nonsense and people seem to have learnt all of their military history relating to this period from video games/Hollywood films. [/QUOTE] The Call of Duty games using Enemy at the Gates as inspiration doesn't help. I've spoken to quite a few people who truly believed that human wave attacks like shown in the beginning of the movie were the common Soviet low-level offensive action from 1941-1945.

[QUOTE=Mr.Haughty;28979340]Just to point out that the Panther (PzKpfw V) was actually designed specifically as a "T-34 killer". Thus the question isn't really a valid one as the T-34 was literally the reason for the development of the PzKpfw V. Yep.[/QUOTE] Even if the T-34 triggered the development of the Panther, they used significantly different technology. If you look at the suspension for example, the Panther used torsion bars with interleaved wheels. The T-34 used a Christie-style suspension. It seems that post-war tanks uses the best of both designs, the small size of torsion bars and the road wheels from the T-34. Which reminds me, why is there a space between the second and third road wheel? [QUOTE=CertainDOOM;28980126] Ergonomically, the panther was a much better tank. It was much more comfortable, the gun outranged that of the t-34/76 and the t-34-85, the armour was thicker and gave better protection, and the gun also gave much better armour penetration and it certainly had a much higher kill ratio than the t-34. However, it was much more diffcult to produce than the t-34 and as it turned out, logistics counted more than ergonomics and well... you know the rest.[/QUOTE] You have to take in account reliability too :eng101: Panthers weren't exactly good at staying in one working piece of equipment, the Tiger was still the best when it came to unreliability though :v: T-34's weren't exactly reliable either though, depends what plant they came from and which period they were made. Like, when the factory workers were replaced by inexperienced women and children, the quality dropped significantly. Unaligned gun sights were pretty common back then.

[QUOTE=ze beaver;28989604]You have to take in account reliability too :eng101: Panthers weren't exactly good at staying in one working piece of equipment, the Tiger was still the best when it came to unreliability though :v: T-34's weren't exactly reliable either though, depends what plant they came from and which period they were made. Like, when the factory workers were replaced by inexperienced women and children, the quality dropped significantly. Unaligned gun sights were pretty common back then.[/QUOTE] True that the t-34 was proven nearer to the end of the war but by that time, so was the panther. It didn't have the best debut, but once they'd sorted the teething, exhaust and a number of other problems, it was all good.

[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;28992543]True that the t-34 was proven nearer to the end of the war but by that time, so was the panther. It didn't have the best debut, but once they'd sorted the teething, exhaust and a number of other problems, it was all good.[/QUOTE] Just imagine if the germans managed to perfect the Landkreuzer P.1500 and use it in the field.

[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;28993465]Just imagine if the germans managed to perfect the Landkreuzer P.1500 and use it in the field.[/QUOTE] It would have been target practice for allied aircraft. Bigger =/= better.