World War II - A Look At History - General

[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;28993465]Just imagine if the germans managed to perfect the Landkreuzer P.1500 and use it in the field.[/QUOTE] [img]http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/rattefront.JPG[/img] Ratte where it's at. Sadly (or rather, not so sadly) it was cancelled in 1943 by Albert Speer. [QUOTE=ze beaver;29002015]It would have been target practice for allied aircraft. Bigger =/= better.[/QUOTE] Although the p.1000 and p.1500 were terrible ideas, this is like saying that battleships are worthless because they're bigger targets for aircraft.

[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;29007863]Although the p.1000 and p.1500 were terrible ideas, this is like saying that battleships are worthless because they're bigger targets for aircraft.[/QUOTE] Out in the open sea and before the wide proliferation of naval aviation and missiles, indeed "bigger is better".

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29011722]Out in the open sea and before the wide proliferation of naval aviation and missiles, indeed "bigger is better".[/QUOTE] In naval combat that is true. But as the Prince of Wales, Yamato and Tirpitz found out, it tends to attract bombers.

[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;29011948]In naval combat that is true. But as the Prince of Wales, Yamato and Tirpitz found out, it tends to attract bombers.[/QUOTE] Hence "before the wide proliferation of naval aviation and missiles". Though the a large-ish surface combat vessel isn't a dead concept yet, especially when the Soviet Navy commissioned the Kirov battlecruisers in the 1980s and the US Navy believed it was capable of a threat enough that it made them modernize their Iowas.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29012363]Hence "before the wide proliferation of naval aviation and missiles". Though the a large-ish surface combat vessel isn't a dead concept yet, especially when the Soviet Navy commissioned the Kirov battlecruisers in the 1980s and the US Navy believed it was capable of a threat enough that it made them modernize their Iowas.[/QUOTE] It is pretty interesting that the US kept the Iowas in service for over 40 years. I also find it interesting the firepower of battleships peaked in WW2 yet that was the last large scale service they were ever going to see.

[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;29012435]It is pretty interesting that the US kept the Iowas in service for over 40 years. I also find it interesting the firepower of battleships peaked in WW2 yet that was the last large scale service they were ever going to see.[/QUOTE] They needed naval artillery with more punch than those puny 5-inch guns mounted on most US Navy surface combatants now. [editline]5th April 2011[/editline] Interesting fact: If the 1970s CGSN ship was actually built and commissioned, then the US Navy would have the 8-inch gun to use. I heard it sunk a WWII destroyer in one hit during tests.

[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;29011948]In naval combat that is true. But as the Prince of Wales, Yamato and Tirpitz found out, it tends to attract bombers.[/QUOTE] They just need to make a vehicle so fucking big that no nation would ever dare fight it. Wait a minute: [img]http://www.shuttervoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Supreme-Commander-2.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=edopo;28979436]ive always wondered how society would be like if the nazis won.[/QUOTE] read Philip K. Dick's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_High_Castle]The Man in the High Castle[/url]

Just going to drop by and say I'm a WW2 reenactor. It's fun as shit and you should take a look at it if you have any semblance of interest in WW2. /advert

There's another gigantic cannon used in WW2 the Schwerer Gustav [it could shoot over countries] .This looks like the Big Bertha. But not used so much because the Germans where afraid that ''good'' countries want too capture it.So they only used it against the Russians. And Schwerer Gustav means translated to English Heavy Gustaf. [img]http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/761/g13oi.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Asmaedus;29034064]Just going to drop by and say I'm a WW2 reenactor. It's fun as shit and you should take a look at it if you have any semblance of interest in WW2. /advert[/QUOTE] Naturally, I'd rather reenact the air war.

[QUOTE=Tnak;29056550]There's another gigantic cannon used in WW2 the Schwerer Gustav [it could shoot over countries] .This looks like the Big Bertha. But not used so much because the Germans where afraid that ''good'' countries want too capture it.So they only used it against the Russians. And Schwerer Gustav means translated to English Heavy Gustaf. [img_thumb]http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/761/g13oi.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Indeed, RIP Sevastopol.

If anyone here is interested in finding the Kriegsstarkenachweisungen (Organizational) tables for the Wehrmacht Heer (There's also a single chart for a Bf 109 squadron) I found a nice little site that contains a large number of them some time ago: [URL]http://www.wwiidaybyday.com/[/URL] Of course what was called for on paper and what existed in the field differed quite a bit; Especially in the latter years of the war. The bulk of the site is in German, but it isn't all that difficult to understand.

Which country did most actions to achieve victory? Hmm? Tell me. [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] [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] Psst. Wanna hear something? Soviet losses are counted with civilian losses. Soviets lost same number of soldiers as Nazis or even lesser. Most deaths were in civilian population.Nazis burnt entire villages to ashes. [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] T-34's best ahievement was round form. Shells just bounced from it, not doing any real damage. And do you know what soldiers did when caterpillars gone off from their tracks? They smashed it back with sledgehammer, and all was alright. It was tough and reliable.

[QUOTE=maxumym;29070900]Which country did most actions to achieve victory? Hmm? Tell me. [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] Psst. Wanna hear something? Soviet losses are counted with civilian losses. Soviets lost same number of soldiers as Nazis or even lesser. Most deaths were in civilian population.Nazis burnt entire villages to ashes.[/QUOTE] Sigh, it seems that people don't understand the sarcasm behind my post. Oh well, I'll remove it to prevent misunderstandings.

[QUOTE=maxumym;29070900] Psst. Wanna hear something? Soviet losses are counted with civilian losses. Soviets lost same number of soldiers as Nazis or even lesser. Most deaths were in civilian population.Nazis burnt entire villages to ashes. [/QUOTE] According to Wikipedia the Soviet Union suffered between eight and ten million Military losses. The Germans lost 5,500,000. I'm well aware that Soviet infantry tactics did not amount to just charging the enemy lines, but if you read veteran accounts you do run into such things quite often.

[QUOTE=Theo213;29075109]According to Wikipedia the Soviet Union suffered between eight and ten million Military losses. The Germans lost 5,500,000. I'm well aware that Soviet infantry tactics did not amount to just charging the enemy lines, but if you read veteran accounts you do run into such things quite often.[/QUOTE] When the Soviets faced manpower shortages beginning in 1944, they had to use sophisticated maneuver attacks to preserve combat capability and fortunately they had the experienced commanders and soldiers to carry them out. Are those veterans' accounts from the first, second or third period of war?

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29075292]When the Soviets faced manpower shortages beginning in 1944, they had to use sophisticated maneuver attacks to preserve combat capability and fortunately they had the experienced commanders and soldiers to carry them out. Are those veterans' accounts from the first, second or third period of war?[/QUOTE] Mostly prior to the summer of '44 and Zitadelle.

[QUOTE=Theo213;29078990]Mostly prior to the summer of '44 and Zitadelle.[/QUOTE] There you go. By late war, the Soviet Army was no longer the broken force it was in 1941. I'll repost the David Glantz quotes for more information: [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]

[QUOTE=maxumym;29070900]T-34's best ahievement was round form. Shells just bounced from it, not doing any real damage. And do you know what soldiers did when caterpillars gone off from their tracks? They smashed it back with sledgehammer, and all was alright. It was tough and reliable.[/QUOTE] Sure, early war. But after mid-1942 the Germans had guns that could take it out with ease from 1000 metres away. Reliable throughout the war? Definitely. But the armour protection is not something you can claim on for the entire war. The KV-1 however proved a little more problematic in terms of protection for the Germans. But mechanically it was a horrible machine.

[QUOTE=maxumym;29070900] T-34's best ahievement was round form. Shells just bounced from it, not doing any real damage. And do you know what soldiers did when caterpillars gone off from their tracks? They smashed it back with sledgehammer, and all was alright. It was tough and reliable.[/QUOTE] Well the sloped armor sure helped. But due to its thickness, T-34's didn't really bounce many shells except in very exceptional conditions. Also, why are you calling them "nazis"? The only nazis on the German side were S.S. units, which were a paramilitary organization.

Ultimately, superiority in equipment and technical means is secondary to the training and abilities of the men using them and their commanders.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29083561]Ultimately, superiority in equipment and technical means is secondary to the training and abilities of the men using them and their commanders.[/QUOTE] The latter of which was also fairly high in many German formations up until the end of the war.

[QUOTE=Theo213;29093159]The latter of which was also fairly high in many German formations up until the end of the war.[/QUOTE] At least on the Eastern Front, German quality in training and leadership was slipping beginning in late 1942 and was beginning to acquire the weaknesses of the Soviet Army in 1941.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29095430]At least on the Eastern Front, German quality in training and leadership was slipping beginning in late 1942 and was beginning to acquire the weaknesses of the Soviet Army in 1941.[/QUOTE] I don't believe it ever fell completely down to that standard though. Except for maybe during the Battle of Berlin and 1945 eastern front.

[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;29101144]I don't believe it ever fell completely down to that standard though. Except for maybe during the Battle of Berlin and 1945 eastern front.[/QUOTE] Well, it did so earlier than that. I already posted several quotes from David Glantz's book [i]When Titans Clashed[/i] that substantiate my position. Why don't you acquire that book and give it a read? I'll post another one as well: [quote]From late 1942 onward, the Wehrmacht began to lose many of its distinctive advantages and to acquire some of the weaknesses of its opponent. Continuous casualties meant a decline in training and, therefore, in tactical proficiency. Equipment wore out, and the German economy was no longer able to provide quality weapons in sufficient quantities to maintain the previous technological edge. As for leadership, Adolph Hitler began to resemble the Stalin of 1941. Having been correct to forbid withdrawals during the first Soviet winter offensive, Hitler interfered more and more in operations, both offensive and defensive. Although this interference has been exaggerated as a kind of universal German alibi for any defeat, it is true that the German forces gradually lost the flexibility and subordinate initiative that had made them so successful. A few brilliant commanders were permitted to make their own decisions as late as 1945, but, if they failed, they were soon replaced by men too timid to even request the authority to maneuver. Führungsoffiziers, the Nazi equivalent of political commissars, began to appear in German headquarters, and commanders who suffered defeat for any reason were lucky to escape with their lives. Under these circumstances, the German soldier's principal motivation became simple survival. At the tactical level, only the most fanatical Nazis had any faith in ultimate victory, but every German feared to surrender to a seemingly inhuman enemy.[/quote]

I think my dad has a Nazi pocket knife, his uncle gave it to him. His uncle killed a Nazi and took it off of him, IIRC you can still see dry blood on it. But I might be crazy.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29101905]Well, it did so earlier than that. I already posted several quotes from David Glantz's book [i]When Titans Clashed[/i] that substantiate my position. Why don't you acquire that book and give it a read? I'll post another one as well:[/QUOTE] So ultimately it was Hitler's fault. Understandable why most Germans preferred to surrender to the American and British armies though.

[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;29103666]So ultimately it was Hitler's fault. Understandable why most Germans preferred to surrender to the American and British armies though.[/QUOTE] Hitler's fault for starting the war, the Wehrmacht officers' fault for being outfought by the Soviets.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29109652]Hitler's fault for starting the war, the Wehrmacht officers' fault for being outfought by the Soviets.[/QUOTE] Hitler's fault for replacing the officers if they failed at all. According to that quote you posted anyway. Also Hitler's fault for not allowing a withdrawal from Stalingrad.