[Khenlein]

A thread comparing German and Soviet tanks , you can read until yoru eyes give up or your head explodes.

[url]http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97240[/url]

[MB.]

(I forget the city and American force defending it?)

Bastonge and the Airborne defending it, I believe.

As to all this American tactics thing, it really comes down my fundemental assesment of the Western front of World War Two (1944 onwards).

The Americans and British made numerous blunders when making the march to Germany, which they could have easily avoided (like taking winter clothes and camo, for example). Any rate, despite such blunders the Americans, Canadians, British and French did defeat the Germans, but over a long period of time, and against forces far far smaller then thier own. This leads me to summourise that the Allies won the war, not because of equipment or tactics (think Operation Market Garden, Overlord, Good Wood, Cobra etc), but becuase of a vast (and I mean vast!) numerical supeority.

Had they employed sucsessfule tactics, they, by all logic, should have beat the Soviets into Berlin.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Hindsight is 20/20 isnt it? Or maybe foresight too, the allies should have predicted the coldest winter in decades.

[MB.]

Bah! Internet sarcasim doesn't go over well.

But consider- the Germans, when invading Russia in 1941 didn't bring winter uniforms, and paid the price for it. Thus, when they were fighting on the westren front later, they were equipt with winter uniforms, knowing what a differnce that made. Why did the allies not learn from thier mistake?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Your right, all the allies were ignorant except the (everybody bow down) the Red Army.

[MB.]

Hey, I never said the Red Army was perfect (and we all know, it was far from that at the beginning of the war), but what I am saying is that the Allie's have been overated and blown out of perportion in terms of thier involment and importance (however, the American Pacific theatre is another thing all together).

[Din]

the french army was superior in numbers and armour but a lot of it's equipment was outdated ww1 "cannons" being used in some of the desparte defense, the manginot line didn't stretch far up north enough for it to be effective...... otherwise you had the first unbreakable line

oh and for the allies being blown outta proportion yes you are correct but the victor always writes the history

apparently we won on dumb look with there beng more men and better equipment to the germans in 1944 than to the allies. 5 shermans were needed to knock out one lepard

russia acted pretty much on it's own apart form a donation of 500 churchill tanks in 1942 for the UK and 100 USMC trucks that were converted into the famous "katyusha" rocket launcher the design of the truck was copied in russian factories and used in the front lines until the advent of the war

[Comrade Ogilvy]

apparently we won on dumb look with there beng more men and better equipment to the germans in 1944 than to the allies. 5 shermans were needed to knock out one lepard

So we can chalk up the fall of Nazi germany and imperialist Japan to dumb-luck? Wow isnt the world lucky!!!

[Din]

yes if it hadn't been for the dumb luck of the last russian soldiers in stalingrad and the dumb luck of the RAF i would be sitting shouting seig heil!

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I see, the success of the RAF was dumb luck and not the ingenuity of radar. And the allied success in the pacific was due to dumb luck and not the ingenuity of allied code breakers.

[Boondock Saint]

I see, the success of the RAF was dumb luck and not the ingenuity of radar. And the allied success in the pacific was due to dumb luck and not the ingenuity of allied code breakers.

PLEASE!

You want to start a pacific thread? FINE! Go do it.

I thank everyone for their input, I will begin a new topic on WWII.

[Khenlein]

the french army was superior in numbers and armour but a lot of it's equipment was outdated ww1 "cannons" being used in some of the desparte defence, the manginot line didn't stretch far up north enough for it to be effective...... otherwise you had the first unbreakable line

oh and for the allies being blown outta proportion yes you are correct but the victor always writes the history

apparently we won on dumb look with there beng more men and better equipment to the germans in 1944 than to the allies. 5 shermans were needed to knock out one lepard

russia acted pretty much on it's own apart form a donation of 500 churchill tanks in 1942 for the UK and 100 USMC trucks that were converted into the famous "katyusha" rocket launcher the design of the truck was copied in russian factories and used in the front lines until the advent of the war

You've got to be kidding me.

I'm inclined to post pointing out the obvious faults with that statement, but I find it hard to believe you were being serious. Please put up a post saying this isn't a joke, and I'll point them out.


But seriously,,,,you're kidding, right?

[Din]

no actually i am not neway.........
i did a bit more reasearch the problem was that there were plenty of tanks ready to beta of the germans, HOWEVER the tanks were not used as a separate force but as infantry support
neway yes most things were on dumb luck in the pacific and atlantic especially as it was only by chance that they caught the enigma machines and code books.

what else?

[Din]

i remeber now

the french army was considered to be one of the best equipped in the world, but it had outdated doctrines

so no i am not kidding in neway ut if u wanna post my faults post them and i shall apologize

[ahab]

(I forget the city and American force defending it?)

Bastonge and the Airborne defending it, I believe.

101st Airborne. They were one of the first units into Iraq and one of the better equiped in the US Army. When the 101st was deployed war in Iraq was considered inevitable as they aren't a force that gets deployed for no reason.

I think I was the writer of the quote that started this thread

T-34s are irrelevant in this discussion as they came long after Germany was done attacking France.

and I left all my tank books at home...

[Din]

actually t-34's do come into it as during the annexation of poland these tanks were put into production, these worked alongside the stalin-4 and...
D7 fast attack tank by 1940 1,200 t-34's were produced and by 1941 1,500 were produced i haven't found any numbers of t-34 production in 1939 but some were built even if they were only the prototypes, i personally do not have the 1939 number in my archive any help please?

but what does the 101st airbourne in 2003 have to do with the 101st in 1944?

[Khenlein]

the french army was superior in numbers and armour but a lot of it's equipment was outdated ww1 "cannons" being used in some of the desparte defence,

This statement is for the most part true, there is a difference beteween 'alot' and 'some' though.

-Alot of the field guns weren't simply stock GW era cannons, but the improved versions of their predecessors.

-The most numerous ATG gun in the french army was the sa mle '34, a 25mm gun with a decent muzzle velocity. It cound frontally penetrate the majority of German tanks at a range of 500m or less, The sa mle '37 wasn't as readily avaliable but it was a brutal little gun, it could effectively take out any German tank during the BOF from effecitve combat ranges.

- Of the roughly 2,300 tanks in the French army at the time. About 1,500 were of the Hotchkiss, Char, and Somua designs which were totally capable of facing down their German contempararies( the S35 and Char b1 bis outclassing the German tanks). The low velocity SA 18 3.7cm guns of the R-35 weren't the best, but acted well in the capacity of infantry support. There were even about 1,500 of the "rennies".

the manginot line didn't stretch far up north enough for it to be effective...... otherwise you had the first unbreakable line

There were political and financial reasons why the lne wasn't extended to the channel , primarily being the Belgiums. LOL, if you thinkd about it the French would of been completely writing off the Beglians by building their fortresses behind the poor low country. The Maginot was by no means unbreakable, but its an interesting fact that even attackign the rear of the fortications, the Germans suffered a bit of damage.

apparently we won on dumb look with there beng more men and better equipment to the germans in 1944 than to the allies. 5 shermans were needed to knock out one lepard

Techonogically the German equipment was usually always on par or better their the Allied/Soviet counterparts, but there was definately more men and material in our camp as opposed to the Germans. In 1944 the Red Army alone outnumbered the entire Werhmact , had more AFVs, air craft, and guns.

This isn't even to mention the massive American and British Air Fleets based in England and the Med/Italy.

By the end of the war their were 50,000 Shermans alone produced, the second most built tank was the T-34 at about 40,000 models. Thats in comparison to the roughly 33,000 tanks produced by Germany Overall. Granted some of the German tanks were superior to their Allied/Soviet counterparts, however only about 15,000 of the German production were the newer Ausf's of the PIV, Tiger, Panther and King Tiger. The two main allied tanks theemselves almost Triple the entire German production (thats including the Pz I, II, IIIs). Thats not to mention the other Soviet and Allied tanks.

The situation was comparable in the air where by mid- 1944 the ratio of German/Allied aircraft was about 8:1. Safe to say production wise the Ruhr simply couldn't keep up.

Also, "lepard", the Leo's weren't built in Germany till well after Post-war (their fairly recent tanks). If you mean the Tiger tank than yes U.S Army tactical doctrine called on engaging a Tiger with at least 4 Shermans if a victory is to be expected. (course its just a general rule, see Michael Wittman). However the difference being the Allies could sustain that rate while the Germans couldnt. (less than 7,000 Tigers/Panthers produced).

russia acted pretty much on it's own apart form a donation of 500 churchill tanks in 1942 for the UK and 100 USMC trucks that were converted into the famous "katyusha" rocket launcher the design of the truck was copied in russian factories and used in the front lines until the advent of the war

This is also fairly inaccurate. Between the years 1941- to may of 1945 in a series of lend lease protocols enacted by the U.S congress. The Soviet Union recieved:

In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machi­ne tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc

from airforce.users.ru

The aircraft numbers were about:

Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers, and 16-23% of all fighters (numbers vary depending on calculation methods), and 29% of all naval aircraft. In some AF commands and fronts the proportion of Lend-Lease aircraft was even higher: of the 9.888 fighters delivered to the air defense (PVO) fighter units in 1941-45 6.953 (or over 70%!) were British or American. In the AF of the Karelian front lend-lease aircraft amounted to about two-thirds of all combat aircraft in 1942-43, practically all torpedo bombers of the naval air forces were A-20G Bostons in 1944-45 etc.

[Din]

ah stupid me i only got the 501 churchills and 100 usmc trucks being delivered in 1942, though what is the point of a lease led when they only gonna get blown up anyway?
that history book is going straight on the fire

some history books are always contradicting eachother as are most historians......
so khenlein i apologise for some of the inaccurate info in my posts

[MB.]

I hate to bring this out, but sicne Kenlein won't except fact...

Are we next going to learn that the Italians had the best army of the war?



This would be like me trying to argue that the Canadians were a force to be messed with (which my history teachers and text books seem to claim).

[Din]

i don't know much about the Italian army, except that it steadily collapsed, was involoved in the Battle of Britain aswell as in Operation: Barbarossa and was responisble (originally) for securing Libea and the Middle Eastern Oil reserves, but lacked "competence" as some history books suggest, thus hitler had to send in the AFRIKA KORPS, to help out and both were beaten by Montgomery's 8th army, in 1942