As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Let's talk about Wehraboos

123457

Posts

  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    Elldren wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Most of the German Super tanks like the Tiger I & II, The Panther and the King Tiger where killed by fighter bombers anyway. A 500 pound bomb landing your roof courtesy of the RAF and Army Air Force would ruin anybody's day.

    But let's face it, usually that bomb was dropped by the Soviet Air Forces

    actually from what i understand, most of the large scale bombing was done by the western allies

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    Elldren wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Most of the German Super tanks like the Tiger I & II, The Panther and the King Tiger where killed by fighter bombers anyway. A 500 pound bomb landing your roof courtesy of the RAF and Army Air Force would ruin anybody's day.

    But let's face it, usually that bomb was dropped by the Soviet Air Forces

    actually from what i understand, most of the large scale bombing was done by the western allies

    You're confusing strategic bombing for close air support

    and while the US did the vast majority of the strategic bombing in the entire war (by a huge margin), the Soviet Air Force ran the majority of the CAS missions. Their air doctrine really emphasized it.

    fuck gendered marketing
  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka Metal Hell adjacentRegistered User regular
    Elldren wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Most of the German Super tanks like the Tiger I & II, The Panther and the King Tiger where killed by fighter bombers anyway. A 500 pound bomb landing your roof courtesy of the RAF and Army Air Force would ruin anybody's day.

    But let's face it, usually that bomb was dropped by the Soviet Air Forces

    actually from what i understand, most of the large scale bombing was done by the western allies

    The larger (tonnage) and longer ranged bombing runs were made by the Allies, but the Russian squadrons like the Nachthexen (Night Witches, the name given to them by their German targets) did a large amount of precision bombing runs with wooden aircraft.

  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    Though as awesome as that squadron was it was still only one night bomber squadron. The real soviet CAS hero is the IL-2

    fuck gendered marketing
  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Most of the German Super tanks like the Tiger I & II, The Panther and the King Tiger where killed by fighter bombers anyway. A 500 pound bomb landing your roof courtesy of the RAF and Army Air Force would ruin anybody's day.

    No, the Post battle ORS reports conducted by Allied officer/specailist teams from Airforce and Army after Normandy showed that Airpower kills of German tanks were single digit's. (1% bombs 2% rockets etc) The largest enemy of german tanks were their own Crews who caused almost 50% of the german tank losses by demolition charges: "run we're surrounded. Destroy the panzers so they do not fall into enemy hands" etc. The second largest cause of losses (circa 30%) were 3inch holes in the sides aka M4 tank and tank destroyers shells.

    Any airforces claims even during the 60 and 70s of tank kills should always be correctly interpreted as pilot reporting "successful attack" or "I had a crack" than any indication of usefulness as tank busters.

    Zetterling in his statistical analysis of Normandy based on German war archives also buttress the allies war surveys of tank losses. This includes German Panzer divisions driving/entraining down in regt and battalion strength to Normandy in daylight.
    http://www.amazon.com/Normandy-1944-Organization-Organizational-Effectiveness/dp/0921991568

    The best antidote vs Heavy panzers were for the western allies was penultimately M4 and TD's shooting holes in them, and ultimately cutting off German armoured formations from supply and forcing Panzer crews to spike their own Armoured vehicles.

    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    edited August 2015
    Bastable wrote: »
    No, the Post battle ORS reports conducted by Allied officer/specailist teams from Airforce and Army after Normandy showed that Airpower kills of German tanks were single digit's. (1% bombs 2% rockets etc) The largest enemy of german tanks were their own Crews who caused almost 50% of the german tank losses by demolition charges: "run we're surrounded. Destroy the panzers so they do not fall into enemy hands" etc. The second largest cause of losses (circa 30%) were 3inch holes in the sides aka M4 tank and tank destroyers shells.
    That was terribly inconsiderate of them. As far as I know - and I'd really enjoy being corrected on this note if I'm wrong - the US/British/Canadian forces didn't bother using German tanks themselves because they wouldn't be able to repair or maintain them and their crews weren't trained for them. There was no point, they had plenty of tanks of their own. There also wasn't a lot that spiking the tank would do to keep any technology on it out of American and British hands. Really, the only practical effect was to hinder efforts to put them into museums as trophies. Dreadfully unsporting!

    Shadowhope on
    Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited August 2015
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Bastable wrote: »
    No, the Post battle ORS reports conducted by Allied officer/specailist teams from Airforce and Army after Normandy showed that Airpower kills of German tanks were single digit's. (1% bombs 2% rockets etc) The largest enemy of german tanks were their own Crews who caused almost 50% of the german tank losses by demolition charges: "run we're surrounded. Destroy the panzers so they do not fall into enemy hands" etc. The second largest cause of losses (circa 30%) were 3inch holes in the sides aka M4 tank and tank destroyers shells.
    That was terribly inconsiderate of them. As far as I know - and I'd really enjoy being corrected on this note if I'm wrong - the US/British/Canadian forces didn't bother using German tanks themselves because they wouldn't be able to repair or maintain them and their crews weren't trained for them. There was no point, they had plenty of tanks of their own. There also wasn't a lot that spiking the tank would do to keep any technology on it out of American and British hands. Really, the only practical effect was to hinder efforts to put them into museums as trophies. Dreadfully unsporting!

    Of course they're unsporting, they're a Military tradition that thought mass reprisals vs random civilians was a cool idea along with more mainstream but equally horrid ideas such as, reconnaissance by fire: Nice.

    Note that the Guards did mange to snaffle a Panther and called it cuckoo during and post Arnhem shenanigans.

    panther_I_panzer_V_ausf_G_british.jpg

    Biggest issue with German mid/late war tanks were transmissions giving out at 150-200km which is the same time line as a T34-85 engine life during the war.
    M4's various variants were the only "reliable" drive forever tanks. (weak final drives afflicted PIV, Pz39/hetzer and Panthers).


    Reports from Operation Dracula where M4 and the new Cromwell cruiser were compared in regt manoeuvres.
    Major Ronald of the Westminster Dragoons

    Reliability: The outstanding lesson of this exercise has been to me the exceptional reliability of the American machines. All my ideas, based on 2 ½ years experience with an armoured regiment equipped with British machines have had to be revised, and though before the exercise started I was inclined to think that perhaps Sherman was somewhat overrated I am completely convinced of the superiority of this machine over anything that this country has produced up to date.

    It is evident that the commander of a unit equipped with Shermans can be confident of taking 99% of his vehicles into battle, at any rate during the first 2,000 miles of their life. On the other hand, if he were equipped with Cromwells or Centaurs he would be in a continuous state of anxiety as to whether enough of his tanks would reach the battlefield to carry out the normal tasks expected of his unit.

    Conditions of Trial:

    The exercise has been run under conditions which have been very favourable to the machines and particularly so to the less reliable ones. Long mileages have been done, but […] the squadron has always reached harbor in time to carry out maintenance in daylight. […] Even so, the British machines have only been kept on the road by dint of much hard work. It is safe to say that such conditions are never likely to be encountered during operations, and less easy conditions will, of course, react unfavourably on reliability and battleworthiness.

    Fitter and Light Aid Detachment Staff:

    A fine result has ben achieved in bringing back to the starting point 13 of the original 14 starters after 2,000 miles around England. It must be remembered, however, that the Squadron has had the advantage of far greater technical assistance than is available to the normal armoured squadron. It is only this very lavish scale of fitters, L.A.D. etc that has enabled the Cromwells and Centaurs to be brought back to Bovington under their own power and even then much night work and long hours have had to be worked.


    Note the Cromwell was criticised for greater tendency to fall out during march and need of much longer last parade maintenance vs the M4s.

    The 2i/c, Captain Priestley of the Coldstream Guards

    Cromwell: In theory the tank crews of this type should have had the easiest time in that, during the early stages of the exercise anyway, they were scheduled to arrive first.

    In practice, however, on most occasions one or two of them arrived late at night, thus involving a late meal being required, guides being left out, petrol lorries being kept waiting and consequent loss of rest and sleep to a large number of personnel in addition to the tank crews themselves. It was also noticeable that Last Parade [American translation: After operations checks and services] took at least 1 ½ hours which was greatly in excess of the time taken by the Shermans and consequently the crews showed much greater signs of fatigue.

    Bastable on
    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    edited August 2015
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Bastable wrote: »
    No, the Post battle ORS reports conducted by Allied officer/specailist teams from Airforce and Army after Normandy showed that Airpower kills of German tanks were single digit's. (1% bombs 2% rockets etc) The largest enemy of german tanks were their own Crews who caused almost 50% of the german tank losses by demolition charges: "run we're surrounded. Destroy the panzers so they do not fall into enemy hands" etc. The second largest cause of losses (circa 30%) were 3inch holes in the sides aka M4 tank and tank destroyers shells.
    That was terribly inconsiderate of them. As far as I know - and I'd really enjoy being corrected on this note if I'm wrong - the US/British/Canadian forces didn't bother using German tanks themselves because they wouldn't be able to repair or maintain them and their crews weren't trained for them. There was no point, they had plenty of tanks of their own. There also wasn't a lot that spiking the tank would do to keep any technology on it out of American and British hands. Really, the only practical effect was to hinder efforts to put them into museums as trophies. Dreadfully unsporting!

    They didn't generally need them. You'd see captured tanks in good condition be sent to various proving grounds for testing pretty often but reality is Germany's production isn't in the same league as the other powers. Total German tank production is 25,777 total tanks. It includes some tankettes, light tanks and some experimental models, Tigers, Panzers and variants. The US produced 48, 966 Shermans. That not total tank production, that's total Sherman production including lend-lease models. The Russians built 57,339 T-34s including the T-34/85.

    And you have the problem that German tanks aren't well designed. There are Russian reports of driving Shermans for 5000 km without depot maintenance. It was expected T-34s would do 1000 km before factory rebuild. You'd be lucky if you can get a Tiger II to go a few hundred.

    Thomamelas on
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    -that a Tiger tank could easily go toe to toe with an Abrams or Challenger, and that Shermans and T34s were stupid garbage that could barely go a mile without catching fire and killing their crews?

    Oddly enough this is pretty much what I've heard about Panther tanks. Of particular note was an incident during the battle of Kursk where, I think (I'll look for the passage later) a good number of Panthers caught fire just getting off the train.

    Late war german tanks were a goddamned mess in terms of reliability.

    Late war German tanks were awful. They had reliability problems out the ass. The Tiger II in particular was a god awful tank. Prone to just about everything breaking on it regularly. On paper the armor was amazing, but in reality the quality of the steel was absolute shit. So while it was quite thick, it was also not very hard to kill. It also had a tendance to create spauling inside the tank. So a round might hit, fail to penetrate but the armor breaking inside would spray the crew with high speed fragments of metal. You'll sometimes hear touted how few the Russians killed. That's because vehicles that were abandoned because they couldn't work got tallied separately.

    People have a tendency to say how amazing German engineering was during the war, but it really wasn't. Their tanks tended to be temperamental beasts that were absurdly maintenance heavy. They have great specs on paper but the reality of their performance was quite terrible. A lot of the inflated reputation comes from Belton Cooper's book. He was a mechanic during the war and lamented how terrible the Sherman was against the Tiger. Of course his unit didn't fight Panthers or Tigers when he says they did and he wasn't at the front lines. He also spends much of his book ranking about how the Sherman nickname was a Yankee conspiracy to oppress the South, despite it being a British nickname. He's full of shit.

    Another reason the reputation of the Panzer is so overinflated has to do with how each side counted kills. American forces counted a tank as a casualty if it was rendered unfit for battle, even if it could be recovered and repaired later on. The Germans only counted a tank as a casualty if it was destroyed beyond any hope of recovery or repair. This also allowed them to delay reporting tank losses until days or weeks after a battle, distorting their reported kill/loss ratios in combat. They also counted kill claims, rather than confirmed tank kills, further inflating the kill/loss reports and giving rise to the bullshit notion of 1 panzer = 5 Shermans/T-34s.

    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited August 2015
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Bastable wrote: »
    No, the Post battle ORS reports conducted by Allied officer/specailist teams from Airforce and Army after Normandy showed that Airpower kills of German tanks were single digit's. (1% bombs 2% rockets etc) The largest enemy of german tanks were their own Crews who caused almost 50% of the german tank losses by demolition charges: "run we're surrounded. Destroy the panzers so they do not fall into enemy hands" etc. The second largest cause of losses (circa 30%) were 3inch holes in the sides aka M4 tank and tank destroyers shells.
    That was terribly inconsiderate of them. As far as I know - and I'd really enjoy being corrected on this note if I'm wrong - the US/British/Canadian forces didn't bother using German tanks themselves because they wouldn't be able to repair or maintain them and their crews weren't trained for them. There was no point, they had plenty of tanks of their own. There also wasn't a lot that spiking the tank would do to keep any technology on it out of American and British hands. Really, the only practical effect was to hinder efforts to put them into museums as trophies. Dreadfully unsporting!



    And you have the problem that German tanks aren't well designed. There are Russian reports of driving Shermans for 5000 km without depot maintenance. It was expected T-34s would do 1000 km before factory rebuild. You'd be lucky if you can get a Tiger II to go a few hundred.

    1000km for t34 would have been something achieved/expected with 1969 rebuilds/upgrades very much post war.

    A.V. Bodnar, who was in combat in 1941-42, recalled: From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were almost perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse

    During Korea US captured T34-85 exhibited transmission failures, radiators with such poor welding that they were only 50% effective etc etc.

    Irony is in creating tanks to fight the T34 the Germans went with PIV weighing 18tons to 24 tons they build 45 ton panthers and decreased quality controls to allow final drive failures at 200km in order to increase production. Exactly what the Russians were doing, but because the German economy was based on weird foreshadowing of corporatism and rampant corporate subsides they did it much slower and much too late.

    Note how Zimmerit paste kept being applied to tanks in-spite of no indication or actual use of any allied magnetic mines, some one got paid to add time and cost to manufacturing tanks in the middle of a war ( Chemische Werke Zimmer AG).

    Bastable on
    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    -that a Tiger tank could easily go toe to toe with an Abrams or Challenger, and that Shermans and T34s were stupid garbage that could barely go a mile without catching fire and killing their crews?

    Oddly enough this is pretty much what I've heard about Panther tanks. Of particular note was an incident during the battle of Kursk where, I think (I'll look for the passage later) a good number of Panthers caught fire just getting off the train.

    Late war german tanks were a goddamned mess in terms of reliability.

    Late war German tanks were awful. They had reliability problems out the ass. The Tiger II in particular was a god awful tank. Prone to just about everything breaking on it regularly. On paper the armor was amazing, but in reality the quality of the steel was absolute shit. So while it was quite thick, it was also not very hard to kill. It also had a tendance to create spauling inside the tank. So a round might hit, fail to penetrate but the armor breaking inside would spray the crew with high speed fragments of metal. You'll sometimes hear touted how few the Russians killed. That's because vehicles that were abandoned because they couldn't work got tallied separately.

    People have a tendency to say how amazing German engineering was during the war, but it really wasn't. Their tanks tended to be temperamental beasts that were absurdly maintenance heavy. They have great specs on paper but the reality of their performance was quite terrible. A lot of the inflated reputation comes from Belton Cooper's book. He was a mechanic during the war and lamented how terrible the Sherman was against the Tiger. Of course his unit didn't fight Panthers or Tigers when he says they did and he wasn't at the front lines. He also spends much of his book ranking about how the Sherman nickname was a Yankee conspiracy to oppress the South, despite it being a British nickname. He's full of shit.

    Another reason the reputation of the Panzer is so overinflated has to do with how each side counted kills. American forces counted a tank as a casualty if it was rendered unfit for battle, even if it could be recovered and repaired later on. The Germans only counted a tank as a casualty if it was destroyed beyond any hope of recovery or repair. This also allowed them to delay reporting tank losses until days or weeks after a battle, distorting their reported kill/loss ratios in combat. They also counted kill claims, rather than confirmed tank kills, further inflating the kill/loss reports and giving rise to the bullshit notion of 1 panzer = 5 Shermans/T-34s.

    Not to mention just out and out inflating figures. With the opening of the Soviet Archives, we've learned that Michael Wittmann apparently killed more tanks then the Soviets had in that area at the time. Made for great propaganda.

  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    Bastable wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Bastable wrote: »
    No, the Post battle ORS reports conducted by Allied officer/specailist teams from Airforce and Army after Normandy showed that Airpower kills of German tanks were single digit's. (1% bombs 2% rockets etc) The largest enemy of german tanks were their own Crews who caused almost 50% of the german tank losses by demolition charges: "run we're surrounded. Destroy the panzers so they do not fall into enemy hands" etc. The second largest cause of losses (circa 30%) were 3inch holes in the sides aka M4 tank and tank destroyers shells.
    That was terribly inconsiderate of them. As far as I know - and I'd really enjoy being corrected on this note if I'm wrong - the US/British/Canadian forces didn't bother using German tanks themselves because they wouldn't be able to repair or maintain them and their crews weren't trained for them. There was no point, they had plenty of tanks of their own. There also wasn't a lot that spiking the tank would do to keep any technology on it out of American and British hands. Really, the only practical effect was to hinder efforts to put them into museums as trophies. Dreadfully unsporting!



    And you have the problem that German tanks aren't well designed. There are Russian reports of driving Shermans for 5000 km without depot maintenance. It was expected T-34s would do 1000 km before factory rebuild. You'd be lucky if you can get a Tiger II to go a few hundred.

    1000km for t34 would have been something achieved/expected with 1969 rebuilds/upgrades very much post war.

    A.V. Bodnar, who was in combat in 1941-42, recalled: From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were almost perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse

    During Korea US captured T34-85 exhibited transmission failures, radiators with such poor welding that they were only 50% effective etc etc.

    Irony is in creating tanks to fight the T34 the Germans went with PIV weighing 18tons to 24 tons they build 45 ton panthers and decreased quality controls to allow final drive failures at 200km in order to increase production. Exactly what the Russians were doing, but because the German economy was based on weird foreshadowing of corporatism and rampant corporate subsides they did it much slower and much too late.

    Note how Zimmerit paste kept being applied to tanks in-spite of no indication or actual use of any allied magnetic mines, some one got paid to add time and cost to manufacturing tanks in the middle of a war ( Chemische Werke Zimmer AG).
    "Award Order

    Name: Perederiy, Iosif Antonovich
    Rank: Guards Starshina
    Position and unit: Mechanic-driver of a T-34-85 tank in the 1st Tank Battalion of the 66th Guards Tank Vapniyaraka, Order of the Red Banner, Order of Suvorov 2nd class Brigade
    Year of birth: 1913
    Nationality: Ukrainian
    Party affiliation: VKP(b) member since 1944
    Participation in the Civil War or subsequent combat in defense of the USSR and patriotic war: Western Front from July to August 1941, South-Western Front from January to March 1942, Central Front from August to December of 1942, 1-2nd Ukrainian Front from January 1944 to June 1944, 1st Belorussian Front since July 20th, 1944.
    Wounds or concussions: three light wounds in 1941-1942.
    In RKKA since: May 25th, 1941.
    Commissioned at: Kanev recruiting station.
    Prior awards: Order of Glory 3rd class, April 8th, 1944. Order of the Red Banner, August 14th, 1944.

    Brief and specific summary of heroism: comrade Perederiy, a mechanic-driver, fought in the Great Patriotic War since July of 1941, as a mechanic-driver since January 20th of 1944. In this role, comrade Perederiy demonstrated his skill in maintaining his vehicle and extending its lifespan. From January 27th, 1944 to June 20th, 1944, as a part of the 1st and 2nd Ukrainian Fronts, comrade Perederiy drove without emergency stops and breakdowns through rasputitsa and mud. Through impassable routes, he drove his vehicle for 2700 km over 370 engine-hours with an engine rated for 200 engine-hours. In battle, he and his crew dealt significant damage to the enemy. In the Western direction, from January 15th to February 2nd, 1945, his tank #392 surpassed its warranty period under the loving care of its mechanic, travelling 1680 kilometers over 310 engine-hours with no emergency stops or breakdowns. The crew of comrade Perederiy's tank destroyed two PzIV tanks, up to 20 cars with military supplies, a German column of 30 carts, captured 20 Germans, destroyed 10 Panzerfaust tank destroyers, and up to 100 soldiers and officers. Comrade Perederiy's fearsome fighting machine knew no obstacles in his skilful hands.

    Conclusions: for success in protecting his vehicle and extending its lifespan, heroism in battle, and loving and scrupulous treatment of technology, comrade Perederiy is worthy of the highest government award: the title of Hero of the Soviet Union."
    "Award Order

    Name: Russkih, Petr Egorovich
    Rank: Senior Sergeant
    Unit, position: Mechanic-driver of the 1st Tank Battalion, 111st Novgorod-Volyn, Order of the Red Banner, Order of Suvorov Tank Brigade.
    Is nominated for the title of Hero of the Soviet Union
    Year of birth 1921
    Nationality: Russian
    Party affiliation: VKP(b) candidate
    Participation in the Civil War and other actions in defense of the USSR (where, when): Western Front from June 22nd, 1941 to June 13th, 1943, 1st Ukrainian Front since April 12th, 1944.
    Wounds or concussions in the Patriotic War: heavily wounded on June 13th, 1943, lightly wounded on February 20th, 1943.
    In the Red Army since: 1939
    Rectuited by: Smutnin recruitment office, Kirov oblast
    Previous awards: Order of Glory, 3rd class on August 7th, 1944

    Brief and specific description of heorism or awards: Senior Sergeant Russkih walked a difficult road. His fighting machine travelled 1300 km on difficult terrain without breakdowns or emergencies, the engine worked for 305 hours.

    In battles for the city of Neunberg, and enemy artillery battery impeded our progress. In this difficult situation, Russkih's tank made it through anti-tank trenches and drove behind the enemy battery, concealed by terrain. He approached suddenly and with great speed, startling the Germans. Only one gun had time to fire and his the turret, but the mighty armour of his tank withstood the blow. The tank burst into the trench where the battery was positioned. Senior Sergeant Russkih heard the scraping of metal on metal as he crushed the guns, turned his T-34 around, and drove into the trench again, running down still living fascists and completely destroying the artillery battery.

    In fierce battle for the forests on the approach to the city of Guben, the enemy pulled up Panther and Tiger tanks. The enemy also used AA guns, a battery of which was positioned on the highway and started firing at Russkih's tank. Skilfully maneuvering through the forest, the fearless Russkih crushed the gun crew with his tank tracks and disabled a gun.

    When defending against a German counterattack during two-day battles for Guben proper, Senior Sergeant Russkih was concussed, but refused the order to leave the battlefield and asked to remain at his post and destroy the enemy for as long as his heart kept beating.

    In subsequent street battles, Russkih's tank was in the thick of enemy infanry. Under heavy fire from the German fascists, his tank was engulfed in flames. Russkih, with no fear of death, pressed on with the last of his strength and rushed forward in his burning tank, crushing the enemy infantry with his tracks. Despite the danger, he opened up the tank's hatches, and drove at high speed to put out the flames. In this uneven battle, Senior Sergeant Russkih destroyed 10 machinegun nests, 3 AT guns, and up to 100 enemy soldiers.

    For the bravery and courage demonstrated in battle with German invaders, Senior Sergeant Russkih is worthy of the government award: the title of Hero of the Soviet Union."

    My understanding is that North Korea got their T-34/85s from the post-war production batch after the production lines had been shut down. It's possible that had a major impact on the quality of the equipment. And according to records from the Soviet archives, there seemed to be a major increase in the expected reliability from 1942 on. Given they way they ruthlessly cut down on the number of parts, it's quite likely they saw a corresponding increase in reliability. Paired with improvements to the lines themselves.

  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited August 2015
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Bastable wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Bastable wrote: »
    No, the Post battle ORS reports conducted by Allied officer/specailist teams from Airforce and Army after Normandy showed that Airpower kills of German tanks were single digit's. (1% bombs 2% rockets etc) The largest enemy of german tanks were their own Crews who caused almost 50% of the german tank losses by demolition charges: "run we're surrounded. Destroy the panzers so they do not fall into enemy hands" etc. The second largest cause of losses (circa 30%) were 3inch holes in the sides aka M4 tank and tank destroyers shells.
    That was terribly inconsiderate of them. As far as I know - and I'd really enjoy being corrected on this note if I'm wrong - the US/British/Canadian forces didn't bother using German tanks themselves because they wouldn't be able to repair or maintain them and their crews weren't trained for them. There was no point, they had plenty of tanks of their own. There also wasn't a lot that spiking the tank would do to keep any technology on it out of American and British hands. Really, the only practical effect was to hinder efforts to put them into museums as trophies. Dreadfully unsporting!



    And you have the problem that German tanks aren't well designed. There are Russian reports of driving Shermans for 5000 km without depot maintenance. It was expected T-34s would do 1000 km before factory rebuild. You'd be lucky if you can get a Tiger II to go a few hundred.

    1000km for t34 would have been something achieved/expected with 1969 rebuilds/upgrades very much post war.

    A.V. Bodnar, who was in combat in 1941-42, recalled: From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were almost perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse

    During Korea US captured T34-85 exhibited transmission failures, radiators with such poor welding that they were only 50% effective etc etc.

    Irony is in creating tanks to fight the T34 the Germans went with PIV weighing 18tons to 24 tons they build 45 ton panthers and decreased quality controls to allow final drive failures at 200km in order to increase production. Exactly what the Russians were doing, but because the German economy was based on weird foreshadowing of corporatism and rampant corporate subsides they did it much slower and much too late.

    Note how Zimmerit paste kept being applied to tanks in-spite of no indication or actual use of any allied magnetic mines, some one got paid to add time and cost to manufacturing tanks in the middle of a war ( Chemische Werke Zimmer AG).
    "Award Order

    Name: Perederiy, Iosif Antonovich
    Rank: Guards Starshina
    Position and unit: Mechanic-driver of a T-34-85 tank in the 1st Tank Battalion of the 66th Guards Tank Vapniyaraka, Order of the Red Banner, Order of Suvorov 2nd class Brigade
    Year of birth: 1913
    Nationality: Ukrainian
    Party affiliation: VKP(b) member since 1944
    Participation in the Civil War or subsequent combat in defense of the USSR and patriotic war: Western Front from July to August 1941, South-Western Front from January to March 1942, Central Front from August to December of 1942, 1-2nd Ukrainian Front from January 1944 to June 1944, 1st Belorussian Front since July 20th, 1944.
    Wounds or concussions: three light wounds in 1941-1942.
    In RKKA since: May 25th, 1941.
    Commissioned at: Kanev recruiting station.
    Prior awards: Order of Glory 3rd class, April 8th, 1944. Order of the Red Banner, August 14th, 1944.

    Brief and specific summary of heroism: comrade Perederiy, a mechanic-driver, fought in the Great Patriotic War since July of 1941, as a mechanic-driver since January 20th of 1944. In this role, comrade Perederiy demonstrated his skill in maintaining his vehicle and extending its lifespan. From January 27th, 1944 to June 20th, 1944, as a part of the 1st and 2nd Ukrainian Fronts, comrade Perederiy drove without emergency stops and breakdowns through rasputitsa and mud. Through impassable routes, he drove his vehicle for 2700 km over 370 engine-hours with an engine rated for 200 engine-hours. In battle, he and his crew dealt significant damage to the enemy. In the Western direction, from January 15th to February 2nd, 1945, his tank #392 surpassed its warranty period under the loving care of its mechanic, travelling 1680 kilometers over 310 engine-hours with no emergency stops or breakdowns. The crew of comrade Perederiy's tank destroyed two PzIV tanks, up to 20 cars with military supplies, a German column of 30 carts, captured 20 Germans, destroyed 10 Panzerfaust tank destroyers, and up to 100 soldiers and officers. Comrade Perederiy's fearsome fighting machine knew no obstacles in his skilful hands.

    Conclusions: for success in protecting his vehicle and extending its lifespan, heroism in battle, and loving and scrupulous treatment of technology, comrade Perederiy is worthy of the highest government award: the title of Hero of the Soviet Union."
    "Award Order

    Name: Russkih, Petr Egorovich
    Rank: Senior Sergeant
    Unit, position: Mechanic-driver of the 1st Tank Battalion, 111st Novgorod-Volyn, Order of the Red Banner, Order of Suvorov Tank Brigade.
    Is nominated for the title of Hero of the Soviet Union
    Year of birth 1921
    Nationality: Russian
    Party affiliation: VKP(b) candidate
    Participation in the Civil War and other actions in defense of the USSR (where, when): Western Front from June 22nd, 1941 to June 13th, 1943, 1st Ukrainian Front since April 12th, 1944.
    Wounds or concussions in the Patriotic War: heavily wounded on June 13th, 1943, lightly wounded on February 20th, 1943.
    In the Red Army since: 1939
    Rectuited by: Smutnin recruitment office, Kirov oblast
    Previous awards: Order of Glory, 3rd class on August 7th, 1944

    Brief and specific description of heorism or awards: Senior Sergeant Russkih walked a difficult road. His fighting machine travelled 1300 km on difficult terrain without breakdowns or emergencies, the engine worked for 305 hours.

    In battles for the city of Neunberg, and enemy artillery battery impeded our progress. In this difficult situation, Russkih's tank made it through anti-tank trenches and drove behind the enemy battery, concealed by terrain. He approached suddenly and with great speed, startling the Germans. Only one gun had time to fire and his the turret, but the mighty armour of his tank withstood the blow. The tank burst into the trench where the battery was positioned. Senior Sergeant Russkih heard the scraping of metal on metal as he crushed the guns, turned his T-34 around, and drove into the trench again, running down still living fascists and completely destroying the artillery battery.

    In fierce battle for the forests on the approach to the city of Guben, the enemy pulled up Panther and Tiger tanks. The enemy also used AA guns, a battery of which was positioned on the highway and started firing at Russkih's tank. Skilfully maneuvering through the forest, the fearless Russkih crushed the gun crew with his tank tracks and disabled a gun.

    When defending against a German counterattack during two-day battles for Guben proper, Senior Sergeant Russkih was concussed, but refused the order to leave the battlefield and asked to remain at his post and destroy the enemy for as long as his heart kept beating.

    In subsequent street battles, Russkih's tank was in the thick of enemy infanry. Under heavy fire from the German fascists, his tank was engulfed in flames. Russkih, with no fear of death, pressed on with the last of his strength and rushed forward in his burning tank, crushing the enemy infantry with his tracks. Despite the danger, he opened up the tank's hatches, and drove at high speed to put out the flames. In this uneven battle, Senior Sergeant Russkih destroyed 10 machinegun nests, 3 AT guns, and up to 100 enemy soldiers.

    For the bravery and courage demonstrated in battle with German invaders, Senior Sergeant Russkih is worthy of the government award: the title of Hero of the Soviet Union."

    My understanding is that North Korea got their T-34/85s from the post-war production batch after the production lines had been shut down. It's possible that had a major impact on the quality of the equipment. And according to records from the Soviet archives, there seemed to be a major increase in the expected reliability from 1942 on. Given they way they ruthlessly cut down on the number of parts, it's quite likely they saw a corresponding increase in reliability. Paired with improvements to the lines themselves.

    There are anecdotes for Panthers running 2000km with no transmission or engine swaps under veteran drivers in Jentz Panzertruppen/ Panther references, 2000km is not the mean distance of transmission failures in German service late war.

    The idea that T34's were unreliable initially, then increased in reliability as costs were cut then becoming unreliable again during post war production is unfathomable especially in light of medals being given while referencing the "amazing bravery" to drive without breakdown.

    You don't get medals/citations for doing the expected, driving for long distances is so unusual in a T34 it's referenced in the argument to present driver Egorovich with a medal (Hero of the Soviet Union, not exactly a thanks for turning up campaign medal).


    The T34-85 captured in Korea and examined by Chrysler stateside was manufactured in 1945.

    The liquid-cooled engine and its attendant radiators made for greater vulnerability due to the loss of coolant because of concussion, small arms fire or freezing. Wholly inadequate engine intake air cleaners could be expected to allow early engine failure due to dust intake and the resulting abrasive wear. Several hundred miles in very dusty operation would probably be accompanied by severe engine power loss.’

    For example, in the tank inspected (manufactured in 1945) the soldering job on the radiator was so poor that it effectively lost half of its capacity. Soviet tank design philosophy was clearly oriented towards providing a low-cost, durable design with no frills. (1996 Zaloga)

    Bastable on
    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    Most of the anecdotes for Panthers running 2000 km come from Gudrian. So the odds of them being horse shit is pretty high. And yes, the reliability did increase over time even as the costs went down. A significant reason for the cost reduction was simplification of design, and parts. Combined with the much, much better five speed gearbox there were significant improvements in reliability. It's not particularly odd to think that incremental improvements can't be implemented over time. And I was pointing out that being able to do 2000 km didn't require the post war modifications.

    And while the Senior Sergeant's award notes the driving distance, the primary reason he won his award was for combat heroism. That differs from Perederiy who won his primarily for keeping that tank going quite a distance.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Elldren wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Most of the German Super tanks like the Tiger I & II, The Panther and the King Tiger where killed by fighter bombers anyway. A 500 pound bomb landing your roof courtesy of the RAF and Army Air Force would ruin anybody's day.

    But let's face it, usually that bomb was dropped by the Soviet Air Forces

    actually from what i understand, most of the large scale bombing was done by the western allies

    To elaborate, the Soviets did not engage in wide-scale strategic bombing, in large part because they did not have the capacity to do so. I would add that the Soviet foreign ministry and the Red Army's political leadership also made a point of arguing that the USSR electing not to burn, for example, East Germany or Hungary or Occupied Poland to the ground in a massive carpet-bombing campaign that would proceed the Red Army's invasion was a moral decision. Typically, this argument was made in sort of a weird vacuum (almost literally "bomb the shit out of Germany and invade" versus "not bomb the shit out of Germany and invade")--the references to American strategic bombing were typically toned down as political decision not to alienate the US leadership (since that bombing did, at least indirectly, assist the Soviet war effort), but occasionally you saw them do the whole "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" and directly cite American and British bombing campaigns.

    Of course, if the Soviets could have conjured the world's largest bomber force out of thin air, and if they thought that might hasten the end of the war (possibly saving millions of their countrymen, armed or civilian), one can imagine they would have. Its's not as though the government could turn the production of thousands of tanks per year to hundred of bombers per year on command (nor did the VVS really have a strong understanding of the technique and practice involved).

    Generally, the Red Army (as the entire armed forces, not just the land component) was not as interested in destroying cities to hasten the war effort. They had, ironically, resorted to "scorched earth" tactics on Soviet soil in cases where it was thought to yield an advantage, which was not always the case afterwards (perhaps shaping their willingness to keep using such tactics as the war progressed). Doing so on foreign soil was not practically or politically acceptable. There are purely pragmatic reasons--after all, when victory became a likely outcome, the USSR fully intended to extract material reparations out of Germany and the other axis nations (which, to be fair, were considerably less damaged than, say, occupied Yugoslavia or Poland), so destroying said property would be stupid. There's some contemporary suggestion from observers that the Red Army, having witnessed the unparalleled destruction of their own country, had some distaste for visiting comparable destruction on their victory march, but that's more on an individual-to-individual basis (and certainly there were plenty of Red Army troops who deliberately sough revenge, both destructive and violent). Realistically, if the Red Army had sought to reduce Berlin to what the Germans had done to Minsk or Leningrad, there would have been virtually nothing left of Berlin (as oppose to a bombed out husk).

    So, there's a lot of reasons (as is usually the case). Instead, as already suggested, the Soviets made major use of close-air support (it's the reason why the most built aircraft of WWII were the Soviet ground-attack aircraft produced by the Illyushin design bureau--if this is incorrect, someone let me know). It's easy to forget that, even if they ultimately produced fewer tanks than the USSR, Germany still produced a goddamn lot of tanks, and at least 4 out of 5 of them fought on the Eastern Front (along with whatever tanks were operated by Hungary and Romania I believe). The Red Army faced a lot of tanks, often of very good designs and usually manned by more experienced crews--the Soviets considered ground-attack aircraft absolutely crucial (hence the famed comparison supposed to have been made by Stalin of Il-2 aircraft to foodstuffs in terms of importance to the military). Certainly the US and UK also made extensive use of ground-attack aircraft, but I think their air effort as a whole was much more diverse in nature, whereas in the east combat between the Luftwaffe and VVS almost exclusively became defined by low-altitude combat.

    Then again, I think most of this has been covered already, so maybe I just wasted my time.

    On a side note, I actually received an impromptu ESOL lesson from a friend of mine about language born of the internet hive mind, to which I am very grateful (and also should have been aware of, given how long I've been speaking this freaking language, gah). For starters, the word I'm looking for that doesn't aggrevate the hell out of me is Germanophile, which, while not quite as specific as 'Wehraboo', is also nowhere near as infuriating (maybe it's an ESOL thing, or maybe I just hate the internet).

    Likewise, it makes sense in the context of, for example, Russophone, Slavophone, Japanophile, Amerophile (or Americanophile), etc. I mean, yes, those things don't specifically speak of, well, tanks or aircrafts, but technically, neither does 'Russaboo'. In fact, if you asked the average Russian person to define what 'Russaboo' is after explaining what the hell a 'Weeaboo' was, she/he would almost certainly say "Someone who favors Russian cinema/literature." In the Chinese-speaking world, anyway, they'd be right--sure, the T-34 is famous, but Russia is way better known for literature and films than even their tanks.






  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    The connotation is unbridled fandom, not mere favoritism or interest.

    Liking something to the extent that you believe things with no factual basis that are "cool" about the subject. It's really juvenile: a sort of "my dad can beat up your dad" mentality.

    fuck gendered marketing
  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    Guderians report was for the winter period (when ground was solid dated 5 March 1944:

    ..... At this time lifespan of the motor is 700 to 1000km. Motor failures have decreased. Final drive break downs no longer occur. The steering gear and transmission have proven acceptable.[i/]

    During the muddy period of spring or some of the worst case scenarios things changed:
    (1995 Jentz pg140-141)

    The following Experience was obtained during the period 6 March to 15 April 1944 With Panzerkampfwagon V of I.Abteilung/Pz.regt:

    Maybach HL 230 P30 Motors: In general, the newer motors have a significantly longer lifespan than the first series. The longest distance achieved by a motor is 1700 to 1800 km.

    Transmissions: . .... However, in several cases the 3rd gear failed at about 1500m so that a new transmission needs to be installed..... Since there was no chance to obtain new transmission 3 Panthers with damaged 3rd gears remained in action and succeeded in traveling an additional 250km...... Longest distance driven with out transmission failure is 1500 to 1800km by the 4 out of 7 panthers available.

    Final Drives a very large percent of Panthers broke down through damage to final drives. As an example, since the first of march, 13 final drives were replaced in 30 Panthers, more on the left than the right. Bolts on the large gear inside the final drive shear off. Final drives can not hold up to steering in reverse in heavy soil

    The Abteilung wishes to mention Obergefretier Gablewski of 4. Komapnie/Pz Regt 2 driver of PV Fgst.Nr. 154338, Motor Nr.8322046, km 1878. This Panther is still fully operational ( so instead of getting a medal he got the equivalent of a Mention in despatche )[i/]

    There was only one "reliable" tank during the war the M4 and variants.

    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited August 2015
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Most of the anecdotes for Panthers running 2000 km come from Gudrian. So the odds of them being horse shit is pretty high. And yes, the reliability did increase over time even as the costs went down. A significant reason for the cost reduction was simplification of design, and parts. Combined with the much, much better five speed gearbox there were significant improvements in reliability. It's not particularly odd to think that incremental improvements can't be implemented over time. And I was pointing out that being able to do 2000 km didn't require the post war modifications.

    No as captured examples in Korea which included 1945 production models noted poor engine life due to poor radiators, filtration system and lower engine life. So the only way you get "reliable" is during the post war upgrades 46, 60, 69, which tellingly have Engine upgrades as a major component

    2000km is not reliable as that's in the same ball park as overloaded Panthers in 44 in the mud. And when actually examined any 2000km claims are going to be outliers.

    The US study ‘Engineering analysis of the Russian T34/85 tank’ noted:

    ‘Wholly inadequate engine intake air cleaners could be expected to allow early engine failure due to dust intake and the resulting abrasive wear. Several hundred miles in very dusty operation would probably be accompanied by severe engine power loss.’

    page 451 about the transmission:
    ‘The transmission had by American standards already failed, although with extreme care it could have been used further. Teeth ends on all gears were battered as the result of clash shifting. Many pieces of gear teeth had been broken off and were in the transmission oil. The failure is due to inadequate design, since excellent steel was used through the transmission.’


    Mean time for failure much lower than 2000km even in 1945 production versions.
    never mind actual experience with late 44 era versions that just managed 200km

    For instance the 5th Guards Tank army in 1943 lost as much as 15% of its tanks during its march to Prokhorovka. In August ’43 the 1st Tank army lost 50% of its tanks due to malfunction. As late as the second half of 1944 tank units tried to replace engines with more than 30 hours of operation before a major attack.

    T-34: Mythical Weapon’, p161

    Your to medal write up laud driving for long distances because they were unusual.

    Ground Forces of the RKKA in the Prewar Years", by A. G. Lenskiy, St. Petersburg, 2000, page 25:

    "Concerning "engine life between services", the minimum time between capital/medium services was 600/200 hours for the BT-7 and 600/150 for the T-26. These were entirely satisfactory indicators; for the T-34-85, the most reliable model in the T-34 family, the corresponding numbers in 1945 were 600/250 hours (3,500/1500km).

    "In connection with this, it should be noted that in the end of 1940 the head of the Chief Vehicular and Armored Directorate [GABTU], Ya. N. Fedorenko, believed that "a mechanized corps in a breakthrough could not operate longer than 4-5 days, since it would expend 50 hours of engine time."


    Max mean time before failures was 1500km, with sub 300km or 50hrs was the maximum planning distance for breakthroughs . . .
    The RKKA did not plan around 2000km because they knew it was bullshit and would just result in a line of broken down tanks like it was 1941.

    1500, 2000 km pretty close to failure distances achieved by unreliable Nazi heavies. There was only one reliable tank, Sherman M4.

    Bastable on
    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Elldren wrote: »
    The connotation is unbridled fandom, not mere favoritism or interest.

    Liking something to the extent that you believe things with no factual basis that are "cool" about the subject. It's really juvenile: a sort of "my dad can beat up your dad" mentality.

    I'm not disputing that necessarily, but I would add that "Francophile", etc., goes beyond mere favoritism or interest, so i think it's fitting. Even if you much preferred French films to American ones, I don't think that would really make you a Francophile.

    That being said, I learned English in an internationally-run school, so the context might be different. Or I'm just not getting the subtle shade of meaning you're describing.

  • AlazullAlazull Your body is not a temple, it's an amusement park. Enjoy the ride.Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    The connotation is unbridled fandom, not mere favoritism or interest.

    Liking something to the extent that you believe things with no factual basis that are "cool" about the subject. It's really juvenile: a sort of "my dad can beat up your dad" mentality.

    I'm not disputing that necessarily, but I would add that "Francophile", etc., goes beyond mere favoritism or interest, so i think it's fitting. Even if you much preferred French films to American ones, I don't think that would really make you a Francophile.

    That being said, I learned English in an internationally-run school, so the context might be different. Or I'm just not getting the subtle shade of meaning you're describing.

    Let's put it this way, I don't think most Weeaboos would describe themselves as such, so it is meant to at least be diminutive if not outright insulting.

    User name Alazull on Steam, PSN, Nintenders, Epic, etc.
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    Weeaboo, wehraaboo, whatever... These terms don't really describe people who happen to like the style and products of one nation/ethnicity/etc. as much as the people who take it to the extreme and don't seem to realize how deeply nutty they get.

    There's a reason people make fun of those "glorious nippon steel folded a million times" types.

  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka Metal Hell adjacentRegistered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Weeaboo, wehraaboo, whatever... These terms don't really describe people who happen to like the style and products of one nation/ethnicity/etc. as much as the people who take it to the extreme and don't seem to realize how deeply nutty they get.

    There's a reason people make fun of those "glorious nippon steel folded a million times" types.

    Crazies who buy into hype and don't do research.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Weeaboo, wehraaboo, whatever... These terms don't really describe people who happen to like the style and products of one nation/ethnicity/etc. as much as the people who take it to the extreme and don't seem to realize how deeply nutty they get.

    There's a reason people make fun of those "glorious nippon steel folded a million times" types.

    zPSnNDA.gif

  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Weeaboo, wehraaboo, whatever... These terms don't really describe people who happen to like the style and products of one nation/ethnicity/etc. as much as the people who take it to the extreme and don't seem to realize how deeply nutty they get.

    There's a reason people make fun of those "glorious nippon steel folded a million times" types.

    Krupp stahl!

    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited August 2015
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Weeaboo, wehraaboo, whatever... These terms don't really describe people who happen to like the style and products of one nation/ethnicity/etc. as much as the people who take it to the extreme and don't seem to realize how deeply nutty they get.

    There's a reason people make fun of those "glorious nippon steel folded a million times" types.

    zPSnNDA.gif

    That's especially glorious given how Japanese aircraft behave in that game.
    They're basically made out of paper, and it shows. Compared to the other branches, the Japanese aircraft tree is mostly misery and sadness, which is why I picked it myself.

    Synthesis on
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Weeaboo, wehraaboo, whatever... These terms don't really describe people who happen to like the style and products of one nation/ethnicity/etc. as much as the people who take it to the extreme and don't seem to realize how deeply nutty they get.

    There's a reason people make fun of those "glorious nippon steel folded a million times" types.

    zPSnNDA.gif

    That's especially glorious given how Japanese aircraft behave in that game.
    They're basically made out of paper, and it shows. Compared to the other branches, the Japanese aircraft tree is mostly misery and sadness, which is why I picked it myself.

    I have fond memories of playing multiplayer Il-2 with my friends, and downing some of them flying the most advanced stuff they could find, while I flew a shitty WW1 biplane with a single peashooter.
    Ain't no amount of armour gonna protect you from your pilot getting capped.

  • Morat242Morat242 Registered User regular
    edited August 2015
    Bastable wrote: »
    Reports from Operation Dracula where M4 and the new Cromwell cruiser were compared in regt manoeuvres.
    Also this, from the officer commanding the exercise: "Finally: On the firing trials at Lulworth it was found that only one tank of British manufacture was able to shoot without gun fitter attention, whereas all Shermans merely T and A’d their sights and drove up and fired all guns without a hitch." Even the theoretically slowest tanks (M4A4/Sherman V) arrived hours sooner than the theoretically fastest tanks (Cromwells), because they didn't need to stop and fiddle with the thing on the road. Despite having only 60% of the power and weighing ~3 more tons.

    And the exercise ended in late September 43, thus the Cromwell first hit combat after D-Day. Which is a tad late for a Sherman equivalent. Especially since the Cromwell couldn't really be upgraded. There was a whole six months between the introduction of the Cromwell and the vastly superior Comet, for that matter.

    The Sherman was kept into its obsolescence, but there's a reason why it was extremely popular until after Normandy. It is much more important to the commander to be confident that they can get enough tanks to the battlefield without problems. A better tank that is 10 miles back down the road being worked on or 50 miles away getting rebuilt in a depot isn't really a better tank.
    Any airforces claims even during the 60 and 70s of tank kills should always be correctly interpreted as pilot reporting "successful attack" or "I had a crack" than any indication of usefulness as tank busters.

    Very few aircraft had cannons that could hurt a tank, which were then limited by extremely small ammo loads (5-15 shells). Rockets were hopeless, the RAF got <5% accuracy when firing at a stationary Panther painted white with a huge red cross on it in the middle of an open field. Also, no flak. In the real world, the RAF estimated that it averaged 1 hit per 800 rockets fired.The Soviet VVS had similar accuracy in tests.

    Probably the only airborne antitank weapon that could make a claim to plausibly working is the Soviet PTAB HEAT bomblet. No more accurate than any other bomb, but at 2.5kg each even single-engined aircraft can carry 100-200 of them. And the shaped-charge warhead could penetrate the top armor of any tank. How effective they were in practice I don't know. But they certainly had a much better chance per sortie than 8 rockets.

    Morat242 on
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    Krupp stahl!
    The history of Krupp is fascinating; I highly recommend The Arms of Krupp to anyone who's interested. The last member of the Krupp dynasty replied "That's the last thing I need" when asked if he'd ever thought of working and spent most of his time flying around the world going to gay parties in Miama and Marrakesh ala Col. Gentleman from the Venture Brothers.

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    On the other hand, cannons were the business when shooting the shit out of trains, trucks, light shipping &c.

    As proved by everyone's all-star favourite, the Tempest, which, oh boy, sure did a whole lot of that class of thing.

  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    It would be much appreciated if people dropping quotes could provide the sources and if possible a link to the book or site the quotes are taken from.

    Just these individual quotes don't really give me anything to help me judge the veracity of their claims, or how widely their claims apply.

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
  • TurksonTurkson Near the mountains of ColoradoRegistered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    On the other hand, cannons were the business when shooting the shit out of trains, trucks, light shipping &c.

    As proved by everyone's all-star favourite, the Tempest, which, oh boy, sure did a whole lot of that class of thing.

    You say this, and you might be right. But I'll take (8) .50 caliber machineguns any day of the week. Preferable in a luxurious and spacious cockpit with air conditioning. I wanna fly in style.

    QtQfXtu.jpg

    oh h*ck
  • ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    The Thunderbolt really is a very pretty airplane.

    It just, you know, lacks hook.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    The Thunderbolt really is a very pretty airplane.

    It just, you know, lacks hook.

    So, what you're saying is that it's not very arresting?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    It doesn't need a hook, it's got the Armored Bathtub.
    We all know the story of Robert S. Johnson, right?

  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    It doesn't need a hook, it's got the Armored Bathtub.
    We all know the story of Robert S. Johnson, right?

    ...

    Let's pretend there are some heathens among us and retell it so those blokes and gals don't need to embarrass themselves admitting it.

    *cough*

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    One of the 56th's worst setbacks occurred on June 26, 1943, when 48 P-47Cs left a forward operating base at RAF Manston late in the afternoon to provide escort for B-17 bombers returning from a mission against Villacoublay airfield in the Paris suburbs. As the P-47s approached the rendezvous point near Forges-les-Eaux, they were jumped from above and behind by 16 Focke-Wulf Fw 190s of II Gruppe, JG 26. The first pass scattered the Thunderbolts, and Johnson's aircraft, flying at the rear of the 61st Squadron's formation, was seriously damaged by a Focke-Wulf 190 fighter which fired 21 20mm cannon shells into his fuselage which ruptured his hydraulic system. Burned and partially blinded by hydraulic fluid, Johnson tried to bail out, but his parachute snagged and the canopy would only open about 3 inches and to make matters worse, the canopy was shattered .

    After pulling out of an uncontrolled spin and with the fire amazingly going out on its own, Johnson headed for the English Channel, but was intercepted by a single Fw 190. Unable to fight back, he maneuvered while under a series of attacks, and although sustaining further heavy damage from 7.92mm, managed to survive until the German ran out of ammunition. The German rocked his wings to salute Johnson, then turned back. His opponent was likely the commander of III/JG 2, Oberst Egon Mayer.[2] [N 1]After landing, Johnson tried to count the bullet holes in his airplane, but gave up after the tally passed 200 - without even moving around the craft.

    The way I first heard it didn't have so much maneuvering - rather, that he just slid way down in his seat and let the armor around the cockpit soak up all those hits. But either way, he (and his Thunderbolt) ran a German fighter completely out of ammo and made it back to base.

  • Kane Red RobeKane Red Robe Master of Magic ArcanusRegistered User regular
    It's actually kind of a common refrain that american aircraft in ww2 were really hard to take down with machinegun fire. I remember reading about how during the battle of Midway the Japanese fighters absolutely tore up incoming US bombers, right up until they shot through their limited cannon ammunition, at which point they pretty much stopped being able to seriously threaten the next wave of incoming bombers.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Most of that can be attributed to self sealing fuel tanks.

    To take down a plane equipped with those you pretty much have to hit the pilot, the engine(s), or compromise the structural integrity of the plane...all things that are quite difficult to do with just a machine gun.

  • AlazullAlazull Your body is not a temple, it's an amusement park. Enjoy the ride.Registered User regular
    So what you're saying is that American ingenuity won the day?

    Score one for the Alliesaboos.

    User name Alazull on Steam, PSN, Nintenders, Epic, etc.
  • EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    I imagine Norway was neutral until it got invaded also. Really, thinking about it Sweden was the only Scandinavian country not invaded by someone in the war.

    Yep Norway was neutral right up until the fateful shots where fire from Oscarsborg.

    Sweden managed to remain neutral after the invasion of Denmark and Norway by sucking up to Germany something fierce. Not that they had any choice.

    Our right-wing government at the time was, behind the scenes, pretty darn pro-Nazi as well.
    You can look at the position of China and Cuba in the world today as an alternative example. Once the First World decided that it no longer needed to make the destruction of communism as its central mission, the world's communist nations stopped acting like lunatics (North Korea excepted).

    Funny sidenote here: we've changed the definition of what we call "third world" pretty radically - the phrases were coined during the Cold War. originally, First World was USA and friendly/allied countries, Second World was the Soviet Union and other communist-ruled countries, and the Third World was... everyone else.

    Just food for thought when we call something a "third world hellhole" today.

Sign In or Register to comment.