Jump to content

Iron Chef Sakai

Members
  • Posts

    625
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Iron Chef Sakai

  1. Originally posted by Big Time Software:

    Iron Chef Saki wrote:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I can't pin point where it is from, but it certainly is not from the nazi party.

    You really have no idea how little you know, do you? smile.gif First of all, it was captured by Allied forces in Germany. Second, the Nazis probably had a couple hundred different flags with Swasitkas on them, to which I will add that probably nobody on this Forum is an authority on. Third, if this is from some other country which uses/used Swastikas, kindly figure out which one would have HUGE red colored banners made around 1940s and in Germany before you jump to such a wild conclusion.

    It is most certainly Nazi made, most likely for a local political purpose. My guess is, as I said before, some sort of regional/city NSDAP flag.

    Steve</font>

  2. I just for the first time started an Operation game with a friend of mine tcp/ip. I had nver played any of the scenarios or operations, only quick battles against people.

    I am realy impressed with these so far! I will not bother to play a quick battle again with all these great maps and missions to play from!

    I'd like ot give a pre-emptive thanks to all the Scenario designers out there because iw ill be downloading a bunch of thm in the near future.

    Does anyone create Operations? Or is that not an option, i was just wondering because eventualy i'll try my hand at making some Scenarios.

  3. Originally posted by JasonC:

    I will address the comments about the Russians, because I think they were full of purely factual errors I can correct.

    The Russians most certainly did not have excess production capacity for BT-5s, because the BT pre-war series had already been phased out when the war began. They had flocks of them, but they weren't making any more. They had been produced throughout the 1930s. (Yes Virginia, they were excellent tanks for the era in which they were made - 45mm guns, fast, etc).

    The Russians did have light tank production lines, but they made T-60s and T-70s, both of which were designed after the invasion began. You can think of them as the Russian's Pz II (20mm light tank) and Pz 38t (but 45mm instead of 37mm) respectively. The Germans were still using such vehicles, so the Russians did too.

    But later, the Germans phased them out because they found their pop-guns weren't useful anymore. When? In 1942, after the pre-war Russian armor fleet of thin tanks was gone, and the T-34s were pouring out of the factories instead. The Germans made Marders, and in the case of the Pz II a bit later, Wespes. That utilized their light tank chassis production.

    Did the Russians "never have anything like a Marder"? Sure they did. They had the SU-76, an open topped self-propelled 76mm gun, mounting their long 76mm divisional artillery piece. Hmm, same gun on some early Marders. Hmm, the 105 on the Wespe was the standard German divisional artillery piece. What did the Russians make SU-76s out of? Discontinued T-60 and T-70 production lines.

    When did they stop making the light tanks and switch to SU-76s instead? About 6 months after the Germans, although teething problems until the SU-76m model made it more like a year until all production had switched over. That also about coincided with the Germans cancelling the Pz III; the Russians canceled their last 45mm tanks soon after. They kept making SU-76s right to the end of the war, and fielded tens of thousands of them. They used them as SPA, SPAT, and assault guns (one vehicle, many roles).

    The parallel in the handling of light tank production capacity is therefore quite close. Both pulled them in 1942-3 and fielded upgunned SPAT or SPA instead, using the same chassis.

    As for the StuG, the Russians certainly copied those German moves too. The SU-122 and the StuH are comparable weapons (limited AT ability, some HEAT to stretch it but still low muzzle velocity guns, good HE chucking, moderate armor). The SU-85 and the long 75 model StuG are also comparable weapons (similar tank killing ability in gun-armor terms). The SU-122 was a bit before the StuH, while the SU-85 was considerably later than the long 75 StuG (but a bit before the Jadgpanzer IV). The Russians also had SU-152s, certainly. The Germans had Brummbars and Nashorns, splitting the heavy HE and heavy AT roles. At the level of the "vanilla" assault guns and TDs, midwar, there was again not much difference in overall types fielded.

    The Russians did eventually field much more powerful TD types, but they were only out in the last year really. Those were the ISU-122, ISU-152, and SU-100. The last of those didn't see action until 1945, the others were first used extensively in the summer of 44. They can be compared (roughly) to Jagdtigers, Elephants, Jagdpanthers, and Jagdpanzer-70s. The Russians had more of them, but then the Russian had more of all AFV types.

    A more interesting question is why the Russians made so many TDs based on the T-34 chassis, when the T-34 itself was already a success - unlike the German Pz III. Part of it may have been simply copycat moves. The Russians did not want to compete with the Germans in types and doctrine about using them, though they certainly wanted to match the Germans on that score and tried to stay at least even there. They wanted to compete in pure production, in raw numbers fielded, having neutralized the other issues.

    When the SU-85 was fielded, it did represent a significant upgunning compared to the T-34/76s then in service. But this was a temporary matter. Soon they had T-34/85s, and thus no extra oomph in return for sacrificing the turret. The SU-122 made more sense, as an HE support type (like the StuH) - more HE in return for less AT and no turret.

    In the long run, though, the engineering trade off was similar. Any vehicle could mount a larger gun without a turret than with one. The Russians did not face the Pz III quandry of a main production vehicle too small to carry any useful gun in a turret. But they had periods of similar problems - the small T-34/76 turrets, 2-man only and not really enough AT ability once the Germans uparmored in the course of 1943. The T-34/85 solved many of those problems for them, just as the long-75 Pz IV and StuG mix had solved the earlier German one.

    There were of course differences in design philosophy, noticable in the second half of the war. The Russians went for gun caliber while the Germans went for maximum muzzle velocity. That tended to make the German guns better AT weapons, especially at long range (MV is a twofer on penetration and accuracy), while the Russian ones had better HE performance. Since the Russians were attacking and the Germans defending - with fewer AFVs and as many towed guns as AFVs - that difference makes perfect sense.

    But the idea that there was some night and day difference in how each dealt with production issues, upgunning, use of TD vs. use of turrets, etc - that is just not accurate. The Russians had their own versions of "Marders", and "StuGs", and "StuHs". They were called SU-76, SU-85, and SU-122.

    Also, incidentally, the SU-122 was definitely an HE chucker, not a "versatile" any-role vehicle. It had low muzzle velocity and quite poor AT performance because of it. They used HEAT instead of AP because of this. It was still much harder to get hits at medium to long range with low MV. In a medium to long range duel, the StuG with long 75 would probably win, because it is more likely to get hits. The SU-122 was still a useful AFV, certainly. But more like a StuH than a StuG - let alone an all-around do-everything model.

    Intersting, thanks, i forgot the SU-122 and the ISU-122 were different vehicles, i think thats where i got the misconceptions. Thanks.
  4. Originally posted by Cauldron:

    I would love to see any evidence of a Stug Panzer division....

    One thing no-one seems to mention and could make a bit of a dent in such an idea is that they used completely different radio frequencies from the other type of AFV.

    This was drawn to my attention by a tank modeler many years ago and shown in the data that comes with such kits.

    The German's also had some really wierd mine clearing tanks, as well as having 88mm on SPW chasis.

    The book Hitler's War : Germany's Strategic Decisions 1940-45 by Heinz Magenheimer shows the MAIN problem with WW2 was the fact that Germany just did not have the industry to support it.

    The Stug was rather a successful stopgap thought up by Von Manstien which due largely to German brilliance in using them as (in Manstein's words) "fire brigades" exceeded expectations:)

    ;)

    They had the industry to support it, it was Alber Spier who did not set the German economy to a war time economy until late '43 that was the problem. You'll notice at the peak of allied bombing raids on German factories, German production actualy increased a large part despite all the massive bobming attacks.
  5. The Soviet assault guns on paper seem like a more effective weapon. (SU-100, SU-122)

    Why did the Germans stick with the stuggs and stuh 42 series? Wasit only because they had a huge surplus of Panzer 3 chasis and parts? I'm sure the Soviets had a stock pile of BT-5 chasis, but that did not stop them from upgrading.

    It seems like the German industry had a hard time adapting to new technology, is that true, or is there another reason, ie political or some other factor that cause this? The Stuggs were mnay, an dracked up plenty of kills, but it seems as if they were technologicly and tacticly out classed by their Russian counter parts.

    For instance, the Soviets did not have a Marder type vehicle, nor did the Allies. It seemed that it was created out of a desperete necessity. Wich in a way it basicly was, but i was wondering if any thing else played a factor in all of this. The Germans had plenty of good AFV's but they seemed to have a bad habit of producing lots of their weakest link vehicles. I'm not saying the Stuggs were bad, it's just i see an SU-122 as a much more versatile and effective vehicle.

  6. Originally posted by Croda:

    I vote for myself because it would piss me off to high hell to see you win anything.

    Mike, I got the joke too. Does it strike you as surprising that ICS didn't?

    Well there is the possibility i found the joke so weak that it would have been to easy to toss a few jokes of my own back at Dorosh.

    At least he's putting in the effort though, i would have given him a gold star for effort if you had'nt eaten the whole strip Croda.

  7. Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Simon Fox:

    Oh, yes, I'm absolutely seething.

    You're just grumbling because you would never win. It's your own fault, really, you're far too non-descript. The key to true Groginess (and I mean capital-G Grogginess, mind, not the regular kind) is to blather on about everything under the sun in a Cliff Claven kind of a way whether or not you know anything about it, but being sure to make reference to the fact that you read a book about it once and here's the author's name as proof and gee look at me with these run on sentences with my brilliance flapping in the breeze.

    So basically, get with it Fox, or you will never attain the heights of a JasonC or a Michael Dorosh or even a Gyrene.</font>

  8. Ok here it is folks...the polls are now open.

    Who is going to be the winner of the First Anual Combat Mission S.O.B award???

    Your vote counts....every memeber of the CM forum, Administrators included are elegible and registered to vote.

    Don't miss your oppurtunity.....the Polls close On March the 3rd 2002.

    The voted will then be counted and your winner announced on the following day by your's truly.

  9. Originally posted by Simon Fox:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gyrene:

    I vote for Mike DeRoach. He even cracks a joke now and then. No, really!

    Gyrene

    I can't beleive you legitimised another dopey LGMB idea by giving it even a semi-serious answer.

    I too was thinking of suggesting that a "Lord General MB Memorial" award be given. But it had nothing to do with grogs.</font>

  10. Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

    Well, you know that the Iron Chef always likes to jump in and add an insightful comment or two to most threads on the forum. His mastery of WW2 minutae is rather impressive - even Groglike on occasion.

    So this is all you and your friend have to add to this thread? This has what to do with the NKVD again? Now when you mention trollish posts....does yours kind of jump out at you?

    If i think the NKVD were scum bags, then how does this make me a troll? I've read about them and thier predecessors and what they did turns my stomach. Though they did have arguably the best spies in the world at the time.

  11. Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

    Well, you know that the Iron Chef always likes to jump in and add an insightful comment or two to most threads on the forum. His mastery of WW2 minutae is rather impressive - even Groglike on occasion.

    So the NKVD were nice people? All i was adding was that they were not soldiers, and i thought they were scumbags.

    Was i wrong in correcting someone to the fact that they were not soldiers, but an evolution of the Cheka who served the same purpose under Lenin?

×
×
  • Create New...