Mr. Tittles

Also the Jentz Figs show that the German tank fleet increased during 1943. </font>

Not at all. Advanced meant that it was better than what the panzers were using. People could say 'Whats so great about the StuGs 75mm L48? The Hetzer and Jagdpanzer IV had them too?'. The obvious answer is the StuG had them first. Since Sturmartillerie StuGs operated differently than Panzers, they needed a radio system and control that reflected that. Early war german tanks had recieve only sets at one point. The StuGs always had recieve/send capabilitys. They operated in smaller platoons and companies and had more HQ vehicles per vehicle ratio than panzers. Perhaps the biggest advantage is the frequency of the radios they used. It reflected the nature of the mission. This allowed them to operate with the artillery and infantry and tie in to a battle group better than panzers on thier own frequency.

Bastabulls: You don't get the point! Again, the point!, you don't get it! You must get the point!!! AGAIN!!! You DON'T get the point! Can't you see, clearly like me?, you must get the POINT!!! The POINT! The POINT! The POINT!! The one I am sure you mean, 'cause I can not be wrong...The one I am sure you are missing? The POINT!!!!! Don't you get it MAN??? The point? What you must have said and I think you mean?? What's wrong with you? Can't you think like me? The POINT!!!!! You miss the point!!! I will show you what you know.. THE POINTTTT!!!!!!

Yes explain attrition and strawman arguments and the role of lend lease why don't you? Your whole argument about Normandy (mid-44?) made you look silly. [ December 27, 2003, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I must take a stand and dismiss this tired old-hat style of posting that bastables exhibits. He so often tries to steer the argument by putting assertions into other peoples posts. His 'you don't get the point' dribble usually initiates his wandering off-the-point himself. My point was the Soviets initiated a war of attrition using a model of tank without change. He will then 'attack' this with silly comments about lend-lease (pee-uuu!), etc. The Soviets pushed back the Germans with this in 1943. His Normandy comments (thats mid-44?) can not be taken seriously. He then stammers on about the soviets not-winning using this policy etc... Its tiresome. He wavers, ballyhoos, tweeters, cockafoos, twizzles, gosh-doodles and attrites through stupidity. The fact is, he can not be wrong because he has no point. 'Cept on top of his head maybe.

I stand by what I say still.

Thats OK Bastables, keep ignoring 100s of miles of territory gained. We understand.

cheer up and sue somebody

I would appreciate if anyone would assist Mr. bastables. Is he really saying that the Soviets didn't win a battle of attrition in 1943 because the Germans sent troops elsewhere? The Germans decided they would give up 100's of miles of hard fought gains because they had to send panzers elsewhere? 6 months to a year before an invasion happened? Is this the point I aint gettin?

Sigh, Ignoring Italy and Sicily the change over to the West began during the spring summer of 1943/44 Who's Sigh? And what exactly is a spring/summer of 1943/1944? Spring/Summer 1943 makes sense. Winter/Spring 1943/1944 make sense. What are you talking about?

You're missing the point; the German fleet was decreasing in the East because Panzer strength and production was increasingly focused on the West. Not because the Soviet's themselves were winning the war of attrition. I think maybe myself and a few others would like you to substantiate this. Show that a increasingly focused amount of armor was sent to the west during 1943. Compare it to the flow to the east. If you dont or cant, dont feel bad; many people that rant that others are 'missing the point' are just keyboard tapsters with self-feeding delusions.

http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/eastfront2/1efrnt4344.htm a nice picture showing the effects of attrition

Production (T34/76) 1940 - 270 1941 - 2.800 1942 - 12.520 1943 - 15.812 1944 - 3.500 Production (T34/85) 1944 - 11.000 1945 - 7.650

Subordinate armor vehicles Fu.2 (receiver only)

If the losses/production are about equal, and I am pushing the enemy back and his fleet is decreasing (and no one is bombing my factories), aint I winning a little?

As far as lend lease, c'mon you must be kidding! If someone is going to bring you free stuff to your door, are you going to insist that it be T34s!!!!????? I believe they phased out KV1 and light tanks also (since light tanks were coming on ships anyway. The Soviets WERE demanding more fronts and probably felt they were being played. The capatilists know we have the bull by the horns so we cant let go. once committed, they had to keep the Germans reeling backwards.

T34s were possibly being manufactured at a greater rate? I guess thats how I would win a war of attrition. Wasn't the German army also being pushed back? What a bonus!

Never said it was more modern. Said it was better. Dont need to play me your resume.

Fu.5 10 watt trans. (10 W.S.c.) and Ultra short wave receiver "e" (UKw.E.e) 2 meter rod standard squad leader's tank radio set An Fu5 is a radio set. It consists of a transmitter and a reciever. all the other cables and stuff too.

This is an unusual argument to make as Panzer and StuG production increased during 1943. Also the change over for the PIII to Panthers began in earnest in 1944, this is the period when one sees many of the First Panzer battalions being shipped back to Germany for retraining and Panther equipment. 10 July 1943: 2609 Panzers on the eastern front 31 Dec 1943: 2053 Panzers on the eastern front (1996 Jentz) Not including StuG and slf (Marders) numbers as I don't have them. Without Normandy and its loss of 1500 panzers the Soviet strategy of attrition at loss may have proved even more wasteful and actually counterproductive. </font>

It isn't a Befehls-Panther. Not sure why you think it is? I again repeat, the typical panzer had one reciever. The typical StuG had two. The panzers had two recievers for platoon commanders. I think the website makes that clear. Panzers may also have had one of the two tanks in the company command two panzer section ALSO having two recievers, the other tank in the two tank company HQ section being a Befehls-Panzer having whatever they had (Perhaps you should read that website?). [ December 26, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The Pantherfibel (Panther field manual) says it did. The running Panther A at Saumur France though has two transmitters and one reciver in it's three radio mountings. </font>

http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/rads/germrads.html According to this site, only platoon/company commanders had the extra recievers.

COMMON RADIO SETS USED IN GERMAN WWII AFVs Vehicle Radio Set Unit commander's tank Fu.5 and Fu.8, or Fu.5 and Fu.7 Squad leader and typical tank Fu.5 and Fu.2, or Fu.5 only Subordinate armor vehicles Fu.2 (receiver only) Assault guns, armor formations Fu.5 and Fu.4, or Fu.8 and Fu.4 and Fu.Spr.f. Assault guns artillery Fu.8 and Fu.16 and Fu.15, or Fu.16 and Fu.15, or Fu.16 only Armored OP artillery vehicles Fu.8 and Fu.4, or Fu.8 and Fu.4 and Fu.Spr.f. SP antitank guns (light and med) Fu.5 and Fu.8, or Fu.5 only SP antitank guns (heavy chassis) Fu.5 and Fu.8, or Fu.5 and Fu.7, or Fu.5 and Fu.2 Antitank assault guns Fu.5 and Fu.8, or Fu.5 only Lynx (recon) Fu.12 and Fu.Spr.f or Fu.Spr.f. only Antiaircraft tanks (Flakpanzer) Fu.5 or Fu.2 SP heavy infantry gun Fu.16 Wasp and Bumble Bee and Marder Fu.Spr.f. Armored cars (except 8 wheeled vehicles) and semi-tracked vehicles with armament Fu.Spr.f. Armored cars Fu.12 and Fu.Spr.f. 8 wheeled armored cars Fu.12 and Fu.Spr.f. or Fu.Spr.f. only An interesting thing is that Sturmartillerie StuGs used better radios than assault guns used in panzer divisions.