von Churov

What's wrong with this????? Have I said something insulting here? Were they afraid? Yes! Did they believed in something? Yes! Whatever it was...but still it's YES!!! Did they died...Many of them DID! Were they brave? YES! Speaking of bravery: You think that the bravest man is not afraid in the battlefield? He is, but what makes his bravery even greater is that the fear he felt didn't stop him from moving on into the battle. And that's what makes him brave! Speaking of the cause: You really miss the point here. It's idealism here that I speak about. It takes a lot of guts to rush into battle to die just because you believe in something, whatever it is. It doesnt matter is that cause a brave new world where all the men are equal, or brave new world where all the men are white, or brave new world where all the men are women, or anything. Or is that cause the feelings you have towards your country, your hometown, your friends in the squad... Or is the simple belief that it's better to die because of the enemy's bullet than to die of your commissar's bullet. IT DOESN'T MATTER FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!! It's out of the scope of this post. Millions of men fought. They were brave, every single one of them. They were brave for being there. Thousans of them died. They died for what they believed in. That should be respected. Period. [ July 19, 2005, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: von Churov ]

As of "SS Thugs". I'm not trying to abolish them, but you should know the differece between Algemeine SS, and Waffen SS. It's heaven and earth, difference. The later were (almost) regulary soldiers, although they were drafted by Himler (and doctrinated by him too.) And no one could deny them being the best soldiers in the WWII battlefields. First three SS Div's (1 LSSAH, 2 Das Reich, 3 Totenkopf) were the true elite in those days, and in the scope of this forum and this game (CMBB) that's all that counts. The things that you reffer to are completely out of the scope of what I said and what this forum is about. Don't tell me that you have never tried to play CM as German side with SS troops. If you did (and we all know that you did, as we all did), than you are to blame yourself for cheering for "SS Thugs" at least for the course of the game. Are you sure that Michael Witmann was thug? Are you sure that Ernst Barkmann was thug? They had nothing to do with war crimes or atrocites. They were just a fine soldiers who performed their duty with ultimate bravery and skill. Are you sure that they had a clue on National Socialism? Do you think that they had a contact with concentration camps? Do you really think that they knew on "final solution"? They felt an elite...because they were a sort of an elite. And they were in SS because they were the best around. Being best their only alternative to SS was GD. Once more, I'm not trying to abolish SS (I know of their crimes A LOT more that you do, as my family suffered them painfully) but I don't want to paint it black and white. Generalization must be avoided. So, my friend I'm not a neo-nazi and I didn't invite you to cheer the SS deeds, I called you all guys to remember the greatest tank battle in the history and those who participated (and died) in it, and to cheer them all and their sacrafice without difference in terms of side and without difference in terms of politics. So, don't try to invite politics in this, cause I din't do it too. Regards!

Really? I saw nothing of the sort. At what point did the original poster "extoll SS thugs as heroes"? I'll answer my own question. He did not. That was not his intention as any rational person would have recognized immediately. You saw an opportunity to impress us all with your boundless intellect and seized upon it with no regard for the sensitivity of the subject matter. Stop trying to pretend otherwise. </font>

Today is 62 exactly years since tank clash at Prokhorovka! The hammer and the anvil clash, that the mankind will remember for good! A minute of silence in the respect of all the brave soldiers on both sides who fought and died for what they believed in! Today we all play CMBB Prokhorovka-Finale. Comments?

Here's a note from "other guys". The "new" M80 is just being introduced in the army...as S&M (this stands for Serbia and Montenegro, and not for Symphony and Metallica) army is approaching NATO. But it's a long process to replace nearly 2 million of M70's diferrent variations vhich were produced. So, so far only the elite units are recieving new equipment...Signalers were definitly the last one to recieve it (except maybe the cooks and artilerymen). Speaking of M70 versions, it's not only M70b1 which was official rifle in S&M army, but there were several versions for different troops. a, b, ab1, a1, b1, a2, b2, and eventually ab2 the one that I used. They all differ in stock variations (a's are those with folding stock) and gas chamber (b are those with modified gas chamber and rifle grenade sight in the top of it) and 1 and 2 stands for something that I don't remember anymore. Anyway ab2 is the latest version of M70 with all improvements and folding stock. And it's a good piece of steel. We were told that it was really better quality than original AK47...but I though that it could be propaganda (I believe China sais the same about their version of AK 47 which seems to be piece of junk compared to others). But I see now that it might have been the truth...(Only truth that I was told in the Army). My former superiors had an experience with M80, and they say that it's a "good weapon" but for us "lausy piece of ****" , even old M70 is too good. They say that 80 is accurate but it feels like a toy compared to 70 due to lack of recoil. It's still reliable and "just a bit more accurate". I will investigate some more...I know some people.

I think we served in the same regiment, damn I am not certain about the number any more, the 398 was the signal regiment of the General Staff, was it not? As far as your experience is concerned it is fairly consistent with what I saw. Our rifles were exposed to war-time conditions, mud, rain etc and it never occurred to us that they might jam. They never did. </font>

What Glider here refer to is M72. It's a sort of AK 47...and it really is more accurate and deadly than ordinary M70. I'm not sure about the rate of fire...I believe that it's the same as that of M70 (or AK 47 if you like). But it really is capable of firing more sustained bursts, not only due to longer barrel but also the barrel is quite heavier, and being so tends to overheat less than ordinary M70. M72 has a longer barrel and a bipod,it has effective range of 600m (or even more), and it's deadly accurate. And none of you would like to face it at those ranges with only M16 in your hands. Not even you Abot. It's only drawback is that is quite heavy for a assault rifle. But it's only 5% more expencive (or better said: less cheap) than M70 (AK 47). Being in signal unit I had no direct expirience with it (since it is primarily infantry weapon) but I saw the infantrymen using it and they had 30% (or more) better results than their squad mates with M70. Good weapon...but a bit heavy. (I even heated carryng my folding stok M70a, I could only imagine how it is with M72 in your hand)

Just wanted to say that this is a considerable underestimate... I saw a bunch of signals unit soldiers, i.e. soldiers with a very basic infantry training, score regular (30-40%) hits on man-sized targets at 200 and 250 metres. I also saw hundreds of 40years+ general staff officers who probably touch an AK-47 once every few years score even better results, all this using AK-47s that, while regularly maintained, have been used by generations of recruits. </font>

So, who in the other Blitzkrieg thread is still buying Goebbels' propaganda, eh? Besides von Churov, I mean. </font>

Sorry Moon, I'll be cool. I just don't like when someone underestimates other peoples knowledge, and starts rating books and arguments at will. Just don't lock anything. Thank U!

I didn't say that Allied newspapers called the Germans revloutionary. (I called it revolutionary in implementation of simple ideas in a very complex environment,such as a war of major nations.) I said that they were completely amazed with how easily the Germans were winning the War. And they were unplesently amazed with the Blitzkrieg. I don't have to like the a-bomb to be amazed with it's effect. And the blitzkrieg was a great "engeneering" effort. Once more on theory and practice. The theory of an atom bomb existed since 1905, but it took 40 years to build one. The fact that the theory of an a-bomb was known to everybody, does not dimishes the REVOLUTIONARY success of american engineers managing to produce it. As of Blitzkrieg, the success was to put it all together and to make it work. And it was put together, and it worked. Hell. I look at the other posts. But most of the talk here is about the war economy. The Blitzkrieg itself as a phenomenon has nothing to do with the war economy. Put the blame on the term Blitzkrieg (the lightning WAR). The war economy is about how to win the war ( WWII ), the Blitzkrieg is about how to win the campaign (Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, USSR ), and as a long term strategy it is probably unsuccesfull. The war economy that is mainly discussed here is a WAR OF ATTRITION, and that's what Germans tried to avoid with the LIGHTING WAR. Those two are opposite things. More appropriate term for Blitzkrieg may should be a BLITZCAMPAIGN. For as long as it could have been applied in a short blows it worked. Prolonging it's effect stalls it and stops it. It's no longer a BLITZ ( a lightning) for a lightnings does not last too long. So, that's way it is not the war ecnomy in blitzkrieg. War economy lasts, the Blitzkrieg does not. Hitler was all in war economy. The Guderian and von Manstein were in Blitzkrieg. The Blitzkrieg is about the risk, the deception, coordination of all armed forces, propaganda and so on and so on...The blitzkrieg is using what you have at hand to strike you opponent as fast as you can, as hard as you can, and trying to make a decisive blow before he could consolidate. It's about speed and maneuver. The revolutionarity of German Blitzkrieg was partialy in reintroducing the maneuver in the times of trenches, barbed wires, fortified lines, minefields and so on. The Blitzkrieg is moving and maneuvering, and thinking in terms of imagination rather than in terms of numbers. The war economy is about numbers. Blitzkried is about disabling opponent's fighting force. Fire and maneuver again. </font>

Please provide your definition of "blitzkrieg" and then give a concrete example of it in action. I'll try and find my copy of Cooper tonight and provide some relevant quotes. Allied newspapers, in time of war, calling the Germans revolutionary? Gee, could that be perhaps because they had a national bias and saw their own armies being utterly beaten in short periods of time? [/QB]

Talking through their asses. There were few "military analysts" then the way there are now. No one in the west really cared to talk about it in the news - no one really thought another war was likely, nor particularly knew what form it would take. 1. Well, you mentioned the analysts in a first place. I talked about newspapers as an objective testimony of surprise by the public in the West after the France have fallen in few weeks. 2. No one believed the another war is likely? They were in state of war with Germany for more than 9 months before Germans attacked. What they were excpeting for? Another Olymics on Magino/Ziegfrid line??? When you're in state of war with someone you plan how to defend yourself and how to attack your opponent. They must have had a some plans and they have failed. Do you even know what "revolutionary" means? In one breath you say "nothing new" and in the next you say "revolutionary". Revolutionay means something new. How was their implementation revolutionary? Well everybody knew the theory but no one believed in it. No one exept Germans. As you said: revolutionary means something new. Well everybody talked about penetrating deep into enemys rear, making a decisive and fatal blow to him and leading to final decision. That's why idea is not Revolutionary. But NOBODY EVER MADE IT!!! And that was something new. (Or you know some historical examples of this proportion?) That's why the implementation of the old idea was revolutionary. Which technical advancements? Tanks? Everyone had tanks. The French and British had arguably better tanks - certainly Matilda II was the King Tiger of its day, though slow and underarmed. Aircraft? They used them in World War One. The infantry section? WW I. Submachine gun? WW I. The light machine gun as the nucleus of infantry fire and maneuver? WW I. What revolution? May be you don't listen to yourself? If all the prerequisites were there, as you claim:the equipment, the theory, the intention and will to do so, why there was no blitzkrieg in WWI??? Or there was something knew? But if there was something new, there is the revolutionary that you deny. As of equipment, You forgot radio! Equip all of these WWI pieces with radio and you'll get something really new. For mobile warfare the radio is essencial. Tanks? Yes. But tanks with radios. Penetrating deep into enemy's rear but still in command and still coordinated. Planes? Yes. But planes with radios. Flying over enemy positions and being able to strike exectly where necessery, exactly when necessery, guided by ground observers. Artillery? Yes. But Arty FO with a radios riding on leading tanks sending deadly and accurate artillery fire promptly and timely. As you said, everybody had all of those, and everybody had a theory of blitzkrieg but still but still it was Germans who exploited it!!! There's the point that you miss! Everybody knew of it, and everybody (possibly) had a capability of doing it, but nobody did it. After the battle all the generals know how? But it's the winner the one who knows it prior to the battle!!! Eventually if Brits and French had better and more tanks than Germans, and they did, why they were defeated? They were superiour in numbers (we agree) and in equpiment (we agree) but still they were defeated. Probably Germans did something knew? Something that everybody knew about but no one knew how to do it. Exept Germans! Still not seeing it. Which ones? WWI Tanks had no sufficient radius to be effective in a role requrired for blitzkrieg. They were no more than a weak infantry support fortresses. WWI planes had no sufficient radius, nor sufficient load capability, nor sufficient speed nor any technical acpect to be useful for blitzkrieg. (Trying to imagine WWI Cammel made of wood and canvas strafing over the troops equipped with lots of MG 34's. He-he-he!) Remember Stuka's impact on blitzkrieg, especially in the first few years. Small arms. The core of German infantry squad firepower in WWII was (one or two) MG 34 and MG42's weighting about 10 kg. (Now imagine WWI squad assaulting with Maxim HMG) And so on and so on... How so? Read above. And the Germans did this in 1939? And this was something new in history? Cooper seems to tell us the infantry actually did the lion's share of the work in Poland. Not all the German army did the blitzkrieg. Infantry Div's had no sufficient equipnent for blitzkrieg, ant they fought more less just as Inf.Div's of WWI. But mobile Div's were those who really fought the blitzkrieg.Infantry leaped behind the Pz Corps' and was used to secure and clear the "kessels" (pockets) made by pincer movements of Panzers. If there were no PzC's there would have been no kessels and everything would have ended up in a trench stalmates as in WWI. Panzer Corps was something new in war history! Yes the Panzer Army (group) was something really never-seen-before in the history! Or you will try to argue this? Perfect? They went to war without enough trucks, ammunition or gasoline, with a hastily expanded army still bound to thousands of horses, lacking in heavy bombers and tied to an industrial machine made of cottage industries which had little interconnection and no ability to sustain a prolonged war effort - even if they had declared a total war effort, which they never did until circa 1943. That same year 1 million German women worked full time as hairdressers instead of in industry. Strategically they had no vision, as well explained in the other posts. I agree on this one. Germans were strategicaly unprepared and maybe they were destined to lose the war from the very begninig. But that has nothing to do with Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg is not a long distance strategy. Name one. As you said, there were no analyst the way they are today. The analysts of the time were generals (or whole detachments) in supreme HQ's in charge of monitoring what enemy (as well as potential enemy) does and proposes the counter mesures. And those failed to meet the German approach. I ask you a simple question, WHY? More like a flash of incompetence on the part of their enemies. The Polish refused for political reasons to withdraw to natural defensive terrain, and weren't helped much by the stab in the back from Russia, as well as a lack of British or French help. Poles were doomed. Nothing could help them even if there was no blitzkrieg. They were no mach for the Germans. I'm talking about France and England. See the other posts. </font>

Right but what the analyst were doing? Why they didn't pay attention to what the Germans were cooking up? :confused: Why nobody warned the allies what was underway? Or they did but no one listened to them, because no one believed that such a thing is possible. But you're right to the point...Germans did not invent something knew (and that's what I wrote in my first post on this topic, but you didn't read it anyway), all they did was an EVOLUTION of old Moltke and Clauzevitz ideas. But, the Implementation of the approach was the REVOLUTIONARY one. It's the technical advancement of military that enabled them to do it! :mad: What I'm trying to say that it was not the series of misfortunes and lucky strikes that led to succes of Blitzkrieg. It was really something new for the time, not the idea itself but it's implementation according to the newest achievements in military tecnics of the time. Brits had Fuller and Liddel Hart before the Germans had Guderian, we agree on that, but (here's the surprise) it was not the Brits who applied the Blitzkrieg but the Germans. Again, it was not the idea, it was an approach what was REVOLUTONARY. Try to imagine several ARMIES moving forward in an assault of a MOBILE warfare, including PANZER ARMIES (or groups, which was theri initial name). Such a formation was unknown to mankind before. 150 to 200 thousand of men equipped and trained to break through, to fight and to coordinate its actons behind the enemy lines. Sounds a bit messy, but the Germans manage to organize that mess in a perfect war machine. The other major nations military analysts (we come to them again) would have proved that imposible if they were asked to comment that prior to the initiation of WWII. But Germans proved it possible (and whaths more, very effective too) in a flash of a lightning. So, if it was not revolutionary, why nobody found a cure for that before late 1942? Surprise works for first few months, one cannot be surprised forever. Or the ones were thunderstruck??? Please read what I wrote initially.

That's where I stopped reading. Anyone else care to tackle this, or shall we just leave it on the bottom of the bird cage where it belongs? </font>

The Blitzkrieg was not a myth!!! That was something really revolutionary for the time. Have you ever read the newpaper articles of the time? Well, do it! And you'll see of how the Western press was stunned by the German aproach, how surprised they were by what German have called the Blitzkrieg. Allied HQ's were not filled with amateurs, but with professional soldiers who spent whole their lives trying to find the way to reveal opponnents thoughs and intentions and to prevent them. Those were men trained (and paid too) to think fast, to make decisions fast, and to act fast. Yes, they were! But, something gone wrong. The fall of France!!! It was not the numbers of Panzer that they were surprised with, or their technical superiority. Remember, the bulk of German PZ forces consisted of PZ II's (20 mm gun, or much better said :20mm Heavy Machine Gun), and early Pz III's (equipped with 37mm gun) none of them capable of knocking out some of the heavy(for the time) French "Chars". The majority of French tank loses in Spring 1940 were inflicted not by the Panzers but by German AT and field artilery.So what's the role the Panzers did in the Blitzkrieg? Well, there is another point of how to stop an enemy tank. Simply, leave it without an ammo and fuel, and it will stop moving, and it will stop firing. And will surrender eventually. PANZERS WERE NOT USED TO BREAK THROUGH THE ENEMY LINES!!! It's like trying to take down a medieval knight with a dagger. If you aim straight for the heart you will break your blade on the plate of his body armour and you will be helpless. It's much better approach to come as close to the enemy as possible and try to find a weak spot between the plates of armour. And that's where you push your dagger through. Right into the soft flesh underneath the armour!!! So, according to that simple "doctrine" panzers didn't puch a holes. It were Infantry divisions who were used to do that. Panzer divisions simply exploited the breaktroughs. Basic purpose of Panzer Divisions, as defined by German doctrine, was exploitation of breakthrough success, not the breakthrough itself. Having had them used to break through the fortified enemy positions they would have been slaughtered by enemy's AT guns, and artilery undisturbed by own infatry and artilery fire.(A broken blade) So, eventually, the Pz Division would have been too weak and worn out to proceed forward even if it managed to break through. Tank needs four things to fight: 1.Ammo(this is obvious, but...) 2. Fuel 3.Rested crew 4.Maintenance. After the hard battle on breaking the enemy's fortified line it would have had none of the four. So it's on the infantry to make the hole. How it's done? One of the basics of German TACTICS was to have sufficient assault reserves kept at hand, and after the inital attack finds the weak points in enemy's position these reserves were to be used to punch through the weak spots. These moments of finding a soft point are the moments of crisis for both sides. (getting close to the enemy and finding a hole in it'a armour) As defined by the German tactical doctrine:This is just the right moment (the crisis),to kick in with assault reserves. Not too early, or they will be worn out too soon before the decisive breakthrough is made; nor too late, or enemy will be given time to react and to bring its own reserves to consolidate the crisis and to corke the hole. So, after the hole is made is when the the Panzers were used. They were to run through the bathered enemy positions into their soft rear.( the soft fleash uderneath the armour). Keep in mind that the front area was 100 km deep. It's the infantry in the first few kilometers, protected by the trenches, foxoles, shelters, antitank ditches, barbed wires, minefields and the strongest possible artillery and AT fire of course, and god know what else comes with in the main defence line. (It wold be fool who spends his precious armour against this.) It's the artillery in the next few kilometers of enemy's front depth. Unprotected by an infantry and everything that goes with the main defence line they are the perfect targets for fast advancing Panzers. So after the Panzers followed by motorised Panzergrenadiers break through, the few of the enemy's artillery batteries that they meet along their way are their first victims. Rearward points of enemy resistence are not to be engaged, they are to be bypassed and left behind to be delt with advancing infantry. The next layer of front depth is occupied by HQ's, supply depots, communication centres and reserves assembly zones. A dream come true targets for any Panzer division. The flanks of such wedge shaped breakthroughs are anti-tank protected not by the Panzers but by Panzer Divsion's AT Batteries (Panzer Jager Abteilungs). The tanks were spearheading the wedge. So, eventually the panzer were doing rampage in the enemy's rear, cutting off the communications, capturing the HQ's, capturing the supply depots, taking and holding the important junctions and bridges (thus preventing the enemy of reinforcing their defence) and so on, and so on. As a result of this the enemy defence left without a daily ammo and any other supply, without reinforcements, without a leadership (due to captured HQ's),with communication breakdown, and with enemy behind the back (cutting off the line of retreat) falls an easy prey for advancing infantry on the main defence line. So, we come to that another way to knock out an enemy tank. Left without a fuel and ammo, disorganized and diordered with no clear picture of enemy's position and advance, they are more likely to surrender than to fight. And so, you have knocked out an entire enemy tank unit without a direct shot fired. Simply! Isn't it? You dont have to be a genius to invent it, but you have to be something to implement it. It really seems so logical in the first view to use something strong and armoured (Panzer) to strike into something strong and armoured (fortified position). But you have to think of tanks as Germans did to do the opposite-to strike the soft point with your hardest part (By this I don't mean the sex, any similarity is purely coincidental, ha ha ha). And what Germans though of Tanks? The answer could be found in Guderian quotation: "the tanks engine is as much the weapon as its gun is" The movement. If you think of it you will notice that the German tank had the weakest armour protection of all sides in war, ( Italians are out of competition in this category. Well, they weren't much in the war anyway.)but had the greatest mobility of all. (Here I dont take into account Tigers, because they were used in special purposes and were not a part of regular Panzer Regiments in the divisions, but rather were part of special Schwere Panzer Abteilungs- heavy tank batallions. As of Panther, they had a similar role in the begginig, untill they were produced in larger quantities, and still they mobility were more advanced that their armour protection). So, according to German view the tank is not an armour, but a gun and an engine. Firepower and the spead rather than a portable fortress. FIRE AND MANOVEUR!!! So, that's what the blitzkrieg was about. Kick with your dagger right into the soft point and try to make as much damage as you can. And enemy will bleed out and it will fall an easy prey for you. Remember that it took Guderian several day before he punched a hole at Sedan, but once a hole is made the progres was as fast as tanks could go. The rear was soft!!! Than, remeber that at early June 1940 Kleist failed to break through the French defence at Peronne because he used the Panzer divsions forward aganist the prepared enemy positions. At the same time, Guderian punched a hole into enemy's fortified postion at Rethel by using infantry to do that, preserving the tanks for the advance afterwards. And it wasnt because Guderian was reluctant to use them , but Guderian KNEW HOW to use them in a best way. So, blitzkrieg was not a myth, but it was a mythically innovative and revolutionary for the time.