teamgene
-
Posts
10 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by teamgene
-
-
no problem.
-
Sounds good. verified I got version 1.01.
-
email sent by pm
-
I am a noob to playing by email, but would be willing to be a substitute if needed so someone gets to play a real person in their round.
-
The soviets helped a bit by occupying Ploesti in August 1944 and reducing aircraft fuel availability even more - only a very small percentage of the GAF planes produced in 1944 ever flew ... and without fuel no pilot training.
The problem wasn't fuel, germany had it in 44 and 45. The problem was they couldn't move it as anything on rail or road was dead from the air.
-
How tough a fight the west would have had if germany had not invaded ussr is dependant on when they would have gone into full war production. They were not in full war production in 41 which was a key year either way you play it.
The brits still break the enigma code, so germany loses either way, just a matter of how hard of a fight.
-
Well, I wouldn´t say that tanks and weapons were better, probably the contrary on a piece by piece comparison....
Depends on how you define better?
German tanks were not as reliable as us or ussr tanks. Problem with the germans is they tended to 'over' make things. So, if something could be done with 3 parts, the germans would use 5 parts.
US and Russian equipment worked and generally was more reliable and quicker to produce than the german counterpart.
As one historian said, it may have taken 5 shermans to kill a panther but on any given day odds were that the 5 shermans would be on the battlefield and the odds were that the panther would not.
-
This thread is for the sake of constructive and revealing argument
1. US tanks were not effective
They were effective, most history channel programs and some books do poor scholarship comparing the sherman with a panther or tiger. Not even the t34 which was the best tank of the war was equal to them. Both the sherman and t34 could take them out though.
2, US CAS was not effective against tanks.
Lots of film footage from the air of US catching german armor on the roads and tearing them up. Also lots of pictures of gi's walking by knocked out King Tiger's that was done from the air.
3. US troops were subpar.
another myth. US troops had a large learning curve due to entering the war late, but gave as good as they got on all fronts.
4. US machinguns were not very good.
true, the brownings were fine but not very portable and the US was left with the BAR which also served in Korea but was rather weak as a squad mg.
5. The Garand was not very good.
This is new too me. Garand was a war winner.
6. US artillery was what won for the US
artillery helped, but it still takes man to jump into a foxhole to get a man out of a foxhole. USA had supply issues until they could grab a major port in France, had they depended on artillery, they would have never got off the beaches.
7. Supply lines too long.
See above about the supply issues due to no major port to unload supplies.
I am a novice when it comes to these subjects. Those grogs who have info on these subjects are hereby petitioned to explain what happened in Normandy 44. If of course they deign to do so.
Many grogs are panzerphiles, so they will see anything german a superior. Part of this is due to after war germans concentrating on writing of their operational successes on eastern front and to a lesser degree west. In most cases the successes came at the end of major strategic disasters against exausted enemy units, but that is another story.
Multiplayer Thread - Opponent Finder
in Strategic Command - Assault on Democracy
Posted
email sent