Tigers from HELL

[Steiner14]

Reprisals - as in enforcing a law by punishing a group rather than individuals - is a war crime, and a heinous crime in any democratic society worth that adjective.

Today or during WWII? Today it is not allowed, but at that time it was.

Every army was doing it during that time but you desinformed people only know it about the Germans.

Or was the mistake of the Germans, that they followed the internationally accepted ratio of 1:10 and should have used the US ratio in Germany of 1:80?

As was already mentioned, the tragedy at Oradour was examined from a martial court of the division itself, because of the unexpected explosions in the church.

Can you tell me, how many US soldiers were put on trial for the INTENTIONAL starving to death of around 800.000 german POWs in the Rheinwiesenlager although the red cross was waiting with food?

Why should anybody find binding a peace agreement they don't agree with?

Pardon?

You seem to forget that this peace treaty was the reason, that France could not only keep it's fleet and southern France being not occupied! Which btw had the consequence, that Spain's Franco could easily deny the German request for allowance to close the street of Gibraltar with german troops.

Should have Spaniards remain idle when Napoleon toppled the Bourbons of Spain, instated his brother and pillaged the country at leisure?

When France was beaten did the German government arrest the French government like the Allies do all the time? No! And why is that? Because the arresting of a foreign government is AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW. Germany followed the international laws and France chose on his own, after resigning of Reynaud, who were the responsible person. Marschall Petain was the regular chief of the government. Yes, De Gaulle was NOT the legal chief of the french governement. He was only a insignificant person that flew to Britain and the British government, not France, decided, that he would be a nice chief of a new governement. Completely against the french and all international laws. But who has the power, writes history. But that doesn't mean, that you or me must believe in every lie. We can inform ourselfes and use our own brain to get a more objective look of the world.

The legal french governement was in France. Everything else is a LIE.

And with the legal french government the peace treay was signed. If you compare the treaty of Versailles and this treaty, you will admit, that it was a generous treaty, that honored the French, the french soldier and gave as much freedom as possible as long as Germany was at war. Now compare that to the tribunals of those, who believe in eternal hate...

If you have a bit of knowledge about european history, you must know, that tribunals against defeated countries, are uneuropean. We've often beaten our heads, but as soon as the fighting was over, the loser had to pay somnething, but we respected each other again. This eternal hate that was introduced in Europe 1918 with Versailles and St. Germain, continued after 1945 and it dominates until today.

It doesn't heal wounds, it keeps wounds open, because it demands from one side to accept eternal guilty and dishonourableness and all the lies of the winners against the defeated ones. Either Europe will find back to it's old european spirit of the ancient times of the antiquity, or it will vanish - even biologically.

Now you say the Resistance wasn't a broadly popular movement. I tend to agree with you that a good deal of the allegiance to the Resistance actually surfaced when it was clear that the Wehrmacht wasn't going to push the Allies back into the sea.

That's a very important fact. And it contradicts somehow your earlyier argument: occupied France was a very peaceful and civilized country.

The relations between the German soldiers and the french civilians were VERY good. In fact they were that good, that the resistance had absolutely no chance, as long as it looked, that Germany could win the war. The Resistance had no support from the French people.

And I'm also pretty sure that a good deal of Frenchmen loathed and lamented such inhumane treatment of their enemies. But from there as to say that they were crying a river over it, there's a long long stretch.

Ofcourse not. Their country was occupied (Germany still is occupied and even has no peace treaty until today) and they wanted that the war was over soon, that the Germans could leave. If they leave beaten or as winners, was naturally not the most important for the French people. Maybe their sympathies were more on the side of the western Alliies, since a Germany winning the war, would have meant, that France could not play a leading role in Europe. But nothing could be further from the truth, than the legend about the "good" Resistance and that all France stood behind it and was hating the Germans.

The hate grew much later - after the propaganda of the perpetrators of eternal hate developed to the full.

[JonS]

You seem to forget that this peace treaty was the reason, that France could not only keep it's fleet and southern France being not occupied!

see: Case Anton

There is, however, a larger problem for you with this line of reasoning. Your pal Hitler renegged on the Treaty of Versaille. Pace the logic you've attempted to apply here, doesn't that make him a very naughty little boy?

[JonS]

occupied France was a very peaceful and civilized country.

They did the best they could, in the circumstances, but having all those Nazis hanging around made tough to maintain a civilised veneer.

[JonS]

Can you tell me, how many US soldiers were put on trial for the straving to death of around 800.000 german POWs in the Rheinwiesenlager?

Lurid flights of fantasy tend not to be subject to criminal conviction, no matter how much you wish they were true.

[winkelried]

Lurid flights of fantasy tend not to be subject to criminal conviction, no matter how much you wish they were true.

Scientifically this is called constructivsim - everybody constructs his reality - so everything depends on the filter you put on - and suddendly even the most fantastic events become your personal reality . Pretty simple isn't it? Just believe what you want to believe and filter everything which could contradict the reality you just created for your own and you life happily.

I think we should let it be and let these people life in their reality.

[JonS]

Perhaps, if he believed that kittens have wings and unicorns were real.

But this ... person's beliefs are a little more repungnant than that.

[winkelried]

Perhaps, if he believed that kittens have wings and unicorns were real.

But this ... person's beliefs are a little more repungnant than that.

you are right - there are still some of these uncurable individuals left who have to compensate for something. and there always will be - that's why i wore my uniform like my forefathers - and like my kids will do.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

To be fair, even the Wikipedia article on the topic of Rheinwiesenlagers states the following...

In one chapter in a multi-author book published in 2003, Richard Dominic Wiggers argued that the Allies violated international law regarding the feeding of enemy civilians, they both directly and indirectly caused the unnecessary suffering and death of large numbers of civilians and POWs in occupied Germany, guided partly by a spirit of postwar vengeance when creating the circumstances that contributed to their deaths.[15] and by strict orders to U.S. military personnel and their wives to destroy or otherwise render inedible their own leftover surplus so as to ensure it could not be eaten by German civilians.[16] The Americans also prevented locals from bringing prisoners food under threat of being shot[17]

The International Red Cross was prevented from visiting prisoners. Only in the autumn of 1945 - a time when most camps had closed or where closing - the Red Cross was granted permission to send delegations to visit camps in the French and UK occupation zones, and to provide - very small - amounts of relief. On February 4, 1946 the Red Cross was allowed to send relief also to those in the U.S. run occupation zone. The International Red Cross reports "The quantities received by the ICRC for these captives remained very small, however. During their visits, the delegates observed that German prisoners of war were often detained in appalling conditions. They drew the attention of the authorities to this fact, and gradually succeeded in getting some improvements made."[18]

Some of the 740,000 German prisoners transferred by the U.S. for forced labor in France came from these camps, these forced laborers were already very weak, many weighing barely 50 kilos

Not that I'm trying to argue that Western Allied forces were only marginally better behaved than the Nazi's because that's patently not the case but there did seem to be a prevailing spirit soon after the war ended for the German POW's and population in general to be punished for the crimes of their political leaders. As has been stated many times before, war is hell.

Regards

KR

[BletchleyGeek]

I take it from your above comments you've read the book? Is it any good (saw it lurking on the shelf of my local bookshop)? What is the myth it is demolishing, the Soviet account or the revisionist (or maybe not revisionist) historians? What has everyone got wrong about the battle? Sorry for all the questions, I started a thread about books and this was one of them I mentioned.

Hey Vark,

yes I read it, and I'm going to re-read it during Christmas.

Well, it's actually a very fair and balanced account that:

1. Debunks the myth of 12th July Prokhorovka being the "tomb" of the PanzerWaffen. Not really. It wasn't the biggest armor clash in the East either.

2. Dissipates many outright lies in Vatutin's dispatches, which helped to cover the complete collapse of his command and ineptitude of many of his subordinates.

3. Gives a brief, but very positive outlook of certain German officers professionalism, who undertook an operation they knew was doomed (and this was Hoth, the only guy who didn't feel he had to defend himself afterwards).

4. In my opinion is a very clear narrative of the dynamics of the battles between 11th and 13th July. The Germans got many details wrong, both w.r.t. the opposing force capability, composition and intentions.

So, in a nutshell, Prokhorovka wasn't a German "pyrrhic" victory. It was a smashing success, which couldn't be exploited because of the rugged defense in the front of II. SS PzKorps, the pressure put on its left flank, and the defeat of III. PzKorps on his right flank.

It's really very informative, and it gives a lot of detail of certain Soviet commanders who basically paid with their careers the failure of the higher command (Rotmistrov, Vatutin, etc.).

[sburke]

To be fair, even the Wikipedia article on the topic of Rheinwiesenlagers states the following...

Not that I'm trying to argue that Western Allied forces were only marginally better behaved than the Nazi's because that's patently not the case but there did seem to be a prevailing spirit soon after the war ended for the German POW's and population in general to be punished for the crimes of their political leaders. As has been stated many times before, war is hell.

Regards

KR

And to be really fair I don't recall the Allies loading masses of civilians into boxcars, letting them die in them if they didn't feel up for caring for the prisoners, only to take the still living ones out and exterminate them as fast and efficiently as they could. Nope that would be the poor mis understood Nazi's doing that. Or have you found some excuse for that as well steiner14? Oh wait let me guess, that is all just a made up story. Funny how so many Allied servicemen all saw the same thing. Hollywood must have been close on Kilroy's heels to get that all going before the troops showed up.

And yeah I do kind of recall that idyllic life under occupation that the French people endured. I seem to recall those huge French crowds as the Allied armies pursued the remnants of the German army across France - one can almost hear the collective sigh and them all saying, darn the good times are over, time to go back to work. They were so depressed to have missed the chance to join so many of their countrymen who had been given the wonderful opportunity to work in those nice labor camps in the Reich. Yep downright chipper fellows those Nazis. Kind of remind me of the Brothers Dinsdale.

KR I fully appreciate trying to be even handed, but this is one area where there just is no comparison. Even if the US showed a particularly barbaric level of behavior in the occupation (which I am not weighing in on at all) it would pale in comparison to the evil the Nazis perpetrated.

[BletchleyGeek]

Today or during WWII? Today it is not allowed, but at that time it was.

Every army was doing it during that time but you desinformed people only know it about the Germans.

Yes, you're right that it didn't become international law until 1949, in the Fourth Geneva convention. But that means it was "lawless", not that occupying countries had the right to do so.

Or was the mistake of the Germans, that they followed the internationally accepted ratio of 1:10 and should have used the US ratio in Germany of 1:80?

Hmmm, when and where did the US burn down German villages and assassinated their whole population? Are you really trying to put in the same level the deeds of the Einsatzkommandos in Western Ukraine and Southern Russia and that of US occupation forces? Really?

As was already mentioned, the tragedy at Oradour was examined from a martial court of the division itself, because of the unexpected explosions in the church.

Oh, just the explosions in the church were wrong right?

Can you tell me, how many US soldiers were put on trial for the INTENTIONAL starving to death of around 800.000 german POWs in the Rheinwiesenlager although the red cross was waiting with food?

800,000? That's a gross exaggeration. There wasn't such an attrition ratio even for German prisoners in Soviet camps.

Pardon?

You seem to forget that this peace treaty was the reason, that France could not only keep it's fleet and southern France being not occupied! Which btw had the consequence, that Spain's Franco could easily deny the German request for allowance to close the street of Gibraltar with german troops.

And? Who signed that? A Government is backed with its People, and his legitimacy comes from the People, moreso in the French Republic. If the Government does something, the People is not bound by any agreement which doesn't imply a referendum or a qualified majority in Parliament. The French Government - perhaps Winkelried has the details - I think didn't have either. The French Republic lost its legitimacy with its - in practice - dissolution. And the French People choose first to survive, and then to get retribution.

When France was beaten did the German government arrest the French government like the Allies do all the time? No! And why is that? Because the arresting of a foreign government is AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW. Germany followed the international laws and France chose on his own, after resigning of Reynaud, who were the responsible person. Marschall Petain was the regular chief of the government. Yes, De Gaulle was NOT the legal chief of the french governement. He was only a insignificant person that flew to Britain and the British government, not France, decided, that he would be a nice chief of a new governement. Completely against the french and all international laws. But who has the power, writes history. But that doesn't mean, that you or me must believe in every lie. We can inform ourselfes and use our own brain to get a more objective look of the world.

The legal french governement was in France. Everything else is a LIE.

Yeah, whatever. Using capital letters doesn't make you more right. The Government legitimacy comes from the People. Not because a big honcho decides to step in and style himself as the "President of the Republic", against the protocols of the Republican constitution, backed by the quite important extreme-right French People. The Third French Republic was all but in word and fact destroyed, and its remnants rallied to two different banners.

And with the legal french government the peace treay was signed. If you compare the treaty of Versailles and this treaty, you will admit, that it was a generous treaty, that honored the French, the french soldier and gave as much freedom as possible as long as Germany was at war. Now compare that to the tribunals of those, who believe in eternal hate...

That's laughable. Versailles was indeed unfair and certainly put an overwhelming burden over the shoulders of the Weimar Republic that made it collapse as the strategy of creating trade and financial links with the US failed in the wake of 1929 crack and the abandonment of free trade favoring protectionism. So Versailles was probably one of the main causes for Second World War.

But to say that the protocols of Compiègne were fair... Honoring the French soldier? You mean the POW's or the ones the Wehrmacht didn't have the means to capture? And generous in what respect? Keeping the richest parts of France under military occupation and pillaging it?

If you have a bit of knowledge about european history, you must know, that tribunals against defeated countries, are uneuropean. We've often beaten our heads, but as soon as the fighting was over, the loser had to pay somnething, but we respected each other again. This eternal hate that was introduced in Europe 1918 with Versailles and St. Germain, continued after 1945 and it dominates until today.

You're confusing hate of the Third Reich and all it entailed and represented, with that of German people. These are two completely different things.

It doesn't heal wounds, it keeps wounds open, because it demands from one side to accept eternal guilty and dishonourableness and all the lies of the winners against the defeated ones. Either Europe will find back to it's old european spirit of the ancient times of the antiquity, or it will vanish - even biologically.

Is this an attempt at spreading neo-nazi propaganda? If so, I'm now even reluctant to further quote you.

Now I understand the previous part: you confuse hatred of the Third Reich with hatred of the German people because you consider them to be one and the same thing. You are entitled to express your ideas, perhaps not in your country, and that's something which doesn't allow to discredit them and funnels these kind of consparanoid stuff.

But let me remind you I'm fully entitled to spit on your ideas.

And remind you of the United States the perfect example - regardless of 19th century nativism and know-nothingism, regardless of 20th century racist extreme-right groups - of how varied can be the People of a Federal Nation and reach at the same time cultural, economical, scientific, technological and military hegemony (the tales about it being dead are grossly exaggerated and serve to its current diplomacy).

The basic tenet is very simple: don't tread on people, and then they won't bite you back.

This conversation is over.

[sburke]

You're confusing hate of the Third Reich and all it entailed and represented, with that of German people. These are two completely different things.

Worse he is confusing the Nazis and the German people period. While I might wish the German people had risen up against the Nazis and hold them accountable as a nation for the deeds done in their name, that doesn't make me think every German was in fact a Nazi. It isn't easy to resist an authoritarian regime when the process of it siezing power is it taking an inch at a time until it owns your soul and you find yourself in a corner of go along or die. And not only you but your whole family etc. Unconditional surrender might not have been the best strategic move by the allies, perhaps specifically targeting the Nazi party might have produced something else.

However those that would excuse or gloss over those crimes- yeah those guys I will stick into the same category of lower than scum, whether they be Americans, Germans or Iranians.

This conversation is over.

Yeah I believe there was a sign on the door on the way in- don't feed the trolls or animals or some such thing.

[BletchleyGeek]

While I might wish the German people had risen up against the Nazis and hold them accountable as a nation for the deeds done in their name, that doesn't make me think every German was in fact a Nazi.

Indeed, they wasn't. Just taking a look at the ballots statistics in the 1932 election tells you that. The thing that made the difference was that the Nazi Party used violence as an integral part of its political strategy, and very effectively, with the collaboration - passive or active - of the Weimar Republic Army. So those opposing it were either cowed into submission, exiled themselves or were eliminated.

It isn't easy to resist an authoritarian regime when the process of it siezing power is it taking an inch at a time until it owns your soul and you find yourself in a corner of go along or die. And not only you but your whole family etc. Unconditional surrender might not have been the best strategic move by the allies, perhaps specifically targeting the Nazi party might have produced something else.

Probably yes. But the thing is that the Nazi propaganda - that of equating the Third Reich institutions with the German people - was so effective that the Allies couldn't either distinguish easily one from the other.

However those that would excuse or gloss over those crimes- yeah those guys I will stick into the same category of lower than scum, whether they be Americans, Germans or Iranians.

Or people needing therapy. Last summer events in Norway were a stern warning.

Yeah I believe there was a sign on the door on the way in- don't feed the trolls or animals or some such thing.

Indeed. But it's not easy to remain idle and not try your hand at contesting such claims.

[Erwin]

Hitler gambled and won so many time in the early days, that much of the moderates who may have opposed him were unable to come up with arguments why he should not continue being correct. With the enormous gifts/bonuses of land and opportunities for amassing wealth and power being given to otherwise working class Germans thanks to the Nazis, it must have been incredibly hard to resist the siren call.

There is a reason why the aristocrats were some of the more anti-nazi types - they had little to gain in power, prestige or wealth. (Of course many aristocrats were happy being Nazis as they saw it as opposing the evils of communism - and this include many in the British aristocracy - a historical even rather embarrassing to the current reign and suppressed in UK media.)

[BletchleyGeek]

Hitler gambled and won so many time in the early days, that much of the moderates who may have opposed him were unable to come up with arguments why he should not continue being correct. With the enormous gifts/bonuses of land and opportunities for amassing wealth and power being given to otherwise working class Germans thanks to the Nazis, it must have been incredibly hard to resist the siren call.

Working-class Germans had been given lots of - unmet - promises since 1933 to 1939. I'd recommend people to read Adam Tooze's "The Wages of Destruction", the figures and socioeconomic situation he describes of the working class during 1933-1939 is most enlightening.

It was all propaganda. All the time.

There is a reason why the aristocrats were some of the more anti-nazi types - they had little to gain in power, prestige or wealth. (Of course many aristocrats were happy being Nazis as they saw it as opposing the evils of communism - and this include many in the British aristocracy - a historical even rather embarrassing to the current reign and suppressed in UK media.)

Or perhaps they just misjudged them based on class prejudice, became awed by the propaganda and liked the rearmament and reassessment of Germany as a Major Power, then decided to give them a vote of confidence jumping into the bandwagon with the early cheap annexations and victories, and eventually decided to actively oppose them when it was clear they were taking Germany to its ruin.

[Michael Emrys]

I hadn't really thought of this as an argument. My original line which you referred to, was only one small part of my reply to another post, as to my opinion on why there were no mention of "tank aces" in the desert war, with my opinion PRIMARILY being that in the desert war, the Germans were not really in the overall strategic position that later created the tank aces.

And which part I did not disagree with. My argument, as I made clear in my original post, was with several statements that you threw out along the way, statements not supported by the historical record. If you had omitted those, I would have had no issue, as I also do not do now, with your main point about aces. I do not know that it is true, but I certainly do not know that it is false, and I consider it to be at least plausible.

Michael

[Melchior]

My impression was that since the Germans emphasized extreme autonomy on the part of their tankers, it tended to encourage German tank crews to be very aggressive. This was a training holdover from the early Blitz days, where German tanks would often find themselves advancing so quickly the infantry and artillery could barely keep up.

Good for killing lots of allied tanks as rapidly as possible, bad for encouraging glorious death rides deep into allied lines where fuel depletion or mechanical breakdown would end a Tiger's/Panther's fun real fast. The Western Allies of 1944 were nothing like 1940 or even 1943. They possessed such mass of force by this point encirclement and destruction of whole armies wasn't going to end the war. I remember reading somewhere though that the biggest problem possessing the Germans tactically in 1944 was a shortage of riflemen. Squad sizes were getting smaller and smaller and things like the Volkssturm were hasty stopgap solutions.

Also at the end of the day the grand majority of German tanks were not the Big Cats, they were smaller vehicles like the Mk IV and derivatives of obsolete tanks like the Mk III and 38t. The Germans squeezed surprising usefulness out of these vehicles well past their prime at least.

[Erwin]

"Working-class Germans had been given lots of - unmet - promises since 1933 to 1939."

I was thinking of the working class ones who got it made under the Nazis. Look at who were Hitler's closest pals in the 30's. I am sure that many/most other working class people did not. But, at the start many did not join the Nazi Party either - not until it became unwise to not be a Nazi - and of course promotions, the best jobs etc went to Nazis.

Quote:

"Or perhaps they just misjudged them based on class prejudice, became awed by the propaganda and liked the rearmament and reassessment of Germany as a Major Power, then decided to give them a vote of confidence jumping into the bandwagon with the early cheap annexations and victories, and eventually decided to actively oppose them when it was clear they were taking Germany to its ruin."

Well that too, but that's in addition to the reasons I listed.

[JonS]

My impression was that since the Germans emphasized extreme autonomy on the part of their tankers, it tended to encourage German tank crews to be very aggressive.

Is that true? I thought their doctrine was rather the opposite, and the emphasis was on close team work and integration with other arms.

Even Wittmann in his beyond-foolish deathride stuck to that team approach, and makaged to lose 5 or 6 Tigers in as many minutes while taking a few of his friends to the grave with him.

[Vark]

The Germans, thanks to the destruction of 6th army, were running out of infantry before 44. During Citadel the shortage of infantry virtually guaranteed the failure of the operation, as the adage says tanks take ground, infantry hold it. The Germans, even if able to punch their way through the remaining defensive lines would have been unable to keep their gains. Playing this operation in TOAW III is so depressing, I even broke through and captured Kursk, only to have my Northern flank crumble, forcing me to rapidly deploy the victorious panzers to meet the new threat.

Talking of the destruction of Sixth Army, it was not just the men but their combined experience that spelt the fatal blow to German hopes in the East.

So to summarise the ace debate. Either you think tank aces were created as Germany retreated, thus creating the climate for such lopsided, or repeatedly successful encounters. Or, the need for such aces was helpful in shoring up both military and civilian morale and covering up the deteriorating strategic situation, especially as the Nazi's had heavily invested in the theories of racial superiority.

[Bigduke6]

We should not underestimate the effect of Soviet doctrine in creating German tank aces. For the Red Army, tanks were only a little less expendable than ammunition or fuel, they were designed for maybe 500 kilometers of campaign driving before the engine and transmission gives out, and their primary role, above all others, was to turn static into mobile warfare by exploiting breakthroughs and moving deep and fast into the German rear echelons.

Things like use of terrain and good gunnery and keeping skilled tank crews together were well understood in the Red Army as tactically useful. But those kind of advantages were seen as of marginal importance compared to the priority of collecting really big mechanized units and turning them loose.

If some of those tanks struck a panzer ace and added to his score, that was considered the price of playing the game. Maintaining numerical superiority in tanks and tank crews, no matter what, was one of the very top priorities of the entire Red Army supply system. The point for the Soviets was not to win tactical battles, it was to unhinge an entire sector and destroy enemy force because the Germans could not move as fast and as decisively in retreat, as the Soviet could coming at them.

It didn't work all the time but by 1944 the Soviets had a system they knew the Germans couldn't stop, the only questions was where the force would be gathered and how far would they go before they ran out of steam.

On a battlefield of individual tanks and small units, this translated to large numbers of tanks swamping a targeted German sector and, if the Germans had right AT on site, really bloody Soviet losses - losses the Germans kept saying were unsustainable, barbaric, and proof of superior German tactical doctrine.

But what the panzer lovers always fail to understand is, even if you gutted one Soviet tank formation, the operational situation will still suck if the Soviets can launch two more formations where your ueber-panzers are not. And you can't position ueber-panzers everywhere, it costs too much.

I think that it was this failure by the Germans to understand the logic behind Soviet doctrine, that led them (a) to seek engagements where they could obtain lopsided armored vehicle exchange rates, almost literally for the sake of convincing themselves that they were superior and ( to put down the disasters that kept taking place in sectors where the panzer aces were not, as the result of Soviet horde tactics.

Which it wasn't, the Soviets were a lot smarter than the Germans and their apologists gave them credit for.

But there's no contradicting the fact that there were German tank aces and that individually they shot up a lot of Allied vehicles. Not that it did the Germans a lot of good - and on the Eastern Front I might even argue the tactics that created those tank aces was one of the big reasons the Germans were defeated.

[Michael Emrys]

...as the adage says tanks take ground, infantry hold it. The Germans, even if able to punch their way through the remaining defensive lines would have been unable to keep their gains.

But furthermore, once the enemy infantry began to get effective man-portable AT weaponry in its hands, it was difficult—sometimes even impossible—for armor to advance and capture ground without unacceptable losses unless accompanied by protecting infantry.

Michael

[Erwin]

On a side note, Soviet political dogma wanted to stress the mass of the people and de-emphasize the individual - hence the skills of tankers were not as honored as the artillerymen who functioned en mass and who appear to get most of the credit for defeating the fascists.

It's one reason that the Soviets have Artillery Museums that honor their artillery arms that seem to have higher status than their tank museums. At least when I was in the Soviet Union that seemed to me to be the case.

[winkelried]

wrote down some thoughts on the discussion above:

First I want to make the point, that the quality of the tanks was secondary to the success of an operation in WW2 - when saying this I don't talk about an individual battle like on CMBN level (and a bit bigger), but on operational level involving corps and armies. Look at the following operations:

Fall Gelb against France: mainly Panzer I, II, III, 35(t) and 38(t) face Char B1, Matildas etc. All direct tank to tank engagements were difficult for the Germans to win. But still the Germans won the operation.

Barbarossa and Fall Blau against the Soviets: again mainly Panzer I, II, III, 35(t) and 38(t) face T-34, KV-1. Same as for the direct engagements as in France. And still the Germans advanced to the gates of Moscow, Leningrad and fought for Stalingrad.

So why the Germans were successful both in France and up to late 1942 in the Soviet Union with inferior tanks?

Because of mass (or concentration of forces) and surprise. The Germans concentrated their forces, where the enemy didn't expect them and pushed armoured spearheads forward. By driving forward faster than anticipated they were able to keep the enemy off balance and unable to concentrate its mobile forces properly and unable to regroup and to defend. BTW in later 1944 and when the tide had turned the Germans found them in the same situation, just on the other side of the equation.

The Allies learned their lessons from the initial German successes. They tried and succeeded in taking away the freedom of action from the Germans (although the Germans helped them e.g. in Stalingrad where they committed their forces to street fighting and removed their capability to react to Soviet attacks where weak Axis forces where simply out-maneuvered by concentrated Soviet tank forces.). They learned to tie down German mobile forces down (like in the area of Caen) and to exploit weaknesses with their own (sub-par) armor and to engage in pursuit. The Soviets went even a step further when they obliterated certain areas of the German front and pushed strong armored forces through these gaps (they learned this the hard way - see operation Mars).

When we look at tank development this change in initiative (from the Germans to the Allies) went in parallel with the Germans focussing on the anti-tank capability and defensive capabilities (instead of mobility) of their armor to counter the enemy armor which tried to outrun them (instead of the Germans outrunning the Allies early in the war). So the Germans opted for stronger, more powerful tanks when they were confronted with less mobile and even defensive action (in contrast e.g. to the Americans who focussed on mobility for their tank destroyers - although the success of this concept can be questioned) and because this type of armor (which was difficult and expensive to manufacture) put some significant strain on the German resources they were never able to deploy their armor in significant numbers to regain the initiative - except for local operations (look e.g. how they had to scrape together tanks to get a significant force for the Mortain counter-attack).

So the conclusion is: early in the war, the Germans focussed on speed, mobility and supremacy on an operational level and this is reflected in the design of the tanks they used. Later they upgunned and uparmored their tank designs to get high-performance, complex systems which they could not manufacture in sufficient numbers. On the other hand, the Allies focussed on the industrial mass production of a well balanced tank design focussed on mobility and anti-infantry firepower (which they upgraded over time - eg with the 76mm gun for the US) with a highly mobile tank destroyer force to achieve supremacy again on an operational level through concentration and speed leading to surprise.

[GhostRider3/3]

Lay down linear smoke missions in front of the Tiger crest and rush them. If a Sherman spots a Tiger at long range, order it to shoot a smoke round at it.

LOL I dont think the opponent in real time is just going to sit there, but I think Sacrafice on the opposing side is surly a possibility. Hell I only had 2 Tigers in one mission I played, and destroyed 36 Shermans at ranges from 600m to 1800m They only immobilized one tank. Anyways anyone ever laying a smoke screen in front of my tanks, I just back up...and SMOKE em... LOL as they try and manouver through the smoke...or around.