GERMANS ARE FAR SUPERIOR!

[JOCHEN PEIPER]

Well based on the results of my last demo game...

When my lone Panther showed up, it was good-night AMIS... he took out all the SHERMANS except for one in about 2-3 turns...

the rest was a mop-up job...

[This message has been edited by JOCHEN PEIPER (edited 07-30-2000).]

[WendellM]

"Unfortunately" the Ami's were able to field 5-10+ Shermans for each Panther toward the end of the war, and thus were usually able to get one in the rear for the killing shot... Ain't it a bitch when "superior" armor is KO'd by more numerous "inferior" tanks? Well, war is a harsh mistress - it proves who really had the right approach (by definition), and smashes nice theories. That said, German tanks *were* damned cool.

[Fionn]

Oh Jesus,

This is pathetic. German tanks were, on a one for one basis, superior to Allied tanks BUT with the individual soldier and crewman Germans had no intrinsic superiority.

What determines a good soldier is training and application to the task at hand.

Really Jochen you're just going to keep rubbing people the wrong way with crass titles like "Germans are far superior". If you'd said "German tanks are far superior" then that would have been ok ( but a bit obvious)..

However your statement makes it look like you're falling into the "racial superiority" trap which got Germany involved in the extermination of millions of people. I'm really beginning to wonder about your political leanings.

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

Fu**wit

[Insu]

Of course the German PzV and PzVI are superior to tanks like the Sherman one on one but we are speaking about to totally different doctrins. The allies always had to consider more factors than firepower, hull thickness etc.

The tanks had to be sea transported to every theater and so they were developed with that in mind. Can you imagine JP how to ship a Königstiger PzKw VI weighing app. 70 tons?!

You should really compare the German tanks with the Russian tanks.

Make yourself a favor and try to be more constructive in your statements. This is not a political forum.

[Guest Mortiis]

From the books I read german tank crews were superior in training, this of course could have changed in the time period we deal with in cm due to the damaging losses suffered by the german army, resulting in rushed training to fill the ranks. Im no grognard like most of the posters on this forum. So if Im wrong Im open to being educated on this matter.

[WendellM]

"The [Allied/American] tanks had to be sea transported to every theater and so they were developed with that in mind. Can you imagine JP how to ship a Königstiger PzKw VI weighing app. 70 tons?!"

Good point, Insu - that's another strike against "superior" German armor (not that the Kriegsmarine was in any shape to transport them in the first place - they were too busy trying to remain afloat).

[The CM Borg]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JOCHEN PEIPER:

Well based on the results of my last demo game......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You we REJECT.

[Lindan]

JP,

it's a sad history in this forum that people appear in regular intervals who:

[*] Spam the forum with senseless posts

[*] don't grasp the meaning of the search button

[*] getting on people's nerves with oversimplified and pathetic statements not based on facts

[*] don't get it that they are nuisance, even if it is pointed out to them several times in a gentle way

[*] don't seem to know basic facts of Netiquette (DON'T SCREAM DAMMIT!)

[*] are just...well forget it!

As a German I must say I don't feel very superior right now. And I'm sure the old man in our street did neither when they pulled him out of his burning Panzer, blinded, knowing he would never see again.

------------------

visit lindan.panzershark.com

member of the Combat Mision webring

[DrD]

Could someone please ban this guy?

BTW you ignoramous I don't think your panther took out any panthers unless it was an SS unit firing on the Heer who wanted to surrender to avoid continued, senseless bloodshed.

[This message has been edited by DrD (edited 07-29-2000).]

[Stoffel]

I think Fionn is right.He hasn't said it so I will ,are you one of these so called neo nazis JP then butt off.

Sorry for the rest of you for my language.

I have never asked this before but Steve can you please ban this guy from the forum if he continues with posts like this?

He is beginning to get a real pain in the ass.

Henk

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well based on the results of my last demo game...

When my lone Panther showed up, it was good-night AMIS... he took out all the panthers except for one in about 2-3 turns...

the rest was a mop-up job...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um...

First off, why was your panther taking out panthers? Were you trying to simulate some sort of mutiny?

Second off, as I believe someone else already mentioned, the U.S. Army had to keep its armored vehicles relatively light in order to transport them more easily across the Atlantic Ocean. Moving an armored division is no small task, and requires a lot of logistical ballet, not to mention that they could count on losing a few of those transport ships to German submarines. As proof of the continued value of light armor as a rapid-deployment force, the U.S. still fields the Sheridan light tank for no good reason other than the fact that it is the only tank in the U.S. inventory that can be air dropped. The Army's next major armored purchase will probably be the M8 Armored Gun System, which is essentially a "light tank." Once again, rapid deployment was a top priority.

It's also important to remember that the U.S. Army delt with a different doctrine: numbers over glitz.

A word: JP, you might want to choose less irritating titles, and stop shouting.

Just a nice repeat of what other people have been saying.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[Zamo]

The Germans lost. Deal with it. They have.

Zamo

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

JP is an ignoranus. Stoopid and an asshole.

[Andy A]

I don't normally get into threads like this........but it seems JP is after a golden shovel cos he sure likes to dig himself some deep,deep holes........

[Sergei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Insu:

Of course the German PzV and PzVI are superior to tanks like the Sherman one on one but we are speaking about to totally different doctrins. The allies always had to consider more factors than firepower, hull thickness etc.

The tanks had to be sea transported to every theater and so they were developed with that in mind. Can you imagine JP how to ship a Königstiger PzKw VI weighing app. 70 tons?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt Shermans were designed to be mediocre (compared to best German tanks) just because it helped transporting. In other case you might think they'd put some extra armor and bigger gun such as the British did with Firefly. Just improving the gun and optics to make the 75 mm gun more accurate wouldn't have increased weight too much.

And no matter what the doctrines were, I bet US tankers were happy to receive Pershings. Remember, doctrines are tailored up to the situation of material realities, not vice versa.

A tank as heavy as Königstiger was, in my opinion, a bad design, but I guess it was the Soviets who started that arms race. And in 1944 it didn't matter did the Germans manufacture jet fighters, ICBM's, U-boats, Kingtigers or Lederhosen, they were losing anyway.

Just one more thing: while Panther was a good tank, it wasn't FAR SUPERIOR. It was maybe superior, but it still was a huge piece of scrap metal when hit by the right weapon. When I played the Valley of Trouble scenario, I killed the Panther with the first hit from a Bazooka.

Now, JP, go and start a new thread: BAZOOKA IS FAR SUPERIOR!

[mcgivney]

The M8 AGS was cancelled about 2 years ago... needed the money for Bosnia and more Stealth Bombers...

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I doubt Shermans were designed to be mediocre (compared to best German tanks) just because it helped transporting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Actually, the Sherman was essentially a rush job due to inadequate pre-war US defense spending and confused thinking on tank doctrine, so in the interests of time it inherited a lot of mediocrity from its immediate predecessors.

US medium tanks originally were conceived as relatively light infantry support vehicles armed with MGs and light guns, with the anti-tank job handled by specialized TD units. So the first medium in the Sherman's family tree, the M2, was basically just a slightly bigger version of the contemporary M2 light tank.

The Blitzkrieg, however, showed the need for bigger guns in tanks, although US thinking was that this was for better results against grunts more than as self-defense against tanks. So the M2 was modified into the M3 by sticking a 75mm in the hull in place of the MGs and adding a bit more armor. This was seen as a stop-gap, however, because the main gun really needed to be in a turret.

So the US next took the M2/M3 lower hull, designed a 75mm turret for it, and put it into production as the M4 Sherman. Thus, the Sherman was at heart a collection of pre-war light tank components bolted on to a slightly larger, pre-war, medium-sized hull, and armed and armored per an ill-conceived pre-war doctrine. Not surprisingly, the result was mediocre. But because it was really too small for its job, it WAS easy to ship across oceans in the quantity needed due to its inferiority.

2 things to note here. First, the Germans have always gotten a lot of abuse for keeping obsolescent tanks in production the whole war. But nobody mentions that most of the Sherman's hull dated from 1937 and before. Second, assuming the US DID have bigger and better tanks in WW2, transporting them would NOT have been a problem. First, not nearly so many would have been needed. Second, US shipbuilding could easily have produced enough cargo ships to do the job even with the same number of bigger tanks shipped.

------------------

-Bullethead

It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

[panzer_2nd_ss]

what is wrong with saying germans are far superior on a gaming forum?? man some people on this board are far too sensitive. just leave JP alone. and this idea that the americans tanks were inferior because of transport is a bunch of garbage. german tanks on a whole were superior to allied tanks in alomost every way. a panther could outrun a sherman, had better armor and better gun, and could turn tighter then a sherman. and from what i have read the geman tank crews were more highly trained than american crews. the only reason the americans went numbers over quality is because they didnt have the quality.

[WendellM]

"what is wrong with saying germans are far superior on a gaming forum??"

If you're talking about the issue "as a game" in an abstract, isolated sense, then nothing (a typical German tank was generally superior, 1-on-1 to a typical Allied tank). However, if you're talking about the context of "real world" history... well, the Germans lost - therefore, by definition, they weren't superior on the whole. (If you're talking about Germans in a general sense vs., say, Americans, well then I have no comment - I like both modern-day Germans and Americans, but I'd hesitate to call one "superior" - people are people).

"the only reason the americans went numbers over quality is because they didnt have the quality."

Yes, but that "numbers over quality" concept won the war, so it was right (by definition). If they'd lost, you might have a point...

[Fionn]

Umm the issue isn't whether German tanks were superior or not.

Jochen ( who speaks English as his native language) said GERMANS are far superior.. As in... the German people... as in... racial superiority.. See where I'm going people?

Oh and 2nd-ss.. Dude the Sherman was FAR superior to the Pz III or everything up to and including the Pz IV F1.

And if you're talking about US tanks being "crap" then you obviously haven't ever met a Super Pershing. That thing is a match for a King Tiger. God, I dislike people who are all Germanophillic but don't know the facts.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzer_2nd_ss:

what is wrong with saying germans are far superior on a gaming forum??

(snip)

the only reason the americans went numbers over quality is because they didnt have the quality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we go AGAIN...........

What's "wrong" with the first statement, Pnz_2nd_ss, is that it is devoid of any real substance and gets shredded in semantical counter-arguments if it isn't qualified.

As an example, What are the Germans "far superior" in? Warfighting or brewing beer? Or if looking strictly at warfighting, is it a case that the Germans "ARE", or instead "WERE" (as in the WW2 timeframe)? And in what sense were the Germans superior? Tactics? Weapons? Organization & generalship? The Allies that opposed Germany would eventually achieve parity, before war's end, in each one of these categories and many others.

You get the idea? A stock claim that some nationality is inherently "superior" will get ripped, whether it's Germany or the US or UK or whatever.

As to your second comment on the WW2 Americans lacking "quality", are you again prepared to qualify? Are we talking only about tank vs. tank? Or are you prepared to extend this to other weapons like small arms, artillery, and aircraft?

Even in terms of tanks, just being the German side doesn't insure "quality" if you don't know how to use your tanks right. In CM, I've lost Panthers to Shermans whenever a Sherman would get on my Panther's flank and the Panther couldn't get its D&$#ED slow-moving turret to rotate fast enough. Even head-on, a Sherman 76 that's packing tungsten (t) ammo has a good chance to kill a Panther.

And this says nothing of assault guns, like the StugIIIG, against Allied tanks like the Sherman. If used in ambush, the Stug can do quite well. But if used offensively and out in the open, it'll get screwed PRETTY quickly.

[Major Tom]

Unfortunately people are measuring the Best of the German armour to the Average of the Allied armour. The Panther and Tiger weren't used in the same numbers that the Mark IV was used in the Western Front. It is unfair to compare the Sherman to the Panther or Tiger, as, most of the Sherman's opponents were probably in reality Mark IV's. Indeed, most of the tanks destroyed were lost due to infantry Anti-Tank weapons over that of Tank-vs-Tank. Plus, we must realize that the Allies lost a lot of armour beacuse they were ATTACKING with it. Combined against Infantry Anti-tank and Dug in Tanks an attacker will lose more AFV's than a defender. When the Germans attacked with their 'superior' weapons against the Americans, British and Canadians they suffered EXTREMELY high numbers of AFV casualties. Indeed, many accounts that I have show that German tank loss on the attack approximately equaled the same proportion of allied tanks on the attack. The Germans also launched many poorly planned counter attacks, with each arm not supporting eachother. In the region of Norrey-en-Bessien the 12th SS Division attacked the Regina Rifle Battalion piecemiel and lost a large number of Panther tanks and infantry without any substantial gains.

Indeed, the Panther was a virtual rip-off of the T-36. It took the Germans approximately 2 years to develop a suitable Medium tank to counter the T-36, the Panther. The Allies didn't encounter any of the 'superior' German AFV's like the Tiger or Panther until late 1943. Indeed, the Allies came up with sufficient counterparts to the Panther and Tiger with the development of the Pershing and Comet 2 years after encountering the Panther and Tiger.

Up to 1942 the British tanks were on average 'superior' to their German counterparts. The Matilda II was a great tank, and was used in front line service until 1945 (albiet in the Pacific!). The Valentine series was also very good, and the Chruchill series was pretty spectacular! It wasn't until the development of the Panzer IVF2 when the Germans had a AT weapon mounted on a tank that was superior to the British 40mm 2pdr. Before that they were relying on the 50mm, which didn't have much more of a penetration power than the 40mm.

[Spook]

I hope you'll forgive my niggle here, Major, but I assume you're meaning the Soviet T-34 instead of the "T-36" in your post.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Indeed, many accounts that I have show that German tank loss on the attack approximately equaled the same proportion of allied tanks on the attack. The Germans also launched many poorly planned counter attacks, with each arm not supporting eachother. In the region of Norrey-en-Bessien the 12th SS Division attacked the Regina Rifle Battalion piecemiel and lost a large number of Panther tanks and infantry without any substantial gains.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Panthers of Panzer Lehr had a similar experience in trying to push through the US 9th Infantry Division northwest of St. Lo in July '44. (I don't recall the exact place & date of the Panzer Lehr attack right now.)

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 07-29-2000).]

[Juju]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The CM Borg:

You we REJECT.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rejected by the Borg! Says it all, doesn't it...