The Germans, historical Bad Boys or just really cool guys?

[russellmz]

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

i would say that they had the best usage of tanks, and the radios were a factor.

on the other hand the french had some decent vehicles but no radios. some of the french tanks were better than the german from an armor protection and main gun standpoint.

then in 1941 the KV and t-34 series had superior armored protection and main gun, and the t-34 was perhaps more mobile than any german tank in the summer of 1941.

on the other hand they too had very few radios in their tanks, and the early t-34 had a 1-man crew.

also, consider the british matilda. in the french campaign that was a nasty surprise at arras for the germans if memory serves.

in any case i'm not sure if you can call a pzIIIe or pzIVc 'better' than the best french, soviet, or british tanks of 1940-41 but the germans sure knew how to use them from a communication and manuever standpoint.

the germans knew about 'mass' and 'breakthrough' while the western allies and later the russians were still deploying the tanks in a mainly piecemeal, infantry support fashion.

actually, if what i write here holds any water, prehaps the wermacht would be even more fascinating in that they were successful early with tank hardware which was actually inferior 'on paper' to the competition in many respects.

thanks for your consideration,

andy

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oddly enough, this is related to my wondering why starfleet had such wimpy vessels compared to the klingon and romulan ships in star trek. also why the us ships had fewer weapons that ussr ships.

see, although the french had some good tanks, it was the germ's ability to manouever and communicate that carried the day, along with local superiority.

that's why in star trek the federation was ok with weaker ships: they had more of 'em, better sensors, and manoueverability.

same with the us sort of: the ussr concentrated on weapons first, liveability and electronics last. the us was kept livability, electronics ahead of weapons.

while it looks bad for the us, it enabled the us ships to be uncluttered since they had bettter sensors and longer times at sea(the only thing a nuke sub needed to replenish was food and crew).

it's late at nite. if this post still makes sense tomorrow i'll let it be...

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

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Aussie Smith]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ummm, that would be in FRANCE now wouldn't it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah semantics - you said against France - but sure lets play that game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What part of "Germany's victories" don't you get? Barbarossa was a failure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL yes but that isn't the full story is it - there was many victories up to the end of Barbarossa – tactically - I agree strategically they lost - of course this wouldn't have anything to do with having to post and reposition troops in Italy or France would it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't attach some special "honor" to it. I call it stupidity. Look at the German dead and a occupied country for those grand results...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this comment has anything to do with the ability of the German military machine its beyond me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They achieved a wrecked country. Where's the respect for the victories and achievements for the American army? An army that joined a war which the others had at least a three year jump on. An army that was able to learn quickly. Would the pro-Germans like to compare the win-loss ration of major battles of the American Army versus the German? Other than the mythos, you may not like what it shows.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets see - any army fighting on two fronts and having been in battle since 1939 compared to an army only entering the war in 1942 with mustered soldiery as yet uncommitted who was fully equipped and had total command of the air. If it were not for the Brits and the Canadians Cav - the US army would be creating new breeding grounds for fish in the Atlantic - it took the combined arms of 3 countries to dislodge Germany from France - and perhaps you forget a quote from a well renown American General "George S Patton" who on more than one occasion referred to German troops as 'magnificent' - Perhaps a read of the book "Patton" may enlighten you. Furthermore - I've served side by side with your Army in several exercises - why are the current US TacOps based on the German model from WW2?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Please do, of course it will likely be laced with Soviets...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes of course Tunisia would escape you, Caen, Villers, Potiers (sp), The Ardennes, Rome etc etc

[4FanAWOL]

Cav is right in 1939-40 Germany defeated the armies of Poland, France, Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Only

the first two were major military powers, the Poles had modern French aircraft but most of them were destroyed on the ground. Polish pilots were very well trained, and lacked for nothing in motivation in combat during the Battle of Britain. Poland was also fighting on two fronts.

Personally I reserve my admiration mostly for the Poles, Czechs, French etc that came to England in 1940 when all must have seemed lost, and defeat barbarism and slavery or death the likely prospect. They and the men and women of Britain, stood alone against an unbeaten war machine from 1940 until 1942.

I remember my mother telling me that it wasn't until the defeat of the Germans at Stalingrad in 1943, that people began to feel confident that the allies would win. They endured the bombing raids, the rationing, the defeats. What little material assistance provided by the USA had to paid for in full, upfront. They still had food rationing in the UK up until 1947.

[Lorak]

Cav Scout,

As an american and a vet I do not take anything our country did for granted. This thread was a simple asking on why people like to play the germans. People are giving their opinions. Obviously you disagree with them. That is fine. But I don't think telling people thier reasons are wrong will get them to switch sides.

I think you need to listen to your self a little more. "THE ALLIES WON THE WAR!"

So you can stop fighting it now.

Remeber for any game to be worth playing, somebody has to play the bad guys.

Lorak

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

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

Cesspool

[Hamstersss]

The German army was made for hollywood by a bunch of propagandists that knew their business. We see so much propaganda from WWII related to the Reich because this is the only media that survived, unlike the, in comparison, frank treatment the allies got. The Germans were presented as these amazing, well-armed, well-trained, Aryan supermen because that's exactly what Nazi Germany wanted to present. Compared to what we know about the Allies, even considering the amount of censorship that went on during the war, we get an incredibly favorable bias toward the German army.

The same did not occur for the Russians because the Soviet Union was the enemy for 50 years so of course we went out of our way to slander their army and dig up dirt on their failures. Look at the amount of scepticism with which members of this board approach any piece of Soviet testing or reporting during WWII. We let the German military machine off because we rely so heavily on Reich propaganda materials as hostorical documents.

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

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[Guest Big Time Software]

I think the fascination with things German (at least here in the US) goes much deeper. American culture worships efficeincy, skill, and bold use of force. This is not just limited to battlefields with large armies, but law enforcement, corporations, hunting/fishing, etc. Now, I am not saying that all things American come close to matching the expectations and perceptions of its people, but this is still what people look to as ideals.

Germany has, for a long time, been idolized by Americans for these "virtues". The US only very reluctantly went to war against the Germans in WWI and to some degree in WWII. In fact, reports from the front found that the US soldiers were far too friendly with the Germans and were missing the element of "hate" that sometimes makes for a better fighting soldier. This was purposefully addresses in the Ardennes by using the Malmedy incident as a tool to change US peceptions of their enemy (and it worked very well too!).

So... couple this long standing facination with Germany with its LOVE afair with mechanical/electronic things, and you get an understandable respect and even admiration for things German. And since military might is one of the greatest expressions of these "virtues"... you get a strong bias in favor of taking the German side. There are other things too, like the fact that Americans love the underdog when it displays these "virtues".

OK, enough rambling

Steve

[Guest Shatter50]

Shatter here

I thought I would throw my two cents in.

A few things I have not mentioned to any other member. I myself have lived in the US all my life as well as my father. My Grandfather on my fathers side has not though. In fact he was a vet of WWII but not for the US. He was in fact an officer in the Germany Army (NOT A NAZI). I over my 24 years on earth have always been interested when my grandfather speeks of his tails. My grandfather on my mother side is also a veteran of WWII. He was stationed on several destroyers. He had the very cool job of launching depth charges at enemy subs.

While both of their stories of the war interest me greatly. I think my Grandfather on my fathers side(German officer) gets my interest flowing more so. In fact his greatest story is when he and his unit were in Nuremburg, Hitler himself gave a speech and walked in front of and had a brief talk with my grandfather and his unit.

Don't get me wrong, my others grandfather (mothers side) are interesting as well but I think it has something to do with the Germans were known as evil and that interested me to know why. Since buying CM I have had several conversations with both my Grandfathers on the subject.

[Guest Shatter50]

Originally posted by machineman:

Their equipment and uniforms look dorky, their battles are usually won by brute force rather than skill, other than 'Mustang' they can't even give their war stuff cool names!

Hey the Americans gear did not look dorky besides the Shermans. I think the British gear looked dorky their helmets looked like upside down chinese rice bowls

[Holdit]

Don't forget the uniforms, lads. The Germans definitely won the style war.

[Jarmo]

What gave me a certain admiration for germans.

The common knowledge of WWII goes a bit like this here in finland.

1. Germans were evil nazis, Hitler was their leader.

2. Hitler wanted to kill all the jews, so the americans had to fight him. The british helped a bit.

3. As the movies so well show it, the americans had to fight against overwhelming odds.

They prevailed because they were morally superior.

4. Germany also had some sort of skirmish against the russians.

Afterwards I have learned that not all of these are absolute truths.

The obvious counterreaction is to see the germans in a bit too

positive light. I'm doing my best to be objective, but it's

hard to estimate your objectivity.

Oh, and yes, the Tiger I is a damn cool tank!

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 10-10-2000).]

[Ari Maenpaa]

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

The obvious counterreaction is to see the germans in a bit too positive light. I'm doing my best to be objective, but it's

hard to estimate your objectivity.

(edited 10-10-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would also emphasize this "counterreaction factor".

I have watched too many films and read too many comics (Korkeajännitys, for the Finnish people) where the Germans were butchered in masses by small and feeble allied forces. Even SPR has this kind of elements (still a great film).

Of course that stuff is just for entertainment, but on the long run I can't help but start to endorse "the always seeming underdog" ie. the Germans.

Anyway I see it a crucial thing that Third Reich got defeated and people can live in supposedly free Europe. So I haven't become a nazi despite of bad propaganda overdose

Ari

[ScoutPL]

Well I could rant on and on about some of the obviously political responses I got for posting this question but I'll refrain.

I will adress the rest though. One of the things they teach history students is you have to remain objective. Dont get drawn in by the propaganda, the "personal" accounts, etc. Look at the cold hard facts.

I have learned from seven years in the US Airborne and two armed conflicts and a lifetime of reading military history that success on the battlefield has very little to do with who has the coolest uniforms or the snappiest names for their tanks. When taken at a tactical level I think the germans and americans were much the same, but their influences were different which caused some minor differences. German tank design was heavily influenced by the action on the eastern front. Heavy guns, heavy armor. US tank design was influenced by the cavalry mystique. Light, fast tanks and TD's designed to use mobility and speed to fight the enemy. Most CM players dont have a very good grasp of how to use US armor so they sit them on top of hills and ridgelines and watch them brew up.

I guess my argument would go along the lines of I enjoy playing the allies so much because in actuality they were just better warfighters. The early german successes have been amply discussed and explained. The germans had been preparing for war for years and had plenty of practice in their little takeovers prior to Poland. The US, hoping to remain neutral didnt really get started until Jan. 1938. The draft wasnt instituted until Oct. '39, and that was just for 1 year enlistments! Two years later we landed on the North African coast and then school really started! What is amazing to me is the guys who had stayed in the army after WWI were able to take this massive source of manpower and technology and harness it and mold it into a force that could win on the modern battlefield in just a couple short years. Could the Germans do that? I doubt it, they're way to stiff and practical in their thinking. Otherwise their would have been many more atttempts on Hitler's life/power.

I enjoy playing the allies because quite often in CM THEY are the underdog. Most often you get a couple companies of leg infantry, 4 or 5 shermans and some arty. The germans have a much wider and varied list of equipment, alot of it tailored to specific types of combat. The allied player has to take what he has and make it fit ANY situation. There in lies the challenge for me and the awesome realization that these guys did it for real everyday for a year in western europe, and won against a very well equipped/trained army. (Dont think this is a correct statement? Read some of the posts above.)

Dont forget the US was fighting a GLOBAL war. The germans were just trying to survive in Europe. You really think it would have taken us a year to get into Germany if we didnt have so much wrapped up in the navy and ground forces in the pacific (which takes up a good portion of the earth, mind you)?

[dfgardner]

Could the fascination be something to do with the fact that rarely is a scenario created where an average german unit is engaged with an average allied unit?

It seems most scenarios deal with a more elite german force taking on a more average allied one, and a wider variety of german equipment as opposed to more standard allied equipment.

Could that be because most of the average battles fought by an average allied unit against average german unit resulted in allied victory and would not make an enjoyable "game" scenario?

Also, for me, playing the germans, I get to utter such comments like, "shooten upzen the amerikanisher tankeshen!" and stuff like that.

[MadDog0606]

I must admit I play the German side more then the US side. I like the German uniforms and their tanks. US uniforms are so drab and the US tanks are so darn ugly. Although the German tanks can be out manuvered by everything but the British infantry tanks and their turret turn rate blows I still like the German tanks.

If I'm going to get my ass kicked, I'm going to look good doing it.

[Bombardier]

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

OK guys, FLAME ON!!

I dont get it. Why the fascination with the Germans? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is true that I do play the German more than the Allies.

The German’s experimented more with their weapons than the allies did it. Hitler was forever in the search of the “ Miracle Weapon”. The US’s own rocket program advanced only after German scientists were “recruited” after WWII.

The question, “If the German soldier and tank were superior, how did they loss the War?” Is answered basically with “ Because it takes more than soldiers and tanks to win a war.” Therefor it is interesting to see the results on a tactical level between two “equal” forces without the influence of politics.

[Horncastle]

As I cannot PBEM, I only have internet at work, I hade no idea people like being the Wafffen SS or Jerries more. I really only ever play as the Bosche against the AI as the Geramn war machine is wicked. I was always under the impression that the Jerries are usually outnumbered in scenarios, Im not sure if this is true, but felt being the Jerries would balances the game against my sometimes thickie AI, so the underdog factor came into play.

I think most humans are generally seduced by the baddies, particularly in the area of entertainment, as generally the good guys are just too boring.

Cheers

Peter

[Bombardier]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

In fact, reports from the front found that the US soldiers were far too friendly with the Germans and were missing the element of "hate" that sometimes makes for a better fighting soldier.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You would might want to consider the theory that there was a disproportionate number of German-Americans in the US military that led to this “friendliness” with the German soldiers.

The Germans were the largest immigration group to the US for many years. It is also a little known fact that the official language of the US was almost GERMAN!!!

Here is a fun “What if…”

What if the language of the US was German. Would we even have fought against the Germans in WWI?

[Horncastle]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

The common knowledge of WWII goes a bit like this here in finland.

1. Germans were evil nazis, Hitler was their leader.

2. Hitler wanted to kill all the jews, so the americans had to fight him. The british helped a bit.

3. As the movies so well show it, the americans had to fight against overwhelming odds.

They prevailed because they were morally superior.

4. Germany also had some sort of skirmish against the russians.

My history is slightly different

1. The British and French declared war on Germany after the Nazis continued aggressive expansion across Europe

2.The Frogs got defeated the Brits escape

3.Hitler make a big arrogant cock up by declaring war on the Yanks

4.There was lots of anti-semetic feeling at the time in many nations, many Jews were refused immigration to the USA and UK for instance, although this does not imply they agreed with latter Nazi policies

5.Luckily Hitler makes more strategic cock ups on the Eastern Front

6.A COMBINED force of Brits, Canadians and Yanks invade France. Due to the global influence of Hollywood a rather American slant on WWII is inevtiable

7. The Jerries get done over, the Allied high command curse themselves for letting the Ruskies beat them

8. The preperations for war against the Ruskies start

[Bombardier]

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

Originally posted by Jarmo:

8. The preperations for war against the Ruskies start

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It only took 50 years, countless billions and the threat of total annihilation to beat them.

[Jochen Schmidt]

On the first look, the Germans were the bad boys. In reality the average soldier (on both sides) were poor boys.

I´m germans, i like to play both sides. Especially the US-side - i like those Americans (perhaps the stories of the good treatment by american soldiers is the reason for this), cause they have plenty of tanks and other stuff.

When playing the german side i´m always frustrated by loosing a tank, cause every loss is another gap in the upcoming battles (so was it reality - and as a german, with a little bit of national feelings - this makes me sad (giggle)).

Greetings from Germany

Jochen Schmidt

[Gregory Deych]

To whoever it was that said that Russians outnumbered Germans 5 to 1 - that is so wrong, it's not even funny. At no time did Russians have more then twice the manpower of Germans at arms, and that may have happened only in 45. By the end of 41, Russians were actually outnumbered, especially if you factor in the equipment. For most of the war,Russians and Germans had a rough parity within 30% of each other. What Russians did have was a superior ability to replace their losses.

[L.Tankersley]

See the thread "Germans, Nazis and SS -- oh, my!" at

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009497.html

for a previous discussion of this topic.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[kipanderson]

Hi,

This is an interesting subject and my own view is similar to many others that the reason for greater interest in the Germans is the commonly held belief that they where better soldiers.

Interestingly the latest research to come out of the Russian archives suggests that in the second half of the war, say from July 43 to March 45 the Soviets had the highest combat effectiveness of any of the major players, on average. That is man for man, or per 1000 man combat team, the Soviets were better soldiers than the Germans.

This is a very big subject and there is no quick way to explain why it is likely that this was the case but I will be doing a long and detailed post soon giving my reasons for this conclusion. Out of respect for those that hold the opposite view, that the Germans were the better soldiers, I feel I should justify my reasoning in detail, which I will do when I have time.

Another sign of the greater interest in the Germans is the fact that recently I did a post explaining why I believe Charles has got the wrong penetration figures for some of the most common allied guns in CM. As was pointed out by others there was a far more relaxed response to the idea that the US and British armour penetration figures are understated than there would be to the idea that say the Tiger’s 88 is understated. (I do not mean BTS were relaxed about it, although interestingly Charles has not responded, but the CM community as a whole is less concerned about the Allies than the Germans.)

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The armour penetration post was called “ German armour penetration overstated?” if any one is interested.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

You really think it would have taken us a year to get into Germany if we didnt have so much wrapped up in the navy and ground forces in the pacific (which takes up a good portion of the earth, mind you)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is us Scout? & yes the USA was fighting a global war, & we agreed to a Germany 1st policy as the focus of Allied efforts. Germany was fighting a 3 front war even if it was only in Europe with less manpower, material & resources.

Yes I do think it would have taken that long, as air superiority had to be achieved etc, before any invasion could be considered viable. On the other hand when would the Allies have considered a landing in Europe had Russia been defeated?.

How long would the war have lasted had the Germans been able to concentrate all their resources + Russias against the US & UK? how would the war have fared had the invasion took place in 1942 or early 1943?. This is not meant to glorify the German military or cause, but to point out the war was not won by any single Nation's contribution or military, it was won by an concentrated Allied effort.

ppl here have dismissed or ignored German victories vs France, Poland, Russia etc, as if they have no merit, as if these battles were against inferior nations of no consequence etc. The truth is Russia alone bore the brunt of the war for 3 years, the US & UK etc, used the time Russia bought them with blood to build up their military, and eventualy invade Europe against an already weakened nation.

& I agree the US Army did great, & I have the greatest respect for US vetrans, I have to I had 5 family members who served in WW2, & I served my country as well, but that doesn't mean I cant recognize Germany's military achievements as well.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the feild".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-10-2000).]

[CavScout]

I said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They achieved a wrecked country. Where's the respect for the victories and achievements for the American army? An army that joined a war which the others had at least a three year jump on. An army that was able to learn quickly. Would the pro-Germans like to compare the win-loss ration of major battles of the American Army versus the German? Other than the mythos, you may not like what it shows.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To which you reply (Aussie Smith):

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lets see - any army fighting on two fronts and having been in battle since 1939 compared to an army only entering the war in 1942 with mustered soldiery as yet uncommitted who was fully equipped and had total command of the air. If it were not for the Brits and the Canadians Cav - the US army would be creating new breeding grounds for fish in the Atlantic - it took the combined arms of 3 countries to dislodge Germany from France - and perhaps you forget a quote from a well renown American General "George S Patton" who on more than one occasion referred to German troops as 'magnificent' - Perhaps a read of the book "Patton" may enlighten you. Furthermore - I've served side by side with your Army in several exercises - why are the current US TacOps based on the German model from WW2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I ask again, would you like to compare the win/loss ratio of American versus German? War comes done to who wins and losses. And when one speaks of US vs Germany, the US has a lot more wins.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-10-2000).]

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-10-2000).]