OT:So who did say 10 worth 1 but...

[russellmz]

So who was it bruno?

"One German tank is worth ten Allied tanks but the problem was there were always eleven of them."

The topic didn't have a confirmed answer when i posted...

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

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

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

[Pham911]

Offical answer:

Since a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and German tanks were often named for predators which eat things like birds or people, a Panther or Tiger is indeed worth more than a Sherman, as Shermans are made in the US, who's national symbol is an Eagle, which makes it easy prey to the German tanks.

Also, all Allied tanks were driven by people, which makes them doubly vunerable to German armor.

I imagine it would take more than 11 Allied birds to take down a German non-native carnivorous cat.

On the other hand, maybe the original poster of the quote in question was wrong when they said the 10:1 ratio, as it just sounds made up.

Hope this helps.

[russellmz]

thanks, good, er, reply. however, the race goes not to the strong nor the fleet of foot but those who endure. so the democratic endurance of the bald eagle survives despite once being near death while the dictatorial ferocity of the tiger, is in much danger. So eventually with eleven eagles surviving the one tiger is doomed to extinction.

but bruno something said the quote was from a german officer in wwii. i was wondering who said it.some guesses included von luck and rommel but i don't know if those are right...

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

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

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

[Pham911]

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

thanks, good, er, reply. however, the race goes not to the strong nor the fleet of foot but those who endure. so the democratic endurance of the bald eagle survives despite once being near death while the dictatorial ferocity of the tiger, is in much danger. So eventually with eleven eagles surviving the one tiger is doomed to extinction.

but bruno something said the quote was from a german officer in wwii. i was wondering who said it.some guesses included von luck and rommel but i don't know if those are right...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhhh. See, I should pay more attention before I post. Not sure who said it, but it still sounds like a made up figure to this reporter.

I'm going to guess Guderian. If I'm right, what do I win?

[Bruno Weiss]

No, the quote numbers are real enough, though probably impossible to verify, and I never interpreted the quote that the German Officer literally meant the Americans always actually sent eleven tanks. He was speaking euphamistically. Actually, the citation didn't identify what German Officer had said it. Just that the quote was famous, and from that I interpreted it to mean more like infamous than famous. Particularly to the Americans who were flush with victory. I cannot lay my hands at the moment on the book wherein I read this.

It was tossed out there in the middle of a thesis as to the best tank of WWII, and went into the varibles involved. Like discussion about the Panthers mechanical reliability detracting from it's combat performance, the Tiger being something of a failure due to it's weight factor, high visibility profle and insatiable use of fuel with somewhat the opposite rating for the Soviet T-34. Where it's reliability equated into improved combat performance since it could operate in any kind of weather with very little mechanical breakdowns and was also produced in vast quantities. From there the discussion went into the relative merits of the Sherman's. And while viewed as a somewhat weaker tank overall, most notably the initial series weaker armor plate the thrust of the argument was that America's ability to mass produce them in quantities unimaginable to the Axis improved their overall combat capabilities by virtue of shear strength of numbers. That is where the quote came in, and was referred to as "A famous post war quote from a German Officer was that "Each German tank was worth ten American tanks, but the problem was they always sent eleven".

It's interesting on account of a couple of other guys also remember reading this, but no one can remember where? I was joking when I wrote it, but now it is going to bug me forever or until I find it, or until someone wins the CM points. And as some keen observers noted, it never was a confirmed answer.

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

"Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben"

Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf")

Bruno "Stachel" Weiss

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Guest machineman]

I remember reading a similar story about American soldiers giving the captured commander of a German 88 antitank gun a hard time. Something like "If you Germans are so smart, how come you are losing the war". The German replied that his job was to defend a particular bend on a mountain road with his 88. When a Sherman stuck its nose out, he knocked it out. Another one tried, he knocked it out. Another one.....etc. "Eventually", he said, "I ran out of shells".

[russellmz]

i will search the ends of the earth to find that quote!

wait, i gotta go to the bathroom. guess that ends my mad quest...

dang, now it will bug me for all time as well...

i should bring this up once a year and see if i can resolve this before the Aliens vs. Colonial Marines tactical combat sim, CM 8: Beyond LV-426.

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

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

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

[Simon Fox]

Why bother? It's just the bitter words of a loser unable to accept defeat.

As for the story machineman relates, did that come from "Death traps" by Beldon Cooper?

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[ScoutPL]

I've read a similiar quote though I think it was an allied writer this time. Something along the way of it took 5 shermans to knock out a panther or tiger. 4 to act as bait and a fifth to work around for a rear shot.

I think the mass industrial thing is a misnomer as well. If we (the US) had been at war as long as the germans had, we would have been short tanks and tankers as well. By the time spring, 1945 rolled around the US Infantry Divisions were desperately short of riflemen. Shermans may come in infinite numbers. Sherman drivers and gunners do not.

Seems like everybody always points at US industrial might as the key to victory. Personnaly I think 1 million dead russians was the key to victory, but as far as the western front gos, if we were out gunned and underarmored compared to the badguys then our tankers must have been doing something right to make it to Germany in 6 months!!

Bottom line: As always, a country that doesnt prepare for war has to make do with what it has. Its the guys dodging Tiger and Panther main gun fire that always end up paying the butchers bill.

[Guest machineman]

Can't remember the title, but no it wasn't from 'Death Traps'.

About the tankers doing something right, they were certainly brave, and skilled, the equipment was just not up to the job. Just finished a biography of Montgomery and it surprised me by how narrow a margin victory in the west was won. Without total air and near total artillery superiority, the support of massed Naval gunnery, timely Ultra and French resistance intelligence coups, plus an opponent short of everything from men to tanks to shells to petrol, the lack of capable tanks would have been fatal to the Normandy invasion and the whole idea of a 'Western Front'. Even with all those advantages it took them 6 months. It took the Germans 6 weeks in 1940 going the other way.

I'm sure the Allied tankmen going up against the Panthers and Tigers would have loved to have the various Generals and procurement knotheads responsible for their plight in the turrent with them for while.

[Maastrictian]

Scout PL wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I think the mass industrial thing is a misnomer as well. If we (the US) had been at war as long as the germans had, we would have been short tanks and tankers as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the quantitative differences between the US and any of their allies interms of manufactoring power and raw materials should be addressed here. The US had more manufacturing capacity than any of their allies and enemies (especailly as the Soviet industrial heartland (the Ukraine) was overrun with in the first 6 months of Barbarosa) and more raw materials capacity than both allies and axis as well. I'm sorry I don't have the figures in front of me, but IIRC the US out produced Germany in steel, oil, and other raw materials by a factor of 10 durring the war. That is not just bombing, huge differences can be seen even in 1940-42. Germany had no internal supply of oil, for instance.

Its not just a question of the Germans "using up" all their tanks. The US started the war (1939) with almost no military to speak of. By 1944, just half a decade later, they were driving back both Germany and Japan (hows that for a 5 year plan). US production capacity was (and is) huge.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Seems like everybody always points at US industrial might as the key to victory. Personnaly I think 1 million dead russians was the key to victory.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, between 10 and 20 million dead soviets is more accurate. Compare that to something less than 2 million dead Brits, Brit common-wealth, Americans and French). Both these figures count civilians. Despite my rant above, I completely agree with you that US industrial capacity did not win the war. It certainly helped the soviet union (especially trucks). But soviet lives won the war. After Kursk it was only a mater of time. Post war Soviet leaders were pretty justifibly parinoid of the west. Come on, these "allies" had just blead the USSR white (or tried too) by putting off their second front. It came after the war was won and two years after they promised. Any books that call themselves a history of WWII and do not give equal or greater share to the eastern front are horribly biased.

Wow, sorry for the rant. In the words of that annoying kid on the fantastic four: "Flame on!"

--Chris

[Supertanker]

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

I'm sure the Allied tankmen going up against the Panthers and Tigers would have loved to have the various Generals and procurement knotheads responsible for their plight in the turrent with them for while.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just finished reading Death Traps (btw, I returned it to the L.A. Central Library today, so whichever of you guys had it on hold, preventing me from renewing it, should have it soon.), and Belton Cooper places a lot of the blame on George Patton. He says that there was a critical point at which the US had to decide to focus production on the existing M4 or the new M26. Patton still followed the pre-war US doctine on tanks, which viewed them as the tool for exploiting holes in the line and rampaging in the enemy rear (classical cavalry role), NOT as an anti-tank weapon. Because of that, Patton saw no need for the M26 because he believed it to be less mobile (which Cooper says is not true for horsepower to weight, or ground pressure) and its 90mm gun unnecessary. Patton's vote counted for a lot, and the decision was made to go with the M4. As a consequence of that decision, Cooper notes that the 3rd Armored had a casualty rate of 580% among its tanks.

[ScoutPL]

I should probably know better then to get involved in this discussion, being a history student in college and as a hobby I know the meat of the matter is much more complex then what I would ever be able to type out in this little white box. But what the hell, I'm a glutton for punishment.

I didnt do a very good job of explaining my view on this one. Let me say right up front that I appreciate the correction on the Soviet war dead. I knew it was alot. Obviously I fell into the same trap most westerners do, my conception of alot pales to what an eastern view of "alot" would be.

As far as how the war was fought I think a couple key points need to be made. As was stated above prior to 1939, I would argue 1942 from a doctrinal point of view, the US had practically no war machine what so ever. No updated doctrine, no battle plan, no ready reserve. I'm sure most of you are aware of the revisionist movement that has taken place in military history circles concerning the massive steps forward taken by the US military leadership to form the Army that conquered Japan and western Europe. The view has shifted away from SLAM's "Arty and Air superiority did it because the US infantryman sucked eggs" to the US infantryman did it through proper application of the tools he had at hand, combining them into a cohesive, synchronized war machine. In 1942, when the US first started large scale offensive operations, most of the doctrines dictating how amphib assaults and tank battles would be fought were out moded. With the Normandy invasion, less then two years later, it became clear that the lessons were learned and were being applied. If the french and the BEF had been as prepared as the germans were in 1940, i.e. not sitting in their little concrete boxes, convinced that the germans would respect international borders and not come through Belgium, then things would have been different. Case in point, it didnt take the soviets that long, relatively, to learn how to deal with "blitzkrieg" and after that the Germans made no major gains. The fact that it took the Soviets, two more years after the huge summer '43 battles to push their way into Germany illutrates that the Germans were a determined and difficult opponent all the way to the end. I stand by my statement that fighting across western europe against fortified static defenses, fortified towns defended by a very experienced and determined foe, and terrible weather is still a feat US military arms should be proud of. The french had more tanks and planes then anybody in 1940. If you just look at the numbers they should have won hands down, but it didnt happen that way did it? The same goes for the US. Yeah we had a lot of stuff, but it was the figuring out how to bring it all to bear on the enemy in a synchronized effort that won the war. As far as Montgomery is concerned, I'm surprised he wasnt shot at some point by his own men. But he got lucky at El Alamein and that bit of luck made him indispensable to the British.

[Maastrictian]

ScoutPL wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

the US infantryman did it through proper application of the tools he had at hand, combining them into a cohesive, synchronized war machine.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No question! I did not mean to demean the accomplishment and sacrifise of the Non-Soviet Armed forces, both the grunts and the leadership. There is no question that the war ended more quickly because of Overlord and that non-soviet participation did save soviet lives.

Case in point, it didnt take the soviets that long, relatively, to learn how to deal with "blitzkrieg" and after that the Germans made no major gains.

[Guest machineman]

That "Hedgehog" thing is a good point. Most French soldiers fought very hard in 1940. The loss was partly due to procurement problems before the war, but MOSTLY due to failures in the high command, not the individual on the ground who gets so maligned now. After Weygand took over (at which point the war was already lost) and adopted many of the same techniques that the Germans would later use so successfully against the Allies, German losses increased tremendously.

For me all that this proves is that people learn best from actual experience. You have to get a bloody nose before you learn to duck a punch. Don't forget that Germany was the 'punching bag of Europe' for many, many years while the French and English were raising hell.

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As far as Montgomery is concerned, I'm surprised he wasnt shot at some point by his own men. But he got lucky at El Alamein and

that bit of luck made him indispensable to the British.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your post made some sense up to this. Actually he was very popular with his own men. Good analytical history education they give you over there.

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[ScoutPL]

The fact that he was liked by his own men has little to do with how surprised I am that he wasnt booted. Ever read any accounts of the American paratroopers dealing with the Brit Armor units on the road to Arnhem? I'm a paratrooper by trade and let me tell you, if I'd heard stories of such foot dragging after living through that fiasco I'd have had a case of the A$$!

[Simon Fox]

First you say, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm surprised he wasnt shot at some point by his own men.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you say, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The fact that he was liked by his own men has little to do with how surprised I am that he wasnt booted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Consistent aren't you

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ever read any accounts of the American paratroopers dealing with the Brit Armor units on the road to Arnhem?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Aha now all is clear to me: that is the sum total of your reading on the subject.

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[Major Tom]

Frankly I see nothing wrong with Montgomery other than the fact that he failed in Operation Market Garden. I can't see what is so wrong with him? He never hit one of his soldiers, he never tried to collaborate with Nazi henchmen to attack Russia after the end of the war, so what's wrong with the guy? He was cautious, which paid off in men's lives. The only time he was overly wreckless was during Market Garden. He was not hated by his men, he was seen as a good commander. Patton was seen as a good military commander and well liked, but, nobody wanted to serve under him because they knew they would be in the brunt of action all the time!

The US has been gearing for war since 1939 at the latest, 1936 at the earliest. Roosevelt started US armament programs while still telling the population that it is a European war. How else would have America had been able to build so much war equipment in such a small time? You can't change a factory building cars into one building tanks overnight! The US War economy was a well planned operation.

[Guest machineman]

The biography of Monty that I just finished gave the impression that he was a man of strengths and weaknesses, the opposite of Patton in that he was good at set piece battles and shaky at battles of movement. What tarnished his name in the end was his tendency to overstate what he thought he could do/did and piss his contemporaries off.

It seemed that both Monty and Patton were in exactly the right places as far as Normandy went, one fighting the head to head 'grinder' type battle, the other going for the long dash against minimal opposition. As soon as things got fluid Monty was out of his element, as soon as things got tough so was Patton. The perfect Allied general would probably been a 50/50 blend of both with half the ego of either.

[Bruno Weiss]

Actually, the Soviet death count might be closer to 50 million from what I've read. No one's really sure. The Russians weren't that sophisticated at the time, and Uncle Joe never really had much interest in revealing the truth after the war was over either.

While a good argument can be made over the various assets and aspect of each of the Allied forces, I believe in the end it was the Germans who most likely were primarily responsible for their own defeat. Had the Axis properly planned and executed the war from a coordinated perspective in the first place, it is very likely things might have turned out differently. In point of fact, the industrial might of the Allies would never have had a chance to be brought to bear.

Germany might very well have defeated England at the onset and it's anyones guess after that. Would the US have interceded? Very unlikely given the political climate at the time. Japan was what motivated the US entry into the war, not sympathy for England. Had the British been defeated prior to Pearl Harbor, then Europe might have remained dominated by Germany for a long time to come. How long is anyone's guess, but the US would then have been busy with the Pacific all on it's own, and it is doubtful they would have taken on Europe alone for quite a while, if at all. The American A bomb I hear someone say.

The Germans were but a year, possibly a year and a half off from making one themselves when the heavy water supplies at Telemark were disrupted mid-way through the war. What then if they had been left to their own devices? Well, after the war the US and USSR sat there for over 40 years peering at each other over the tops of their respective missile silos in a hot-cold war and neither side felt compelled to invade the other. Would the US then have invaded an Atomic Bomb armed Third Reich? Pretty doubtful.

The Soviets, standing alone, and without massive aid and support from the Allies, and the added stress on German resources and materials from the second front, even an Eighth Air Force second front, would not have been able to endure the onslaught forever. I do not believe one can under estimate the impact of those factors when considering the Soviet plight.

Ofcourse, all that is one of those what if's and hindsight at that. But at least two, possibly three chances to defeat England prior to 1941 were literally thrown away. One was allowed to slip away at Dunkirk, and subsequently during the Battle of Britain. Again, both instances where the Germans miserably failed to execute properly coordinated strategy and follow it through.

Finally, Churchill himself admitted that the U-Boat Command alone very nearly defeated England. And did so with little more than a handfull of ships. Had the German Navy been better prepared to fight in the first place, then Winston might have had a chance to make good on his promised last stand at Whitehall.

It's might sound a bit trite, but from my point of view of all the things one might consider as the biggest reason the Germans lost, it must in the final analysis be considered that time was not on the Germans side. If they were to win, they had to win Europe prior to Barbarossa, and they simply failed to do it. Afterwhich, their fate was sealed and it was only a matter of time.

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

"Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben"

Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf")

Bruno "Stachel" Weiss

[Simon Fox]

So, to sum up your post:

The Germans lost because they were too dumb to win.

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[russellmz]

i love what-if?'s. wwii had a lot of them...

what if...

hitler hadn't stopped at dunkirk?

well big loss for the allies, but britaon would still stand: you need to deal with the RAF and Royal Navy.

so what if...

the brits lose the battle of britain?

not too horrible. britain gets bombed until new factories and airfields can be brought to bear. germany had nothing good to transport troops across. it took the us and britain to build enough LSTs for the invasion. there was talk of towing river barges, but one storm, and it would be the brits celebrating the divine wind, not the japanese. and those great bug boats would make fat targets for any brit artillery.

ok but what if...

russia fought alone? germany still had a lot of ground to cover. the allies were sending stuff to them to kill the germans.

btw, was the second front delayed so more russians could be killed? i thought the wait was because of weather, deception, landing craft shortage, and mulberry construction.

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

"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]

Bruno

Excellent Article....

Lets not forget that German Industry did not gear up for war footing until approx Sept 1942. Hitler was convinced that the War would be over by August 1942 and therefore Germany was still producing luxury goods till this point. Furthermore the allies relied on a well motivated workforce whereas Germany primarily relied on old men and slave labour as women were seen as too important to undertake manual labour. I read somewhere that if Germany had used its female population to produce goods the number of armoured vehicles (subject to supply) would have been somewhat in the vicinity of 3 times that historically produced - imagine if you will if Germany had 4500 Tigers and 18000 Panthers etc.

But lucky for all of us they lost the war.

Craig

[ScoutPL]

If only they'd all had the clear, incisive thinking Simon Fox seems to possess...