PzKpfw 1 Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 Nothing new their Jeff has never liked groggy armor detail specific discussions. Which is fine, to each his own. BTW Jeff it was Panther Ausf.G skirts not Panther II . We will all try to remeber not to answer any question's you define as grog related in any threads your involved in so we don't disturb you, from now on. Mike, if anything the skirts were just lost in daily operations, the mountings wern't that strong. OOPs did it again. Regards, John Waters [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 oops [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 The history channel, where do I start? How bout here: I started watching it about 5 yrs ago, they still show the same damn footage on shows they put out now. Get some new material, the channel's like Kevin Meaney, been using the same act for a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: As for skirts on Gs, they may have simply been left off as an aid in identifying the vehicles while playing. Cover up that redesigned upper hull side and all Panther types tend to look the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dunno. Those skirts on the A are functional, tho not very effective. I once shot a whole bunch of bazookas at some Panthers (in the game that is) and the skirts on the A deflected about 3% of the hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jhereg Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 That show was totally riddled with errors, the one that tuned me out was, "The T34 when introduced had an 85mm main gun.....". Sheesh get a clue. That was early on before the King Tiger SNAFU's. So I went back to stopping the XXX Corps breakout LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 I didn't like the mention of the Panther 4s either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 You guys obviously need a life, dreaming and ranting on about tanks wearing skirts...IT'S THE WOMEN WHO WEAR THE SKIRTS GUYS. Next thing you'll tell us, your Kubelwagen has a bra... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: Never mentioned the SPW 251 as the definitive infantry vehicle of blitzkrieg, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well at least they got one thing right then! There weer sweet f/a 251's about in 1940-41, and there was no Blitzkreig after that. In an old S&T mag they compared the movement rates of the Germans from the Belgian border to teh Marne in WW1, to Paris in WW2, and the Israeli advance across the Siniai in 1967. The germans weer the fastest on a km per day basis.....in WW1! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen-x87H Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 Hey thank you John. Where is the Patton museum located anyways? I want to take alook at this thing. Gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 Stalin's Organ: I do not agree with your assesment. The SPW 250 and 251 were around since the mid thirties, and they DID have a deep impact on the speed of attack, allowing the infantry to move alongside the tanks at great speed and only dismount in times of need. I think there is also no dispute that during the invasion of France, Germany broke ALL PREVIOUS RECORDS of speed of advance. There were many days when the spearhead formations would thrust over 125 miles. There is no other time before when such a thing was possible, and they did it through enemy territory while engaging the (albeit broken) enemy. I do not know much about the Six Days War, but it's definitely possible that they moved faster, however your contention about WWI is ludicrous. My point, though, was that the History Channel made out the Kubelwagen (of all things) to be THE German infantry unit of most note, probably because it was most like the Jeep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckler_rider Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 When riding on the tanks and wearing skirts, did the infantry ride side-saddle? According to Historychannel.com the Russians invented this tactic in Finland against the Swedes in 1948. You can go buy the video documenting this for only $19.95...... [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: olebooya ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: ... The germans weer the fastest on a km per day basis.....in WW1!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My source is lost in the mists of time, but IIRC the Mongols hold the record for the Army with the fastest sustained rate of advance. I believe the record was set while advancing from Mongolia, through Russia and into Eastern Europe somewhere around 1200. Upon reflection, maybe it was the fastest-longest advance. I supose it really depends on how you choose to measure it. egs: *Fastest advance carried out (foot) *Fastest advance carried out (horse) *Fastest advance carried out (motorised) *Fastest advance carried out (retrograde movement) *Fastest advance carried out (opposed) *Fastest advance carried out (no-opposition) *Fastest advance carried out (against the French) *Fastest advance carried out (under the influence) *Fastest advance carried out (whilst singing) *Fastest advance carried out (whilst singing badly) a bit like the oscars really - think of your favourite advance and there's bound to be a category you can dream up to make it the winner of JonS [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 oops [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 Panzer you missed at least half my point, which was that on a long term basis the WW2 advance was no faster than the WW1 one. Sure the WW2 types might have done better on a particular day, but overall they were withing a km per day of each other, with WW1 being the faster! In 1939/40 there were precious few armoured half tracks - the vast majority of infantry walked and guns were mostly animal towed, even in the German army. In the Panzer divisions the vast majority of infantry rode in trucks, which gave them strategic mobility. Even later on IIRC only 1/3rd of Panzer-Grenadiers were supposed to ride in half-tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: In 1939/40 ... the vast majority of infantry walked and guns were mostly animal towed, even in the German army. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Emphasis mine. Ahem. The Brits had a fully mechanised army by the outbreak of WW2, the first army in the world to do so. JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 Sure JonS but then they lost it two weeks later at a little beach house called DUNKIRK!!! And Organ-grinder, I was referring to the Armoured BLitzkrieg spearhead divisions, whose tactic was to bust through enemy lines, and these troops had the half-tracks. Sure the line infantry and cannonade had trucks and horses, but the Germans had BLITZKRIEG and it was dependant on half-tracks as much as tanks. It is not the quantity of HTs they had that is so important, it was the method in which they used them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 Halftracks had little to do with the early blitzkriegs. %99 of panzergrenadiers were carried in trucks. There was a whopping 232 251s built in '39 with no 250s. 337 more in '40. 813 of both types built in '41. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: My point, though, was that the History Channel made out the Kubelwagen (of all things) to be THE German infantry unit of most note, probably because it was most like the Jeep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What's wrong with that contention? Just mount an MG 34 on it and it suddenly becomes an uber vehicle. Is there a problem here? Perhaps I'm missing something obvious? Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H: BTW does anybody have an idea on when the Panther II would have made a debut? I also understand some military museum in Europe has a display of the Panther II. Gen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Patton Museum at Fort Knox has the Panther II hull on display. A late G turret is mounted on it, however, as the hull was never mated with the intended turret AFAIK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kobalos Posted July 13, 2001 Share Posted July 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: The jeep won the war... yeah right, whatever. Next thing ya know they are gonna tell us the French Resistance made a difference. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think the jeep won the war, but I was impressed with how quickly the jeep was designed and manufactured. No matter what anyone thinks of American stategy/tactics/skill in combat (good or bad), the U.S. economy/war production is the engine that powered the Allied war effort, even on the eastern front, to a larger degree than might be expected. As for the French...well, they haven't been able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag since Napoleon; and even he got his behind kicked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 13, 2001 Share Posted July 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: In an old S&T mag they compared the movement rates of the Germans from the Belgian border to teh Marne in WW1, to Paris in WW2, and the Israeli advance across the Siniai in 1967. The germans weer the fastest on a km per day basis.....in WW1!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Apples and oranges - what matters was how fast they got to the channel coast in WW2. Paris was irrelevant as a military objective (unlike in WW1). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 13, 2001 Share Posted July 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: Sure JonS but then they lost it two weeks later at a little beach house called DUNKIRK!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And then they rebuilt it. But what matters is that they really took an awful long time to understand how to use it. It is not the size of your mechanised forces that matters, it is how you use them The Wehrmacht stood head and shoulders above the rest in the early war in that respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts