Soviet gun and ammo

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sigrun:

Regarding the veracity of Otto Carius' recollections, I take them largely at face value for the same generical reason I discount most Soviet accounts as blatant lies...the average German officer was educated, honourable and truthful whilst the average Soviet officer was little better than an animal. Let's not forget the behaviour of these vermin at the fall, a stain upon Russia's 'honour' that will never be wiped clean. Trust their AARs? I think not.

You would have felt right at home in SS-T no doubt.

I thought I'd preserve this for posterity, so that I can point others at it in the future.

Regards

Andreas

[Inola]

Originally posted by Sigrun:

...the average German officer was educated, honourable and truthful whilst the average Soviet officer was little better than an animal. Let's not forget the behaviour of these vermin at the fall, a stain upon Russia's 'honour' that will never be wiped clean. Trust their AARs? I think not.

They were bloody bears with big teeth in their espesial fur hats, called "ushanka" with a big red star on it. They had no weapons-they could win only in case of Brave German guys would run out of ammo.

Sigrun. Do you really think Germans were superior race? I dont think so. Perhaps, at the

beginning of the War, Red Army was not very well trained, but everything changed to the end. And wat about bloody crimes, made by brave German soldiers- gas cammeras, mass murders and others.

P.S. I heard about different things, taken place in captured Berlin. Someone told soviet soldiers shared their meal with civilians and helped them. And no crimes were allowed- maradeurs were shot.

I dont know if it was real, but I herd it from non-soviet sources.

P.P.S. I dont know about luftwaffe guis,but results of all "work" shturm aviation (as I read in Iremember, IL-2 pilot described) were pictured from air (there were plane in squardon for this reason, with trained pilot). Without it, sortie was not counted.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sigrun:

The same thing as you say above about Carius was said about Luftwaffe pilots and their kill numbers...until they were verified by historians much later, doing proper research.

Except that you are full of brown stuff, and while I hate to run the risk of interrupting your 'I love the honourable truthful Wehrmacht' masturbation, I will have to point out to you that it takes all of a couple of minutes of internet research to show that there are serious problems with Luftwaffe kill claims, just the same as there are with the kill claims of other air forces.

So, no historians ever verified Luftwaffe kill claims doing 'proper' research.

Regards

Andreas

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sigrun:

You'll just have to try and match your very impressive, but not perfect, knowledge with a bit of objective acceptance that the German Panzer Corp absolutely slaughtered the Soviet tank armies all the way from 1941 to 1945.

Tell me, Sigrun, have you ever heard of Operation Bagration?

All the best,

John.

[Kineas]

Originally posted by Sigrun:

Regarding the veracity of Otto Carius' recollections, I take them largely at face value for the same generical reason I discount most Soviet accounts as blatant lies...the average German officer was educated, honourable and truthful whilst the average Soviet officer was little better than an animal.

Quite the opposite. I remember reading the diary of a Hungarian field doctor (medic), who was quite shocked when met and spoke with Russian civilians. Wearing a long beard and poor clothes, yet they were very literate, and he barely could keep up in the debates with them. The so called western cultural advantage was a lie. I guess they could pick up decent men to crew the tanks.

[Sigrun]

I speak as I find, and it's not about race, it's about culture and personal behaviour.

Yes, there were plenty of Germans who betrayed their culture, not least the nazi leadership (vermin). But at least they had one to betray.

The Soviets, en-masse, both officers and enlisted men, raped millions (yes, millions) of German women, including old ladies and children. This wasn't sporadic and occasional, it was practically institutionalised and with full approval and encouragement right from the top.

Your average Soviet grunt came out of a bog and couldn't even spell his own name. Most of them didn't know how to wipe their own backsides. As for being 'invaded', most of them regarded the Germans as liberators from Stalin's oppression and butchery.

Shame the Germans had plenty of their own verminous mad dogs to spoil the party, but that came back and bit them in their own collective arse.

More recently there have been hundreds, if not thousands, who have discovered Russian online games players to be amongst the most dishonest and cheating to be found.

Then I could go on about those I met in Japan when I was teaching there, and how they behaved. Yes, I've met a handful of good ones, and called some of them friends, but the vast majority of them, past and present, have something seriously wrong up top.

And you can "call me Meyer" if I ever give a shred of credence to any combat report written by a Russian.

[LongLeftFlank]

Hi, Mum!!!!

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Sigrun:

...the average German officer was educated, honourable and truthful whilst the average Soviet officer was little better than an animal.

and you base this insightful and informative statement upon what exactly?

the average Soviet officer in 1941 was captured by the Germans and eitehr starved to death or shot.

so much for honourable.

[Inola]

Sigrun!

Cold War has ended, stop reading anti-soviet agenda books, memuars or bestsellers. They are written for profit rather than to show thruth. The only way to know the reality is talking (!) with those, who took part in War.

About culture: at the time of Soviet Union, our education was one of the best- many sciensists moved to Europe and America aftet 1990, they were very good specialists.

About culture of production-it is really low, but it doesnt really changes the matter.

[Sigrun]

Sorry chaps, this thread is being pulled right off topic, by irrelevant political stuff and personal feelings and turning into a counter German/Russian bash session. Let's just leave it at me not accepting Soviet combat reports.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sigrun:

Sorry chaps, this thread is being pulled right off topic, by irrelevant political stuff and personal feelings and turning into a counter German/Russian bash session. Let's just leave it at me not accepting Soviet combat reports.

And whose fault would that be now? First you sling ****, and then you complain about people responding to it? If that is your idea of honourable behaviour, you're about 60 years late.

Any proof for the 'millions of German women'? No, thought so. Probably the same 'proper' historical research that worked out that all those German aces really got the kills they claimed.

Regards

Andreas

[Inola]

Lets return to tigers. It was really good AFV, but dont forget-it was very hard to exploit. In reality, one day of usage requred nearly 2-3 days of tecknical support-it was often compared with Luftwaffe planes. And it requred a lot of fuel (gasoline, not exonomic diesel). There were ideas to unit each two tiger battalions-one would be in support, another could be in battle. Knikapf`s transmission was good, but two columns of wheels-one of the nightmares of German tecknical support service.

[Kineas]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Any proof for the 'millions of German women'? No, thought so. Probably the same 'proper' historical research that worked out that all those German aces really got the kills they claimed.

Actually this isn't very far from the truth. By one order of magnitude at the most.

Back to the topic: if we argue strictly about modeling issues in CM, reading battle reports is hardly useful. Aside from the exagerrations, what you compare this way is the weapon systems _and_ the combat methods employed. The final results has very little to do with the actual tank vs tank capabilities.

If Stalin had given 30+ turns for the Soviets to take cities I guess the casualty statistics would have been fundamentally different.

IMO penetration tables, and single, verified cases should be examined. Nobody will know what was the reality back then, but probably it can be approximated (a little) better.

[Fußball]

The point to these arguements being that you either believe one side's reports or another's. Or maybe even a mix of both. It is really up to the reader to choose. You could stay indifferent and be skeptical or you could believe either or. I highly doubt anyone on these forums has actually crewed a Tiger or a T34.

In JasonC's case he probably daydreams of T34/85 drives and tea time with Pappa Stalin. If you want information from a Russian biased point of view go to him for your information. He has plenty of it.

If you want information from a German stand point there are many excellent sources. Tigers in Combat I & II are two very great books. They are exactly what you need if you need combat reports and/or specific Tiger unit information. Written by Oberst Wolfgang Schneider. These two books give very detailed combat information on the units that deployed the Tiger I and Tiger II.

Do remember that ultimately it is up to the reader to decide whether or not he believes the author's words are truth or lies. The only true way to have known what happened was to have been there and experienced it firsthand. And I personally would believe Otto Carius over JasonC anyday.

Whether Otto Carius or Mikhail Gregorievich Reznikov exaggerated, lied, or told the truth we will never truly know because we are neither of the aforementioned persons.

Tschüß!

Erich

[Other Means]

You don't prefer, you compare.

What you do, and what Jason does, is when you hear "We killed 10 tanks each that day" you go and read the other sides report and see how many tanks were there and how many they actually lost.

You then know more than the people who were there that day because you know which ones were really kills.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Fußball:

The point to these arguements being that you either believe one side's reports or another's. Or maybe even a mix of both. It is really up to the reader to choose. You could stay indifferent and be skeptical or you could believe either or. I highly doubt anyone on these forums has actually crewed a Tiger or a T34.

In JasonC's case he probably daydreams of T34/85 drives and tea time with Pappa Stalin. If you want information from a Russian biased point of view go to him for your information. He has plenty of it.

If you want information from a German stand point there are many excellent sources. Tigers in Combat I & II are two very great books. They are exactly what you need if you need combat reports and/or specific Tiger unit information. Written by Oberst Wolfgang Schneider. These two books give very detailed combat information on the units that deployed the Tiger I and Tiger II.

Do remember that ultimately it is up to the reader to decide whether or not he believes the author's words are truth or lies. The only true way to have known what happened was to have been there and experienced it firsthand. And I personally would believe Otto Carius over JasonC anyday.

Whether Otto Carius or Mikhail Gregorievich Reznikov exaggerated, lied, or told the truth we will never truly know because we are neither of the aforementioned persons.

Tschüß!

Erich

This post is utter nonsense. We can well know if someone exaggerated, lied, or told the truth. E.g. without having been there, I feel confident to state that Hans Seidemann lied or exaggerated, and certainly did not tell the truth, on the matter of Bruno Meyer's air attack at Kursk.

Discussion

Your comparison between Otto Carius and JasonC is also non-sensical. Carius was a participant relating first-hand information from the lowest level. JasonC is an analyst looking at a large range of sources and looking at things from a higher level. If you say you'd rather believe Carius than JasonC, then all you say is that you are not interested in analysis. Which tells me all I need to know about the value of your opinions in the future.

All the best

Andreas

[Fußball]

Originally posted by Andreas:

This post is utter nonsense. We can well know if someone exaggerated, lied, or told the truth. E.g. without having been there, I feel confident to state that Hans Seidemann lied or exaggerated, and certainly did not tell the truth, on the matter of Bruno Meyer's air attack at Kursk.

You seem to not understand very well what I am saying. You can compare and contrast on combat reports all day and read accounts of men and the like as much as you want.

But no matter how much information you have compiled you still do not know what indeed did happen at that particular moment in time. Maybe just maybe you have formed a good hypothesis or a good idea of what happened. But you do not know because you were never there.

Originally posted by Andreas:

Your comparison between Otto Carius and JasonC is also non-sensical. Carius was a participant relating first-hand information from the lowest level. JasonC is an analyst looking at a large range of sources and looking at things from a higher level. If you say you'd rather believe Carius than JasonC, then all you say is that you are not interested in analysis.

It is not so much that I would not believe JasonC because he is analytical. It is more because I would not believe JasonC because he is a bigot. Give me someone who will analyze the matter in question, not someone who will write it off as incorrect because it differs from his own thoughts or beliefs.

Tschüß!

Erich

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Fußball:

But no matter how much information you have compiled you still do not know what indeed did happen at that particular moment in time. Maybe just maybe you have formed a good hypothesis or a good idea of what happened. But you do not know because you were never there.

By that definition, neither did the participants. They can just form a good hypothesis, based on their one-sided experience, but they can not know what happened either. All they know is what they believe happened.

So, in the end, based on your definition, nobody knows anything that is of particular value. Oh well, back to reading "Infantry Aces" I guess.

All the best

Andreas

[Sigrun]

Excuse me Andreas, but when Carius says his group knocked out X amount of T34s for X loss of Tigers he was indeed THERE, and knows exactly of what he talks. He and his direct command/comrades were the ones doing it. And considering his frankness concerning friendly losses, failures and Soviet fighting abilities (which he often praises) his word is good enough for me. Unlike the Soviets, he wasn't writing everything he wrote with consideration to who might end up reading it and having him shot for 'anti soviet' whatever ("Our T34s are vulnerable to 88mm" HAVE THAT MAN SHOT FOR ANTI SOVIET SENTIMENTS! Get my drift Andreas? That's why soviet reports are so unreliable; and current ones are simply about weak soviet ego and bolstering already falsified claims. Like they're going to admit now that they talked crap in order not to fall foul of commisars).

I'd take the word of a German officer over that of a Soviet any day. Or indeed over that of Jason, who does indeed appear to have wood for the Soviets and was nowhere near the events he analyses so judiciously.

[ September 19, 2006, 06:17 AM: Message edited by: Sigrun ]

[Andreas]

Unless Carius walked the ground after the battle, counter-checking on the battle claims, he only reports what he believes happened.

How many Soviet officers were shot for stating that T34s were vulnerable to 88mm?

But I get your drift. You are a racist Nazi admirer who is full of sh*t.

Regards

Andreas

[Sigrun]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Unless Carius walked the ground after the battle, counter-checking on the battle claims, he only reports what he believes happened.

How many Soviet officers were shot for stating that T34s were vulnerable to 88mm?

But I get your drift. You are a racist Nazi admirer who is full of sh*t.

Regards

Andreas

I'm not, but you appear to be a very insecure russian.

[Andreas]

German actually, and secure enough not to have to refer to other human beings as 'little better than animals'.

Regards

Andreas

[Bigduke6]

Andreas,

If there is one thing you Germans should still feel war guilt about, it is that as a direct result of World War Two the modern world is now infested with Nazi fan boys possessing not a shred of intelligence, yet willing and able to inflict their booby-minded ideas on rational men.

[Andreas]

Quite so.

All the best

Andreas

[JasonC]

The silly person condemns himself whenever he opens his mouth and isn't worth much. But one silly claim made in passing, being actually something we can analyze, is worth a few minutes.

He thinks 12k KOs for Tiger I alone is reasonable, then goes on to say the IVs and StuGs struggled. Why? If they are as depicted in CM for example, why would StuGs "struggle"? The StuG men themselves make kill claims as large as the Tiger men claim in overall KOs, around 5 per vehicle deployed. If they had, that would have accounted for the Russian tank fleet right there.

But those are preliminaries. The part I loved was when he said only Panthers did better than Tigers. Take that at face value, Tigers are getting 10 apiece, Panthers do at least as well. There are 6000 Panthers fielded, most of them sent east (easily 3/4, perhaps 5/6). So they have to get 45000 to 50000, on top of the 12000 for the Tiger Is. King Tigers and Jadgpanthers are presumably chopped liver, or you need another 9000 for those to keep up.

So the valiant truthful StuG drivers - who were *there*! (breathless pant) - didn't kill anything. And their claims cannot be worth anything.

See, it is easy, the claims impeach themselves. You can't believe all of them and also believe in mathematics. If one set are believed on the maxim "always trust a German eyewitness", then others by German eyewitneses have to be tossed - or the multiplication table has to be slandered as a communist plot!

lol.