MikeyD Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 If this game has taught us anything its that combined arms wins the day. Germans had their fancy ubertanks but we had more trucks, and we had recently invented palletized shipping. What's the old saying? Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatdog Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 'Merica done gots teh bestest army in teh hole wurld and tehy won WW2 singelhadned. Teh Nazis suckd balls and if u liek dem taht means u LOVE HITLER!!1 USA! USA! USA!11 Fixed. .... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 However, not quite in the same league as Vark. Please try again. Practice makes purrfect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Yeah really finally something new on this ongoing debate, a barker competition!!! I need to grab a beer, some chips and a good seat! C'mon Squatdog, you need to give this some serious focus. A one liner isn't going to cut it, though it's a good start. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetori Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 IIRC US armor philosophy was to use the M4's for inf support and the M10's etc for anti-armor. Wasn't successful, but that was the theory at the time. There's been some serious bashing over this one. In the defense of the theory it's not all to far away from what the Germans themselves had originally planned (with the PzIII and PzIV). One model to kill soft targets and another tank to protect the former against enemy armor. In response to the thread in general: Every nation that fought in the war had their specialties. The Germans had the advantage of having the best exercised and experienced army for most of the war. A lot of training and combat experience is not something that only benefits the rank-and-file grunt. It also means more experienced commanders, better/adapted training, battle proven and adjusted doctrines and so on. All this mean that by '44 meant that a normal German formation still held an edge to the average US one (something that would naturally change over time). What the allies did (and the US in particular) was to rip the initiative from the enemy, in any way they could, and keep it. There's a shocking resemblance between post-bocage battles and the first months of Barbarossa, though this time the Germans were on the receiving end. Some Generals (like Patton) really seems to have had the Germans figured out. He knew that relentless action and constant movement was the most powerful tool he could use to counter experienced German forces. It doesn't matter what weapons you have or how skilled your troops if the orders they receive are already outdated by the time they get them. Even a vastly superior force with a technological advantage is going to have a hard time if they can't gain and keep the initiative. Something that has been proven during countless wars, some frighteningly recent. Fine, western tanks were not on-par with the most advanced German or Soviet ones but the same can be said about German tanks during '40 and '41. Why face up against a Panther at 1000 yards with a Sherman when you can simply let someone else pass around him 200 000 yards and force him to retreat? In Combat Mission most of these things have little effect though, a green inexperienced infantryman is going to be just as good if he's a German, Englishman or American (as WE as players dictate the tactics and use OUR experience as pixel-commanders no matter how the points are allocated). Generally the Allied troops should have more men and more equipment while the Germans should use their points for experience instead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Uhhhhhhh...no? hmmm Berlin 1945. Streets full of Soviet Armour, rubble piles full of Uberpanzers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerMiller Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Highly entertaining -- if not well-worn -- thread. The "historical psychology" of the Wehrmacht mystique is powerful indeed. It goes far beyond the size of a Garand clip or the relative stopping power of an M-10. Can't believe we haven't heard from JasonC on this one... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ivan Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Yes, JasonC! Now that would be entertaining! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Why feed the trolls? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatdog Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 hmmm Berlin 1945. Streets full of Soviet Armour, rubble piles full of Uberpanzers. Massively outnumbered across multiple fronts with limited resources and an industrial base/logistics network under continual pressure from strategic bombing? By Bagration, the Axis forces were outnumbered in the region of 3 to 1 and probably closer to 10/1 in terms of armour and artillery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetori Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Massively outnumbered across multiple fronts with limited resources and an industrial base/logistics network under continual pressure from strategic bombing? By Bagration, the Axis forces were outnumbered in the region of 3 to 1 and probably closer to 10/1 in terms of armour and artillery. And a lot of their trained and experienced soldiers and officers were either buried in Soviet soil, working the mines in the Urals or eating through a straw in some hospital. Sure they had some "tank aces" left but the majority of the tankers still fit for duty were no veterans. Or in CM terms they were Green or Regular Unfit with low ammo. And with Soviet commanders not really caring about losses as long as the operational targets were reached it's a surprise the Soviet losses were not greater than they were. The constant pressure and aggressive use of men and material probably prevented the Germans from putting up any efficient defense. As a former tank collegue put it. "If we advance faster we'll waste more fuel but we'll also get there quicker" he wasn't really talking about fuel.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Massively outnumbered... If the Germans were, as you say, "massively" outnumbered in tanks and artillery, it was largely the fault of their inefficient deployment of industrial resources. Interruption of production to introduce incremental improvements in weaponry was not the way to win the war. There were other failings of economical planning as well. If you have not yet read Tooze, you are long overdue to do so. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Massively outnumbered across multiple fronts with limited resources and an industrial base/logistics network under continual pressure from strategic bombing? And yet, oddly, that didn't apply applied in 1939, 1940, or 1941. Or 1942 - or even, at a pinch - 1943. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 My two bits (two cents adjusted for inflation): How did the US win? By outproducing its enemies and its allies alike. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 How did the US win? By outproducing its enemies and its allies alike. That certainly gave them the tools to fight with. But if they had been as incompetent as Squatdog would have us believe, they would probably only have shot themselves! Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Johnston Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 "You naughty moose!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLaurier Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Why feed the trolls? Awww... Come on. If not for the trolls, then for the simply ignorant who need educating. And of course the entertainment value. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerMiller Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Awww... Come on. If not for the trolls, then for the simply ignorant who need educating. And of course the entertainment value. Here here. One could almost write their own thesis on this general subject from all the material that's been written here, across so many threads. Is there any general consensus on the best book(s) to address the "Why did the Allies win WWII?" question? I suppose that's yet another can-o-worms now opened, but...anybody? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cymru Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Here here. One could almost write their own thesis on this general subject from all the material that's been written here, across so many threads. Is there any general consensus on the best book(s) to address the "Why did the Allies win WWII?" question? I suppose that's yet another can-o-worms now opened, but...anybody? My dad said it was him and his mates that won the war. I would hate to think any of you are calling him a liar! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I sat next to an old-timer from the 82nd Airborne at a banquet last Saturday who jumped into Sicily, Salerno, Market Garden, and also fought in the Bulge who convinced me that it was HIS platoon that won the war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 This is still going....wow! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 PanzerMiller - um, if you want to know why the allies won, you read Richard Overy's aptly named "Why the Allies Won". Not complicated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 PanzerMiller - um, if you want to know why the allies won, you read Richard Overy's aptly named "Why the Allies Won". Not complicated. One of my favorite WWII books. Many good points in there: Lack of self-sealing fuel tanks on Japanese planes. Allied air campaign real difference was in the shutting down of German petrol supplies. Logistics. Soldiers are soldiers - no real uber-menches. It just takes an army a while to learn to fight. Thus the poor showing of USSR in 41 and USA in North Afrika. And the Germans were way ahead of everybody at the start. But once the Allies caught up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerMiller Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 PanzerMiller - um, if you want to know why the allies won, you read Richard Overy's aptly named "Why the Allies Won". Not complicated. Thanks, JasonC...I think. I'll assume the salty undertones flavoring your response were not deliberate. I certainly wouldn't blindly assume that any book with the most directly relevant title would by definition be the best. I asked for a consensus on the best book(s), not those with the most obvious titles. If Overby's book is indeed the best on the topic, then you score twice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Thanks, JasonC...I think. I'll assume the salty undertones flavoring your response were not deliberate. Oh, I expect it was, but don't take it too personally. Like JonS, Jason does not suffer those whom he considers fools gladly. That includes nearly all of us. If Overby's book is indeed the best on the topic... It's 'Overy'. And I wouldn't rely on him as a sole source as he has a definite agenda and bias. But allowing for that, the book is a mine for information and worth reading as long as you take his primary premise—that the sole reason for the Allied victory was that they out-produced the Axis—with a small grain of salt. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.