Originally Posted By MengJiaoRedux (17 AUG 2012 11:33am)

 

Ask the Germans how well the King Tiger did against the Firefly.  Not all that well considering a King Tiger was twice as heavy and burned an enormous amount of fuel (of which the Germans never had enough -- no superiority there and it is a quite basic problem).

 

About 30 years ago I talked to the intelligence officer of a US armored division about how it felt to fight the Germans in France in 1944.  He said that in his experience it was usually not that much of a problem since "We always knew where they were and we always had gas."  Which suggests two basic areas of US Army superiority in 1944: 1) much,much better radio discipline.  A US armored division could shut off its radios and disappear completely from German knowledge, whereas any German unit in motion basically broadcast its position to US intelligence.  2) Supply:  The US Army had plenty of gas and the Germans could only move most of their army using horses -- a pretty basic problem. 

 

Do games simulate this?  Not really.  Games misrepresent basic things about the real war.

 

Your talking big picture; logistics, replacements, POL.  Alot of people dont see that.  They see the King Tiger, its gun and armor and see an unbeatable unit.  Theyre not thinking about the man-hours it took to build it, the finely crafted parts it required the enourmous amount of fuel it required nor the fact that it couldnt cross alot of bridges due to its weight.  I think thats the basis of the "myth".  Anything makes sense if you take it out of context.

But lets think about this with the shoe on the other foot. Many people see the M1 MBT the same way.  Sure the M1's a very impressive tank but because of its jet engine it burns 50 US gallons of fuel and hour whether its idling or running wide open across the countryside.

What would happen to us without all that fuel? Someday we may be looking for lebensraum.

Originally Posted By BlondKnight (17 AUG 2012 12:08pm)

 

What would happen to us without all that fuel? Someday we may be looking for lebensraum.

I hope you were joking with the 'lebensraum' reference, and it wasn't another shout out to the 3rd Reich as being super awesome.

Um no.

If you took away our natural resources ie fuel we'd get desperate very quickly.

It doesnt take alot of imagination to see the Nation becoming "predatory" if things went badly for us. 

Originally Posted By BlondKnight (17 AUG 2012 12:22pm)

Um no.

If you took away our natural resources ie fuel we'd get desperate very quickly.

 

It doesnt take alot of imagination to see the Nation becoming "predatory" if things went badly for us. 

Well, for the Third Reich the predatory solution did not work very well.

For example, during the deflationary frenzy that accompanied the Nazi assumption of power,

it would have made a lot more sense to accept the debts to the USA and allow inflation to

keep German exports competative.  The economy (and especially the railroads, which the

Nazis systematically neglected) could have been built up (especially in the absence of

premature and massive mobilization) and the agricultural sector could have been modernized (which

the USSR did manage to do).  There would have been no need for predation with a

good balance of trade with the rest of the world.

Even as late as 1941, Russia was busy supplying Germany with massive amounts of food and

fuel which the predatory attack on Russia cut off from Germany.  So again, predatory behaviour

didn't work very well.

Originally Posted By BlondKnight (17 AUG 2012 12:08pm)

Originally Posted By MengJiaoRedux (17 AUG 2012 11:33am)

 

Ask the Germans how well the King Tiger did against the Firefly.  Not all that well considering a King Tiger was twice as heavy and burned an enormous amount of fuel (of which the Germans never had enough -- no superiority there and it is a quite basic problem).

 

About 30 years ago I talked to the intelligence officer of a US armored division about how it felt to fight the Germans in France in 1944.  He said that in his experience it was usually not that much of a problem since "We always knew where they were and we always had gas."  Which suggests two basic areas of US Army superiority in 1944: 1) much,much better radio discipline.  A US armored division could shut off its radios and disappear completely from German knowledge, whereas any German unit in motion basically broadcast its position to US intelligence.  2) Supply:  The US Army had plenty of gas and the Germans could only move most of their army using horses -- a pretty basic problem. 

 

Do games simulate this?  Not really.  Games misrepresent basic things about the real war.

 

 

Your talking big picture; logistics, replacements, POL.  Alot of people dont see that.  They see the King Tiger, its gun and armor and see an unbeatable unit.  Theyre not thinking about the man-hours it took to build it, the finely crafted parts it required the enourmous amount of fuel it required nor the fact that it couldnt cross alot of bridges due to its weight.  I think thats the basis of the "myth".  Anything makes sense if you take it out of context.

 

 

But we're war gamers.  We should be able to see the King Tiger as the bad investment it was and the Sherman as the basic

all-around workable solution (including logistics and training and maintance) that it was.

Originally Posted By MengJiaoRedux (17 AUG 2012 1:16pm)

 

But we're war gamers.  We should be able to see the King Tiger as the bad investment it was and the Sherman as the basic

all-around workable solution (including logistics and training and maintance) that it was.

 

 

     True but you cant remove the emotional response to warfare, even hex-based warfare.  And getting back to your myth thesis, theres definately an attraction for lost causes.  No matter how repellant and horrific some aspects of that cause may be. 

     For example, regarding the Civil War,  no one alive today would agree that slavery was a good thing. We're brought up to know that it was a terrible stain on our history.  But we still love and admire our Civil War heroes. Not because they fought for a government that upheld the detestable institution of slavery but in spite of it.

     Ofcourse you cant compare the American civil war with action on the Eastern Front nor slavery compared to the final solution.  Horror in degrees is horror nonetheless. 

     Im just suggesting what the allure of WW2 Germany may be.

Until near the end of the war the Germans had many organisational

and doctrinal superiorities at the small unit level in that they were often

able to do more with less than their opponents.  A lot of that just vanished

by the end of 1944.  We have to remember "our" guys were the victors and

they wrote the history (I mean look at Churchill and his bald faced comments).*

First the Germans were supposed to have overwhelming numbers, then they

were supposed to be supermen with super equipment, then they were just better

organised for fighting.  Allied generals were asked how come it took so long

to overcome the Germans when we had such vast superiority?  They made up a lot

of excuses, half truths and downright lies to cover up their own lack of ability.

When the Allies eventually learned how to fight a mechanised war, particularly

the USA and USSR, they could stomp the Germans convincingly.  There was bitter

fighting in 1945 but the last real strength of the Wehrmacht vanished in the

summer of 1944 in Normandy and Belorussia.  As an interesting aside the case has

been made that the Anglo-Canadian and Polish armoured divisions may not have

initially performed as well as they should have because training in crowded England

they had not been able to fully develop the skills required to marshall and move

thousands of vehicles about effectively.  The USA excelled at this having developed a

doctrine after the major excercises of 1940 where they did move large motorised forces

across large areas.  Many of the initial Anglo-Canadian movements of armoured divisions

became traffic jams.  Cobra was a stunning example of moving a mechanised army.

*"History shall be kind to me for I shall write it."

to post a Rommel pic in a US tank really is disturbing. chances are that other iterations of this unit have fought Rommels forces. and chances are that people belonging to a belief, to a race, to a sexual orientation and what not are serving this unit and Rommel would have spit in their face.

this kind of behaviour even isn't tolerated here in Switzerland and we haven't fought Rommel.

Germany has some fine engineering but the more i read about it the more i am fascinated by what the Soviets achieved. When the Bolsheviks took over the country had no notable industry at all. when the germans invaded they met tanks and planes that soon made it clear that this wasn't the easy walk they expected. the Soviets went from zero to one of the two postwar superpowers in two decades.

there is also an anecdote from a joint axis/soviet tank training: the soviets were less than impressed by the Pz I / II / III they were watching. they believed that the germans were hiding the big tanks.

Originally Posted By Keunert (17 AUG 2012 3:23pm)

Germany has some fine engineering but the more i read about it the more i am fascinated by what the Soviets achieved. When the Bolsheviks took over the country had no notable industry at all. when the germans invaded they met tanks and planes that soon made it clear that this wasn't the easy walk they expected. the Soviets went from zero to one of the two postwar superpowers in two decades.

 

there is also an anecdote from a joint axis/soviet tank training: the soviets were less than impressed by the Pz I / II / III they were watching. they believed that the germans were hiding the big tanks.

I agree. Soviet tech as it is today was simple yet very effective.

For example, the KV1 tank was far superior to anything the germans had and held up their advance single handedly many times.

The germans won with superior tactics more than superior gear at the wars beginning. By the end of the war the Germans were experimenting in action with all sorts of funky stuff like the infra red night fighting sights for tanks and around the corner assault rifles.

It should also be said that a lot of the gear and tech produced at wars end was on the drawing board well before the war started.

Also as said above. If the germans had the resources they "planned" to have when they started design and production of their weapons then perhaps they would have been able to move properly and fight properly. As it was more tanks were abandoned due to lack of fuel than lost to the enemy and the german air force became non-existant. In addition by the end of the war as with today it was logistics, raw materials\resources, manpower, air power and artillery which were winning us our battles. The battle was won before the poorly trained end of war germans ever made contact. 

This is why when all is considered the german heavy units and weapons were actually at a huge disadvantage while the allies who could afford the fuel did not care enough to put the heavy tanks they had into the theatre to save lives!! 

This means that in small wargaming scenarios fuel IS often taken into account as well as logistics and manpower. Close combat is a good example. However in many games the german heavies perform well as they seem to be given the resources they need to operate and have been considered to be made out of the original intended materials instead of synthetics and 2nd rate materials.

There crews also seem to be of better quality in wargames than they should be late war.

Indeed one of the reasons I enjoy playing them (I play primarily small unit games) is to see how a formation would have operated without the inhibition of losing the resource war. It would also be interesting to play a game where the germans had secured the caucasus oil fields and forestalled russia like in ww1. Then had the resources they needed to operate effectively in normandy. While the Allies had their resources taken from them so that we see how they operate without fuel and convoy materials.

That would just be interesting I think.

I'd agree that the Germans produced in the Tiger an over engineered & logistically impractical tank. But I'd only partially agree with the argument that the Allied Sherman was thus a better choice. Yes, it made production, training & support far easier than the ridiculous variety of German tanks deployed, but why couldn't they apply the same principles to a better tank? Its high profile, poor armour & very average gun were no easier to produce than the T34/85, and was it any better - I doubt it. Why didn't the allies just take the best of Soviet design, and enhance it, as the Germans did with the Panther? Misdirected national pride I guess - and little comfort to the crews sent out in an unnecessarily 2nd rate tank.

But Tigers NEVER was intented to be the main force in german armored units, they were designed to cover a specific part of the armored doctrine... they was used very few times as spearheads and more as long range killers (a much better use) here as complement for meds Tigers for me were a good investiment... the main part of the fight was on meds backs but unlike germans USA only have Shermans and not heavies on 2nd line supporting or taking first line... and we can talk about Panther, a med (well semi-heavy) that can cover the PzIV job and do the Tiger I job.

Germans only need some infantry and some tanks to made allied Shermans call for arty, aviation and reinforces... here if you need a division to made retreat a kampfgrupe i think that is a good investiment... true is that allies NEVER face divisions equiped with all Tigers or Panthers in great numbers, they have their own problems in a long war but in tactical combats force enemies to waste a lof or resources.

soviets finally deploy IS serie, that main mission was a little like Tiger first mission (spearheads) and heavies in soviet army survive until meds offer same protection and firepower in a cheaper vehicle.

And talking about post main subject... well, i have a word for the guys that think that PLAY with something made you the same as you play but is not a pretty word... but maybe an humorist coment, i play with my p***s this means that i am gay???

A lot of wargames have two sides.  A lot of times one side is the Germans.

They seem to have had some violent interactions with their neighbors.

We worry if somebody is anti-semitic if they want to play Germans.

I am sure some are and the rest aren't.  Maybe we worry too much.

A lot of people love to watch wrestling.  I am sure they like shiny objects too.

I found this just browsing around on my internet surfing safari.

Talk about your WTF moment, this is unbelievable.

Edit: Warning this is pretty offensive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brBVjEdOIVU&feature=player_embedded