Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 12th, 2018, 03:49 PM   #391

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,527

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zbigniew View Post
Another proof that Hitler was an indolent. In Main Kampf he planned to conquer the east and did not predict that there are poor roads there? After all, the Germans together with the Russians were doing tank tests on Russian territory earlier. Test participants should remember what areas are in Russia.
And those involved in the tests may have remembered... but by that time, Hitler had long left the army for politics and by training was an infantryman. As such, he really didn't understand armored tactics any more than other infantryman did... at least with regard to those who reached the incredibly high rank of Lance Corporal.
Sam-Nary is online now  
Remove Ads
Old January 13th, 2018, 02:09 AM   #392

Zbigniew's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Poland
Posts: 268

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
And those involved in the tests may have remembered... but by that time, Hitler had long left the army for politics and by training was an infantryman. As such, he really didn't understand armored tactics any more than other infantryman did... at least with regard to those who reached the incredibly high rank of Lance Corporal.
Perhaps we today have better technical imagination, because everyone has a car. Perhaps Hitler thought that defects in German tanks weren't important, because Germans without tanks easily defeated Russians at 1917. At the beginning of the World War II Germans did a lot of action without the appropriate equipment - parachuters dropped long rifles on other parachutes and then on the earth searched for them. Very much long it worked. That's why the Poles did not expect the German attack in 1939 and the Russians did not expect the German attack in 1941. Everyone knew that the Germans are not prepared. But they attacked.

Last edited by Zbigniew; January 13th, 2018 at 02:56 AM.
Zbigniew is offline  
Old March 4th, 2018, 07:44 AM   #393
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 9,151

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexell View Post
AFAIK Americans and British leased military equipment to USSR. The equipment that survived the war was returned to Americans and British. Soviet war movies seldom showed American or British equipment used during WWII, or the fact that American and Biritish ships regularly came to Murmansk and Nakhodka sea ports. Due political tensions during cold war?
As you know, Lend Lease was free. The “idea” was that after the war, unused equipment would be returned, but it rarely was. The US discounted the value of unused equipment by 90% because we didn’t really want i back. Most countries took us up on the offer, but I doubt the Soviets ever did.
royal744 is offline  
Old March 4th, 2018, 07:48 AM   #394
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 9,151

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zbigniew View Post
Information about the busting of American aircraft was told by a man who was an eyewitness. He said: "People started asking too many questions, where did these planes come from, so the command ordered them to be destroyed." However, some American tanks served as tractors after the war. Apparently, the Soviets lied to the Americans that this equipment was destroyed during the war.
Used equipment did not need to be returned. Only unused equipment and even then, the US din’t really want any of it sent back. There was no obligation to “destroy” American equipment after the war.
royal744 is offline  
Old March 4th, 2018, 07:54 AM   #395
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 9,151

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zbigniew View Post
The barrel in the propeller shaft was certainly cool. Other fighters had barrels in their wings, so they fired at the cross. It was probably harder to aim in this way, but I'm not a pilot, so I'm not sure.
The Soviets’ favorite fighter, the Aerocobra, had a cannon that fired through the center of the propeller.
royal744 is offline  
Old March 4th, 2018, 09:16 AM   #396
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: Poole. UK
Posts: 238

Over 70 years later we are still talking about the Tiger Tank. It had a superb gun, it had very tough armour, it scared the living daylights out of the opposition. In a one-on one situation it would wipe the floor with any Tank on the planet at that time, overrated? NO, it was a game changer, it had faults, but it was a giant in the world of Tanks. Lots of technical stuff to say why it was over rated, but in the heat and dust of battle it is this technical data that is over rated. The only problem with the Tiger I is that there was not enough of them.
aghart is online now  
Old March 4th, 2018, 09:20 AM   #397
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2018
From: here
Posts: 172

one Tiger tank destroyed a whole Brit column
well trained, motivated troops with mediocre weapons can beat mediocre troops with great weapons
Disaster at Villers-Bocage: Wittmann?s Tigers vs the Desert Rats

the Israelis said same when asked if the weapons were reversed
Buckshot Roberts is offline  
Old March 4th, 2018, 10:05 AM   #398
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckshot Roberts View Post
one Tiger tank destroyed a whole Brit column
well trained, motivated troops with mediocre weapons can beat mediocre troops with great weapons
Disaster at Villers-Bocage: Wittmann?s Tigers vs the Desert Rats
The Author of this article died in 2015 so it was written well before that date. There are much better versions of the engagement available. This is the most detailed and authoritative one yet and is the standard by which all others will be measured.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Villers-Boc...villers+bocage

An English version is in preparation and should be out this year.
mkenny is offline  
Old March 4th, 2018, 10:10 AM   #399
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by aghart View Post
. The only problem with the Tiger I is that there was not enough of them.
It was a heavy tank. Thus there would never be enough of them to become the standard German tank. It would be like having a Navy that only had battleships. Great for set-piece slugging matches but useless for ordinary everyday activity like fast movement and rapid responses.
mkenny is offline  
Old March 4th, 2018, 10:29 AM   #400
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2018
From: here
Posts: 172

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
It was a heavy tank. Thus there would never be enough of them to become the standard German tank. It would be like having a Navy that only had battleships. Great for set-piece slugging matches but useless for ordinary everyday activity like fast movement and rapid responses.
the Tiger and Tiger 2 were not as slow as some would think
road speeds:
KTiger 24 mph.
Tiger 28 mph
Sherman 30mph

Wittman showed what a Tiger could do...fast/aggressive

Last edited by Buckshot Roberts; March 4th, 2018 at 10:45 AM.
Buckshot Roberts is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
overrated, tank, tiger



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Tortuga Tank: A Rather Strange tank (armored vehicle) Bernard Montgomery War and Military History 8 April 26th, 2013 08:58 PM
Repair of a Tiger Tank 1944 world-x War and Military History 1 September 8th, 2009 01:32 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.