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 March 5th, 2018, 01:05 PM   #451
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2018
From: here
Posts: 172

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
The Tiger Wittmann was in broke down as he tried to drive into Villers and he had to find another to continue his advance. He fell at the first hurdle!
and still he beat the crap out of the Brits...blew that column to hell
fell??!!!
Buckshot Roberts is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 5th, 2018, 01:11 PM   #452
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,698
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
Because a plane crashed.

Then afterwards Hitler got pigeon holed by Manstein, a lesser general, who essentially performed a coup against the the most educated and respected members of the German General Staff who thought the Manstein plan was suicide.
We will say that it is a discutable theory of the impact of the Mechelen incident in January 1940 on the development of the Dyle Breda Manoeuvre.
General Gamelin had the "hypothése Hollande " studied since December 1939, and the planned German offensive in Jannuary, was postponed only for weather conditions.

And no matter how many people apologize, I think that the Wehrmacht is responsible for many of these victories.
This is not the current subject, we may discuss it elsewhere.... Maybe

Last edited by phil1904; March 5th, 2018 at 01:35 PM.
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 5th, 2018, 01:12 PM   #453
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2018
From: here
Posts: 172

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
There you go, using that "destroys" word again in which you don't actually know the definition of.

Let's explain how Germany got that land (which the map isn't even accurate).

Against Poland, come on! Of course Germany was going to win that.

Against France, Manstein was smart though most German General Staff hated his plan, which means majority of German officers would have favored a head to head smash, not a brilliant thrust aimed at an poorly guarded spot. Want to talk fair? Two literal 2nd rate French divisions had to stop combined arms, Stuka, tank, artillery, infantry attacks from an entire Panzergruppe. Sound fair?

Against Great Britain, Germany never defeated them. They got defeated by them. In battle they never actually defeated them decisively, Dunkirk was a retreat before general engagements frontally in Belgium and Holland were even decisive, they evacuated because British officers knew how to read a map and could see when the Army Group A penetration couldn't be stopped it would mean all forces north of it, including the BEF, would get outflanked. The Germans lost the Battle of Britain, won in Greece, lost in North Africa, lost in Sicily, lost in Italy, lost in France, lost in Belgium, lost in Holland, lost in Germany.

When Germany invaded Russia 3/4 of German talks didn't even have the ability to take out a T-34 without anything besides rear shots or very close range side hits. Same goes for standard German PaK of 1941. They were grossly outnumbered in manpower and tanks. They performed well year 1 through superior communication, integration, leadership, planning, combined arms tactics. Red Army recovered, got their stuff straight, when Germany tried to repeat year 1 with even better equipment (including Tiger I, Panthers, Tiger B, and a large number of various panzerjaegar) they got trounced. Why? Because those advantages in communication, integration, leadership, planning, combined arms tactics were shared or exceeded by the Soviets.

If you look at armor capabilities in "tale of the tape" situations, and why France lost in '40, and why Russia did poorly in '41, the same applies to Germany in '44. Their tanks, on paper, were the strongest and best. But were they? Not reliable at all, couldn't support them properly with spare parts, fuel, trained crews. Not enough of them because they prioritized complicated and expensive over simple and cheap. The Germans lost in '44-45 for the same reason the French and Russians did poorly in '39-41, because they were outclassed by an opponent who did combined arms better than they did.
they kicked the Brits off the continent--
the French surrendered.......o, that's not that big of a victory??!! really??
Israel never won a war but they beat the crap out of the Arabs-undoubtedly
especially the Six Day War
Buckshot Roberts is offline  
Old March 5th, 2018, 01:28 PM   #454
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,698
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
There you go, using that "destroys" word again in which you don't actually know the definition of.

Let's explain .....
Many excuses to diminish the importance of the Wehrmacht in these victories.
In fact, if we listen to you, the Wehrmacht has never won anything except against small nations that had no chance.
The Wehrmacht would have destroyed armies and would have conquered immense territories by chance.
On this subject, I think it would be interesting to make a thread about the border battles between the Polish army and the Wehrmacht in September 1939. I'm sure you would be surprised.
But it's not the subject in hand
Do you agree to this map?
Wehrmacht conquest in 1942.jpg

Perhaps we will discuss about this in another thread.
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 5th, 2018, 01:36 PM   #455

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,619

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckshot Roberts View Post
and still he beat the crap out of the Brits...blew that column to hell
fell??!!!
That shows the problem.

From a book nerd point of view, its an awesome death machine that was feared even to the end of the war. Even to the end of the war its armor was still top notch, as was its 88. Although both the Soviets and Allies developed increasingly effective counter measures, it was still a powerful vehicle one on one when it worked, with a decent crew.

From a commander's point of view its a loser. Its a nice assault tank, but its very expensive for that, and its poor in comparison to other options even Germany had as a tank.

On the Eastern Front it would bleed the Soviets but couldn't stop cheaper very capable Soviet machines and formations. On the Western Front it was a decent ambush machine, causing havoc on contact, but then the allies would either overwhelm it or drop round after round of artillery on it until it died or went away. Further both the Allies and the Soviets were very effective at destroying its logistical tail, eliminating it from behind. Finally, casualties steadily bled oout the veteran crews which made German vehicles so effective, such that it flipped with novice poorly trained German crews were facing veteran Soviet and Allied formations. This is why the textbook superior Panther series usually came out the loser.

The Germans would have been better suited with cheaper defensive vehicles that were nearly as effective but much more reliable and required far less support.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old March 5th, 2018, 01:37 PM   #456
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Augusta GA USA
Posts: 269

First if I had been transported via time machine back to WWII and forced to choose which tank to go into combat with--there would be no hesitation. Gimme a Tiger. I believe I would have had more chances of surviving and taking out more of whoever was trying to take me out in that particular vehicle.

Second my apologies but I no longer have a copy of one of the WWII history magazines from 5-10 years ago. I don't remember which one specifically. They had a huge feature article comparing tank production--Soviet vs German vs Brit vs US. Their crucial point was that the difference was not in the capabilities of any individual tank but the production capabilities. For every single tank rolling off the factory floor in Germany, the Brits could build 10, the Soviets 100 (of course due to sloppy workmanship half of them had to be dragged out and discarded; 50 is still more than 1) and the US 1000.

The man hour discrepancy was so enormous that you check your glasses to see if they're broken and you're reading them wrong. Perhaps the greatest interference Hitler made in the entire war effort was to vehemently oppose assembly line mass production techniques because being of American origin it had to be inherently inferior to German craftsmanship.

A second problem was that instead of deciding on a final set of specs and sticking with them, changes were made willy-nilly 20 tanks one way followed by 9 another way, followed by 15 a third, ad nauseum. If one given worker was absent production on the tank had to halt because he may be the only person knowledgable enough to assemble it properly.

Lastly I recently read in another WWII magazine about fighting in late '44 and '45 specifically in the withdrawal/retreat from the Baltic where 2-5 Tigers would be called upon to smash an opening for the German army to escape through. Not to mention that even in the last week to 10 days the German army was conducting limited tactical advances spearheaded by one or two Tigers with complete success.
Th'AnchoriticSybarite is offline  
Old March 5th, 2018, 01:40 PM   #457

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,619

Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'AnchoriticSybarite View Post
First if I had been transported via time machine back to WWII and forced to choose which tank to go into combat with--there would be no hesitation. Gimme a Tiger. I believe I would have had more chances of surviving and taking out more of whoever was trying to take me out in that particular vehicle.

Second my apologies but I no longer have a copy of one of the WWII history magazines from 5-10 years ago. I don't remember which one specifically. They had a huge feature article comparing tank production--Soviet vs German vs Brit vs US. Their crucial point was that the difference was not in the capabilities of any individual tank but the production capabilities. For every single tank rolling off the factory floor in Germany, the Brits could build 10, the Soviets 100 (of course due to sloppy workmanship half of them had to be dragged out and discarded; 50 is still more than 1) and the US 1000.

The man hour discrepancy was so enormous that you check your glasses to see if they're broken and you're reading them wrong. Perhaps the greatest interference Hitler made in the entire war effort was to vehemently oppose assembly line mass production techniques because being of American origin it had to be inherently inferior to German craftsmanship.

A second problem was that instead of deciding on a final set of specs and sticking with them, changes were made willy-nilly 20 tanks one way followed by 9 another way, followed by 15 a third, ad nauseum. If one given worker was absent production on the tank had to halt because he may be the only person knowledgable enough to assemble it properly.

Lastly I recently read in another WWII magazine about fighting in late '44 and '45 specifically in the withdrawal/retreat from the Baltic where 2-5 Tigers would be called upon to smash an opening for the German army to escape through. Not to mention that even in the last week to 10 days the German army was conducting limited tactical advances spearheaded by one or two Tigers with complete success.
Exactly.

Edit: If I were picking it would have been a Centurion. But you say they never made it into action. Exactly!
zincwarrior is offline  
Old March 5th, 2018, 01:57 PM   #458
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2018
From: here
Posts: 172

here at the 30.40 mark, a Brit that fought Wittman says:
''I could not but admire him, he was tough, he was bold, and ruthless....a fine example of a German tank commander''
''I fired at 100 hundred yards and the shot just bounced off''..his enemy said this!!
Wittman the DESTROYER
I guess this vet is lying??!!...eyewitness/firsthand knowledge is no good


Last edited by Buckshot Roberts; March 5th, 2018 at 02:15 PM.
Buckshot Roberts is offline  
Old March 5th, 2018, 02:06 PM   #459

Nemowork's Avatar
Teflon Soul
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: South of the barcodes
Posts: 8,061

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckshot Roberts View Post
and still he beat the crap out of the Brits...blew that column to hell
fell??!!!
He made a surprise attack on a column of trucks and light armour.

Then he attacked into the town and got beaten

Nazi propaganda movies make a lot of Wittmans initial attack, they never mention they he came home as a pedestrian.
Nemowork is offline  
Old March 5th, 2018, 02:10 PM   #460
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2018
From: here
Posts: 172

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemowork View Post
He made a surprise attack on a column of trucks and light armour.

Then he attacked into the town and got beaten

Nazi propaganda movies make a lot of Wittmans initial attack, they never mention they he came home as a pedestrian.
please see my previous post
Wittman didn't do much hahahahahhahahahhaah
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.