Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 14

Author Topic: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!  (Read 16612 times)

Rolan7

  • Bay Watcher
  • [GUE'VESA][BONECARN]
    • View Profile
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #135 on: August 13, 2015, 06:34:55 pm »

I'd use Picard-style diplomacy.
If that fails, then Kirk-style "diplomacy".
Do I mean punching or kissing?  Yes.
Logged
She/they
No justice: no peace.
Quote from: Fallen London, one Unthinkable Hope
This one didn't want to be who they was. On the Surface – it was a dull, unconsidered sadness. But everything changed. Which implied everything could change.

Kot

  • Bay Watcher
  • 2 Patriotic 4 U
    • View Profile
    • Tiny Pixel Soldiers
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #136 on: August 13, 2015, 06:47:25 pm »

Wasn't there a story of some Gurkha guy in WW2 who assaulted a bunker with his kukri and some grenades or something and just killed everyone. Mostly because he was out of ammo or something.
The guy was a Gurkha. It's completly understandable that a Gurkha would do something like that.
Logged
Kot finishes his morning routine in the same way he always does, by burning a scale replica of Saint Basil's Cathedral on the windowsill.

Egan_BW

  • Bay Watcher
  • The questioner does not.
    • View Profile
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #137 on: August 13, 2015, 07:02:41 pm »

Some things make me wonder if FPS protagonists are real...
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #138 on: August 13, 2015, 07:03:16 pm »

When in doubt, Gurkha

Erkki

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #139 on: August 14, 2015, 12:59:00 am »

The reason Japan's cities were firebombed (instead of the precision-for-the-era raids the US tried so hard to pull off in Europe) was because every Japanese home contained some sort of machine tool, and such decentralized production made up the majority of the Japanese industry.

what

Every single residence in Tokyo was a factory. Japan couldn't industrialize fast enough to get where the ruling regime wanted, so they decentralized their production enormously. The only way to dent the production of a Japanese city was to destroy the city - note that the USAAF tried to use the same "precision" attacks in the early stages of the attacks on Japan, and only switched to firebombing because those attacks did absolutely nothing. The target was production, and production alone.

WHAAAA-AAA-AAAT?

...

This is the most bewildering claim I have read since forever, [citation needed] mang.

Related, if we look at Europe again, Sir Arthur Harris totally did not have a library of photo albums of bombed German cities or "blue books", or stereoscopic photographs he kept showing to his family and visitors(Stalin was very impressed when he saw Hamburg after firestorm in 3d I've heard). Post war trials saw Axis leaders condemned to death for lesser and better explained crimes.

What a waste of resources and human lives... Like firebombing London and Coventry was. Just scaled up by factor of over hundred. Granted, hitting area targets in nocturnal raids was basically the only thing the Bomber Command could do and not take horrific casualties(just look at Dieppe raid!), and even that only barely, but it still counts.
Logged

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #140 on: August 14, 2015, 01:15:45 am »

Yeah, there was clearly an element of victor's justice in the post-war trial. I remember reading the story of a submarine captain being accused of sinking civilian ships without warning (or liners?) and getting off after pointing out the Allies had done the same thing.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Erkki

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #141 on: August 14, 2015, 01:36:54 am »

German airplanes didn't ever secure a quality edge over their French, British or American contemporaries.  They had the advantage of numbers of modern craft which they used to great effect in the early war.  They also had an early willingness to heavily commit their air force to crucial battles even if it resulted in losses which made their airforce vastly more useful.  The Soviets did send out huge numbers of poorly trained pilots in bad airplanes so the Germans definitely had a quality edge there.

German tanks however were in fact better in many key regards for quite a while.  The Panzer III and Panzer IV had five man crews and decent ergonomics.  The Soviets didn't have a 5 man crew on the T-34 until the T-34/85 turret and even then the ergonomics on the tank was horrible.  While the western allies had a small quality edge over the current Panzer IV variants at the start of 1943, the Panzer IV was in no way outclassed at this time and the Panzer IV continued to be improved.  The two sides had figured out that current technology meant that the logical design was for a 30 ton tank with a 75mm gun and both were making it.  The differences between a latewar Panzer IV and a Sherman weren't as important as the similarities.  So the Germans were looking pretty good there.  Then they decided to throw it away and make the horrible design that was the Panther.  Now the Soviets could just slap their T-43 turret on a T-34 tank and suddenly have the same quality disparity as before but have the production cost difference move decisively in the soviet's favor.

I almost 100% agree with you on the initial subject (Sherman vs. Big Cats & Pz. IV) but theres 3 things Iwish to add that complex things a bit:

General McNair, infantry support and tank destroyer doctrine proponent who was later killed by friendly B-17 formation in Operation Cobra, apparently played a large role in the fact only 1/4 or so of Shermans ever got the 76mm gun. Secondly, the Sherman bogged down in soft terrain much easier than Tiger and Panther(the complex German suspension has its advantages and Panther, when it worked(so mostly A and G) was one of the best tanks of the war for mud and soft terrain). Lastly, while Zeiss optics were superior to everything Allied through the war and the L/70 was quite probably the best medium tank gun of the war for dealing with other tanks, those two mostly helped in the East Front's fields only, but in cities and bocage the fact Panther did not have a wide field of view periscope for every crew member(unlike the Sherman) must have helped the Allies a lot. As the matter of fact, more often than not it was the Allies who got to open fire first, and we all know what advantages that brings(which is again reflected to kill ratios and losses). I can provide sources later today here and/or via PM.

edit: it should be noted by ze Wunderwaffen fanbois that the US TD units fielding the Wolverine and Hellcat mainly had excellent win ratios. Wittmann good. Sure good part of it can be explained with Allied superiority in numbers, air superiority, all the logistical and C&C issues the Germans had due to everything etc. etc. but it still shows that the US concept of using highly mobile, high firepower separate, autonomous TD units from company to regimental strength moving where needed worked. Those vehicles had given away basically all armor to gain mobility: operational and tactical flexibility

Where I disagree with you is with the aircraft. Bf 109 was in most meaningful ways superior to its every opponent that wasnt the Spitfire until 1943 when the P-47 arrived to Europe. And it scored very well against the Spitfire too, even before it received propellor pitch automatics, drop tank capacity or the huge upgrade that was the Bf 109 F. Yeah, the design was already getting old by then(1943) and there wasnt much that could be done more by upgrading, as the many G-models demonstrate...

However I believe it can be successfully argued that the Fw 190 was superior to the Allied fighters for an equally long time and the statistics and various actual tests do support that, and it managed to stay on par with the best the Allies had until the end. Looking at the big picture of course, not top performance values of test or experimental planes or planes that never actually saw action.

I still think it was a mistake for Germany to keep building so many Bf 109s when they knew in 1942 already that they had a better and more versatile plane(Messerchmitt AG being friends with the Nazis didnt help here), and we now know the issue of poorer than Bf 109 performance at very high altitudes could be solved. Sure Fw 190 was "costlier", but I think for a nation fighting for its survival the "cost" of a unit is mostly in the resources and work time invested, which were apparently almost same.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2015, 01:48:35 am by Erkki »
Logged

Culise

  • Bay Watcher
  • General Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #142 on: August 14, 2015, 02:26:39 am »

Yeah, there was clearly an element of victor's justice in the post-war trial. I remember reading the story of a submarine captain being accused of sinking civilian ships without warning (or liners?) and getting off after pointing out the Allies had done the same thing.
Admirals Raedar and Dönitz.  If I recall, several in the US Navy were opposed to introducing those charges precisely for this reason; I know that at the least, Nimitz submitted an affidavit in support of unrestricted submarine warfare to the trial of the latter. 

That said, regarding the Japanese firebombing, there was indeed a very strong cottage industry even pre-war in not only Japan, but also India and China compared to Europe or the US which led to a strong decentralization of production relative to European cities, though it was still focused around the major factories.  Indeed, one of the effects of the early precision bombardment had been to compel the Japanese to further accelerate the dispersal of factory production, which did reduce efficiency.  It is overstating matters more than a little bit to claim that "every single residence in Tokyo was a factory", however.  At the very most, it could be stated that "every single residence in Tokyo could conceivably be concealing industrial work."  Shonus is, however, entirely accurate in his assessment of the early precision raids.  Early raids failed embarrassingly with relatively heavy losses compared to later incendiary runs; heavy winds and poor weather made accurate bombing exceptionally difficult over the Japanese isles due to both driving bombers off course and interfering with target acquisition.  Taking a look at the raids conducted under Hansell before "Bombs Away" LeMay, the primary issue is consistently those very same "high winds and heavy cloud cover".  The only raids to successfully dent Japanese production during Hansell's tenure were also conducted with incendiaries, so it cannot simply be tied to a Hansell/LeMay dichotomy.  The primary reason incendiaries worked so effectively against Japanese cities was actually due to differences in the construction of Japanese cities when contrasted with European cities.  Though I expect most in the thread already know this part, the primarily-wooden construction of Japanese cities meant that fires were more difficult to control, and also that near-misses could still effectively cripple production through the spread of fire.  However, what is critical to note is that as a consequence of this, the accuracy problems that plagued precision bombing were no longer as relevant.  Further, even utilized against military targets, there would inevitably be knock-on effects as the fires would not spread to the factories alone, but rather through the entire city. 

However, I'm not certain I can agree with the assessment that the target was production, and production alone.  There were multiple reasons: Japanese production dropped more precipitously, certainly, and it's just as critical to remember that the shift to firebombing also saved the lives of American pilots.  Due to the differences in approaches, primarily that precision bombing required daytime approaches while firebombing could be conducted under cover of night, firebombing was by and large safer for the bombers and their crews.  It is difficult to condemn commanders for preferring to save their own subordinates' lives over those of enemy combatants and supporters.  I do not believe the terror element can be entirely discounted, as well; the use of propaganda leaflets, cited earlier as an attempt by the Americans to save Japanese lives, was actually utilized as a weapon to spread terror by their use over cities that were not actively being firebombed in addition to serving as a way to assuage American consciences under the notion that it might work to convince some civilians to leave the cities.  However, the practical question was not incendiaries or precision bombardment: it was incendiaries or allowing the Japanese Home Isles industry to continue military construction unmolested.  Between the two, I cannot condemn the American high command for choosing to wage the war rather than surrendering all initiative over the Home Isles to Japan out of some misplaced chivalry. 

By the bye, the same weather issues above did haunt the atomic bombings as well, as the second bomb was actually almost thwarted by weather.  Intended for Kokura, three successive bombing runs failed to make the target, and the run on Nagasaki was successful only due to a last-second break in the heavy cloud cover there; they didn't have the fuel to make a second try.  Even with that, Bockscar burned so much fuel in the attempts that it literally lost engine power during landing. 

EDIT: Reorganized a couple sentences to keep things a bit more coherent.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2015, 02:37:44 am by Culise »
Logged

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #143 on: August 14, 2015, 02:33:01 am »

I remember reading the account of a Nagasaki survivor that was assembling torpedoes in her school gym when the bomb hit.

But still, one could make an argument that the US should have shown more restraint. The US was certainly not fighting an existential fight the way the USSR was.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Erkki

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #144 on: August 14, 2015, 02:50:58 am »

I remember reading the account of a Nagasaki survivor that was assembling torpedoes in her school gym when the bomb hit.

But still, one could make an argument that the US should have shown more restraint. The US was certainly not fighting an existential fight the way the USSR was.

IIRC there were still over a million Japanese troops in Korea and very deep in China when the war ended. The argument is that as brutal killing hundreds of thousands and making tens of millions homeless is, that in addition to destroying war production it did effect the Japanese "morale" and thus play a good part in making the Japanese surrender; there would have been victims elsewhere had the war continued longer, just fewer burned cities in Japan.

I dont think it fully holds water though: after early 1945 the Home Islands were fully blockaded and their war production had hard time delivering anything to the fronts elsewhere. They had enough trouble just trying to feed the population. The officials had been publishing cooking instructions for grass since 1944... The Allies could have shown more restraint, as Sheb says, spared a city or two more and perhaps end the war a week later with additional US losses counted in mostly burned fuel and money.
Logged

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #145 on: August 14, 2015, 02:52:22 am »

And then there is the matter of the Soviet declaring war on Japan. It's doubtful the Japanese Army could have held with or without the bombing.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Erkki

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #146 on: August 14, 2015, 02:59:32 am »

And then there is the matter of the Soviet declaring war on Japan. It's doubtful the Japanese Army could have held with or without the bombing.

It wouldnt have. It was all about making Japan give up ASAP. And I dont think the area bombardments in the full scale as they happened were necessary, not in summer of 1945 any more, to even spare American lives.
Logged

Kot

  • Bay Watcher
  • 2 Patriotic 4 U
    • View Profile
    • Tiny Pixel Soldiers
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #147 on: August 14, 2015, 06:52:01 am »

Kameraden!
Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen by giving me penetration values of AP and APHE (yes, specifically those, not HEAT) from FG 40, or confirming that it didin't actually used those!
Logged
Kot finishes his morning routine in the same way he always does, by burning a scale replica of Saint Basil's Cathedral on the windowsill.

Lord Shonus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Angle of Death
    • View Profile
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #148 on: August 14, 2015, 07:38:24 am »


General McNair, infantry support and tank destroyer doctrine proponent who was later killed by friendly B-17 formation in Operation Cobra, apparently played a large role in the fact only 1/4 or so of Shermans ever got the 76mm gun.

This is a myth. 75mm Sherman production virtually ended as soon as the 76mm and 105mm versions proved combat capable, and the general lack of adoption of the 76mm was due to the individual tank unit commanders having little enthusiasm for the weapon - they wanted 105mm versions almost exclusively because that weapon was much better at firing support and taking out the towed guns that were the most common threat. Despite the myth that "Tank killing was for TDs only!", the FM for tank units deals extensively with how to kill enemy armor, and the TD FM states that (slight paraphase "as the organic weapons of tank units are quite capable of handling enemy armor, Tank Destroyers may on occasion be directed to other targets).

Prewar/Early War US Tank Destroyer doctrine was entirely defensive - it was taken as gospel that preventing an enemy armored column from punching through your lines at-will was virtually impossible (because the enemy could mass at any point he chooses, and being strong everywhere is a physical impossible), a rapid response force that could be held in a few centralized locations to outflank and crush any such attack was needed. This was the reason for the M18 Hellcat's famous speed. You don't have to take my word for it - the relevant field manuals can be found quite easily.
Logged
On Giant In the Playground and Something Awful I am Gnoman.
Man, ninja'd by a potentially inebriated Lord Shonus. I was gonna say to burn it.

Erkki

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen!
« Reply #149 on: August 14, 2015, 08:01:13 am »


General McNair, infantry support and tank destroyer doctrine proponent who was later killed by friendly B-17 formation in Operation Cobra, apparently played a large role in the fact only 1/4 or so of Shermans ever got the 76mm gun.

This is a myth. 75mm Sherman production virtually ended as soon as the 76mm and 105mm versions proved combat capable, and the general lack of adoption of the 76mm was due to the individual tank unit commanders having little enthusiasm for the weapon - they wanted 105mm versions almost exclusively because that weapon was much better at firing support and taking out the towed guns that were the most common threat. Despite the myth that "Tank killing was for TDs only!", the FM for tank units deals extensively with how to kill enemy armor, and the TD FM states that (slight paraphase "as the organic weapons of tank units are quite capable of handling enemy armor, Tank Destroyers may on occasion be directed to other targets).

Prewar/Early War US Tank Destroyer doctrine was entirely defensive - it was taken as gospel that preventing an enemy armored column from punching through your lines at-will was virtually impossible (because the enemy could mass at any point he chooses, and being strong everywhere is a physical impossible), a rapid response force that could be held in a few centralized locations to outflank and crush any such attack was needed. This was the reason for the M18 Hellcat's famous speed. You don't have to take my word for it - the relevant field manuals can be found quite easily.

Indeed they were capable of that, especially in Western Europe(East Front may have been a different case with its typically considerably longer engagement ranges and difficult terrain). Still, non sequitor, tank vs. tank combat results that indeed dont look all too bad for the Sherman, after British experiences near Caen any way, alone dont make the 75 mm gun or Sherman good(nor Panther cost effective) as theres a whole plethora of circumstances in which the battles happened. Such as better numerical superiority, logistics from fuel to spare parts, air superiority, training, fatigue etc.

(edit: I still think the Sherman was very good, war economy/cost-effectiveness wise for USA any way. Theres the saying about last 5% of performance needing 50% more investment too...)

Notice I said of Shermans, not that they installed the 76 mm on just 1/4 of them in the factory lines but out of the total(actually closer to 1/3 it seems). But without McNair & CO they could have had the gun in more tanks and earlier, and to the best of my knowledge the 75 mm and 76 mm versions were produced side by side for months at least.



Kameraden!
Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen by giving me penetration values of AP and APHE (yes, specifically those, not HEAT) from FG 40, or confirming that it didin't actually used those!

Heres a table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92%C3%9757mm_Mauser#/media/File:Karabiner_98k_ballistics.png

It used/uses the same ammo as the standard Karabiner 98k: 7.92x57 Mauser. Values are apparently for 600 mm barrel, FG 40 had 500 mm barrel so withdraw x % from the values. Didnt even need to open a book.


Screw it, I'll try to find something for you.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2015, 08:05:05 am by Erkki »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 14