Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)


EnsignExpendable

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You being high as a kite explains a lot about the extra helping of incoherence you've been serving up today.

I genuinely hope that you root the neo-Nazis out and we can have a rational discussion about German engineering.
I also hope for @Lord_James to come visit Germany again and see how it has changed in regard to discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, delete013 said:

I genuinely hope that you root the neo-Nazis out and we can have a rational discussion about German engineering.
I also hope for @Lord_James to come visit Germany again and see how it has changed in regard to discrimination.

 

Please give an exact figure of how many jews you believe died in the holocaust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, delete013 said:

I also hope for @Lord_James to come visit Germany again and see how it has changed in regard to discrimination.


You failed to understand my comment, so I’ll make it more clear: 

 

Germans are not Nazi’s. This is obvious to anyone who has the required amount of brain cells to think rationally and objectively. Nazism is not an ethnicity, bound to a certain group of people based on heritage; it is an ideology, and was present in many countries at the time, not just Germany and the axis powers. Trying to pin nazism on one group of people is ridiculous and dishonest, which is why I now refer to Nazi’s as Nazi’s, not as Germans. 

 

“Germans today are not Nazi’s” isn’t (or, at least, shouldn’t be) some huge revelation or shocking fact to anyone who has the slightest amount of cultural or historical knowledge. Even the imperial Germans in WW1 weren’t Nazi’s, despite what a lot of people are lead to believe (American standard education is... lacking), and the Nazi’s should only be remembered as a mistake, like many young peoples’ goth/emo phase. That one dark and self-destructive point in history is not the sole defining feature of Germany or Germans.
 

Now take the hint, shut up, and grow up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Sure that's not just more "allied propaganda?" After all, how can we be sure the Battle of Arracourt occurred?

You want to squeeze that with the Jews, eh? ccc

"Battle of Arracourt" is, afaik, a recent invention of certain US authors in  desperate attempt to portray US tank units in a positive light. Likely part of a plan to sell books. Nobody, US army nor Wehrmacht called it so and the events are part of what is called "Lorraine campaign" in US historical literature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, delete013 said:

You want to squeeze that with the Jews, eh? ccc

"Battle of Arracourt" is, afaik, a recent invention of certain US authors in  desperate attempt to portray US tank units in a positive light. Likely part of a plan to sell books. Nobody, US army nor Wehrmacht called it so and the events are part of what is called "Lorraine campaign" in US historical literature.

 

Nope, you're just ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, delete013 said:

You want to squeeze that with the Jews, eh? ccc

"Battle of Arracourt" is, afaik, a recent invention of certain US authors in  desperate attempt to portray US tank units in a positive light. Likely part of a plan to sell books. Nobody, US army nor Wehrmacht called it so and the events are part of what is called "Lorraine campaign" in US historical literature.

 

It doesn't matter at all how the battle is called, what matters is the beating the Nazis suffered around there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

It doesn't matter at all how the battle is called, what matters is the beating the Nazis suffered around there.

 

I think my favourite Western front moment is when the Nazis pulled some Wimp Lo shit, got their noses bloodied in the battle of the bulge and then decided that it was a tactical victory which slowed down the allied advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Toxn said:

I think my favourite Western front moment is when the Nazis pulled some Wimp Lo shit, got their noses bloodied in the battle of the bulge and then decided that it was a tactical victory which slowed down the allied advance.

 

Mine is when the Germans lost tanks to a Piper Cub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lord_James said:


Oh? Sounds like an amusing read, got any links? 

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/bazooka-charlies-grasshopper-180974445/

 

Bazooka Charlie and his Piper Cub went tank busting in that battle that Delete here claims never happened.

 

5efe0a16e8e4c.image.jpg?resize=1200,800

 

The restoration was finished last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Honestly, he's done more damage to my psyche than he knows. I'm beginning to doubt the truth of the Holocaust...

 

Since he really admires Nazi technology so much, maybe he boned up on the only thing they were both technologically cutting edge on, and good at implementing. Mass Murder and the tools used to do it. It's easier to understand than a torque converter too! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, delete013 said:

I wouldn't call it a bad design. Rather no other choice. I agree that from an engineering point of view the vehicle was not very suitable for the situation in 1944-45. That is, imo, the principal criticism of a panther.

 

Choosing the "right" type of vehicle would inevitably mean operating with inferior vehicles. The choice was therefore between larger share of vehicles stuck out of action due to repairs and larger share destroyed in combat. Both versions decrease battle performance and ultimately result in an undesired situation. I can't say to what extent. From a (German) military point of view, the former is imo preferable. It is much harder to replace good crews. Those can compensate for numbers as well as equipment attrition. Weaker vehicles require greater numbers, greater numbers consume more fuel and potentially more spare parts.

 

The question is then, whether Daimler Benz prototype wouldn't decrease performance as much. It could be a plausible choice for 1944, if it could compensate for a lack of artillery and air support on the battlefield. So this is my opinion, design was not a problem. Evaluating German choices, one comes faster to the conclusion that war shouldn't continue beyond 1943, than to a design change.

For the record, the design to which I was referring as poor was the final drives, not the Panther per se. Going over all of its inherent pluses and minuses would take a longer post. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DogDodger said:

For the record, the design to which I was referring as poor was the final drives, not the Panther per se. Going over all of its inherent pluses and minuses would take a longer post. :)

I know.

Why don't you make a comprehensive review? I am interested in what others think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, delete013 said:

It is even stated! Perhaps not all but clearly enough to be exposed as a reason. Why would he lie?

 

Because, as I stated in my sarcastic suuuure line, the final drive is a very small target (and it's only exposed from some angles!). You'll note other armies have a conspicuous lack of 'oops all our final drives were hit by arty what a shame'. So either the man is bullshitting as to why the final drives broke, or the allies are actually putting their very best marksmen on artillery teams - with strict orders to aim only for final drives.

 

It's rather comparable to exclaiming that the enemy was scoring nothing but headshots on your infantry.

 

20 hours ago, Beer said:

 

This is also humble Nazi reporting... On 29th April 1945 Karl Körner from SS S.Pz.Abt 503 was awarded a Knight's cross for destruction of over 100 tanks in the past week including an encounter in which he claimed destruction of 39 tanks in  matter of several minutes (that was supposed to be part of an encounter in which his platoon of three Königstigers allegedly destroyed 11 IS-2 and 120-150 T-34 at once, i.e. roughly 3 brigades destroyed with 3 tanks). 

 

Not John Rambo, not even Topper Harley could do this. With all seriousness the only person ever walking this Earth capable of something like that is Chuck Norris and he's the only one.

 

You'd think the Germans would realize that it's a wee bit unlikely that Karl and Ko destroyed *more tanks than they carried ammo combined*. Seriously, each JT carries 40 rounds at 100% stowage. Where did the ~30 extra kills come from, repeatedly limping into them with the JT's famous agility?

 

19 hours ago, delete013 said:

I also think these numbers are extreme. I'm not sure historians are clear on what happened there. To my info Körner encountered dozens of tanks rearming and refueling in a counter attack. There he could have begged many. I would never choose such unclear case to prove some point.

 

Thankfully, we have the soviet combat logs - Körner was ran over in a few hours, and they don't even bother to record meeting the vehicles in their logs. They spend more time whining about Panzerfausts.

 

https://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/05/cheating-at-statistics-7-korner-conjurer.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Because, as I stated in my sarcastic suuuure line, the final drive is a very small target (and it's only exposed from some angles!). You'll note other armies have a conspicuous lack of 'oops all our final drives were hit by arty what a shame'. So either the man is bullshitting as to why the final drives broke, or the allies are actually putting their very best marksmen on artillery teams - with strict orders to aim only for final drives.

The key to that report is that artillery can damage drive train and that recovery was usually impossible. Allied tanks featured similar problems if hit by artilley, only that German artillery wasn't much present in the west.

 

16 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

You'd think the Germans would realize that it's a wee bit unlikely that Karl and Ko destroyed *more tanks than they carried ammo combined*. Seriously, each JT carries 40 rounds at 100% stowage. Where did the ~30 extra kills come from, repeatedly limping into them with the JT's famous agility?

Or is it because Körner was in a tiger B?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

Thankfully, we have the soviet combat logs - Körner was ran over in a few hours, and they don't even bother to record meeting the vehicles in their logs. They spend more time whining about Panzerfausts.

 

https://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/05/cheating-at-statistics-7-korner-conjurer.html

I'm not sure you know what you posted. This is one of those articles, where in comments, critical mass dismantles tankarchives. He provides a good answer to Körner's mistery. The latter only claimed 11 tanks and 39 possible. Secondary sources then misinterpreted it. But in the words of critical mass:

 

"The bottomline is that the credited claims do indeed match soviet losses on this day in general and 5th SA and 2nd GTA losses in particular."

 

@Beer You might want to read it too. It is basically how most panzer ace myths came about. Wrongly attributed kill claims and missing reports on Allied losses. The improbable story is blamed on the soldier, instead of on book writers. The same goes to Wittmann, perhaps the most slandered soldier of ww2.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, delete013 said:

I'm not sure you know what you posted. This is one of those articles, where in comments, critical mass dismantles tankarchives. He provides a good answer to Körner's mistery. The latter only claimed 11 tanks and 39 possible. Secondary sources then misinterpreted it. But in the words of critical mass:

 

"The bottomline is that the credited claims do indeed match soviet losses on this day in general and 5th SA and 2nd GTA losses in particular."

 

@Beer You might want to read it too. It is basically how most panzer ace myths came about. Wrongly attributed kill claims and missing reports on Allied losses. The improbable story is blamed on the soldier, instead of on book writers. The same goes to Wittmann, perhaps the most slandered soldier of ww2.

 

You're ignoring the part where critical mass founds his argument on the Soviet losses of that entire part of the front for that day, then elides his way into the two numbers being similar and that therefore Korner's account is somehow legit.

 

Peter goes into this at length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...