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

[Donward]

4 hours ago, delete013 said:

Is this up in one of those 89 pages? I've yet to get through them all. We can discuss tank's role in combined arms tactics. Are any German tankers or panzergrenadiers here? I think contemporary tactics are pretty much ww2 with new vehicles.

 

5 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

But well, we learned something. Anybody who dares to say anything good about german equipment (pieces of metal... but surely possessed by the very soul of A.H.!), they are immediately nazi supporters... Looks like that now includes Spielberger, Jentz, and Doyle too! Well, now I understand why everything written in their books are ignored... 

Again, congratulations for turning this topic to this mess.

 

 

 

[Sturgeon]

1 hour ago, Domus Acipenseris said:

A little off topic but I have read that aircraft production stats in WW2 Germany were inflated because they counted aircraft destroyed at the factory and rebuilt twice.  I forgot the source on that.  Maybe someone else has knowledge of it.

 

Funny you mention this, Otto Carius mentioned that they routinely doubled or even tripled their kill counts during the war for propaganda purposes.

[Beer]

1 hour ago, Domus Acipenseris said:

Adam Tooze is the source for this.  The limiting factor on German WW2 armaments production was steel.  They could not produce more ships, planes, tanks, shells, or machine tools without lowering production of one or more of the others.  This is despite conquering the steel production of most of Europe.  It seems like grossly incompetent management. 

 

The main limiting factor (I think also according to Tooze) was that there were no skilled people to take over the industry of the occupied countries while locals were considered to be untermensch (and the terror used against them certainly couldn't make them loyal). Germany meanwhile didn't have enough specialists to be used abroad, general over-conscription of the German population didn't help too. During the war even the number of common German workers in German domestic industry went down by several millions and it had to be replaced by slave labor which was used on all levels of the economy. The economies of most of the occupied countries were not only nearly unexploited but they were even basically left to die from starvation (even French industry was nearly unused and it wasn't even allocated resources like coal). In the end it meant that while the empire grew in size the industrial and manpower base stayed nearly the same as pre-war which is of course a perfect receipt to loose the war. 

 

In Soviet union it didn't work for simple reason - there was no equipment. The Soviets either evacuated or destroyed everything and the local population was basically subject of genocide so there was anyway noone to work. There was a weird situation that during Operation Barbarossa Luftwaffe was not allowed to bomb Soviet industry to allow using capturing factories (they didn't have capacity for that anyway as was proven later) but nothinng of use was captured. 

 

IMHO It worked basically only in Czechoslovakia and Austria. Austria joined Germany basically willingly but its industry was very weak. Czechoslovakia was more complicated but there was still a lot of local Germans involved in the country's industry already before the war so it was much easier to be taken over - the skilled responsible and loyal people were gained together witht the country just like hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers who happily joined Wehrmacht and SS in the first moment together with weapons - it's unfortunately true that Bohemian Germans were overwhelmingly Nazi - 43% of all local German popuation was SdP party mebers by March 1939 and the overall support was near total (SdP was basically NSDAP in Czechoslovakia). Also the country was occupied before the war started so that there was much more time to create effective control. Most of the workers were however Czechs or slaves and they deliberately often worked as slow as possible and sabotages were a thing too (even in design stage of some weapons - usually indirect through letting known weak properties to get into production or slowing down testing processes with various issues). Still it was the only occupied country where large industry worked for the German war machine. 

 

It's anyway staggering how badly organized the industry was in Germany alone especialy the AFV production, I think that automated welding was not introduced at all, the production was more like a pre-war handcraft manufacture than the real mass-production of USA and USSR (it worked quite well with fighter aircraft though). I was once told that the Nazi leadership was too afraid of the industry tycoons so they tried not to interfere in their affairs. 

 

In the end we get again to the point that the best industrialized activity of WW2 Germany was indeed the mass murder... 

[Beer]

3 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Funny you mention this, Otto Carius mentioned that they routinely doubled or even tripled their kill counts during the war for propaganda purposes.

 

German historian Dr. Töppel who personally spoke with Carius and other tankers said that far majority of units didn't count kills at all - that majority of the stats are basically made up post war (he speciffically mentioned Franz Kurowski as one of the authors of them) or during the war either for propaganda or when they needed something to support medal applications.   

[Sturgeon]

Just now, Beer said:

 

German historian Dr. Töppel who personally spoke with Carius and other tankers said that far majority of units didn't count kills at all - that majority of the stats are basically made up post war (he speciffically mentioned Franz Kurowski as one of the authors of them) or during the war either for propaganda or when they needed something to support medal applications.   

Yeah the smart money is they're completely fake.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

21 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Yeah the smart money is they're completely fake.

 

 

Just like their aircraft kill claims.

 

I know @Toxn did the math on sorties flown, and how their kill claim totals are possible. But I know just how much everyone overclaimed, and knowing the Germans on the retreat would rarely be able to confirm kills through wrecks, I find 200 plus kill counts really hard to buy. 

 

Their Knights of the sky were an important part of the propaganda to try and keep the people at homes morale up. Seems like Goebbels was not going to be picky about confirmations, and probably encouraged overclaims.  I think all the big Nazi aces went to the graves claiming every kill as real... But who believes those clowns?

[Toxn]

1 hour ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Just like their aircraft kill claims.

 

I know @Toxn did the math on sorties flown, and how their kill claim totals are possible. But I know just how much everyone overclaimed, and knowing the Germans on the retreat would rarely be able to confirm kills through wrecks, I find 200 plus kill counts really hard to buy. 

 

Their Knights of the sky where an important part of the propaganda to try and keep the people at homes morale up. Seems like Goebbels was not going to be picky about confirmations, and probably encouraged overclaims.  I think all the big nazi aces went to the graves claiming ever kill as real though... But who believes those clowns?

I did?

 

Man, I've really lost a few steps since I had a kid 

[Toxn]

3 hours ago, Beer said:

 

The main limiting factor (I think also according to Tooze) was that there were no skilled people to take over the industry of the occupied countries while locals were considered to be untermensch (and the terror used against them certainly couldn't make them loyal). Germany meanwhile didn't have enough specialists to be used abroad, general over-conscription of the German population didn't help too. During the war even the number of common German workers in German domestic industry went down by several millions and it had to be replaced by slave labor which was used on all levels of the economy. The economies of most of the occupied countries were not only nearly unexploited but they were even basically left to die from starvation (even French industry was nearly unused and it wasn't even allocated resources like coal). In the end it meant that while the empire grew in size the industrial and manpower base stayed nearly the same as pre-war which is of course a perfect receipt to loose the war. 

 

In Soviet union it didn't work for simple reason - there was no equipment. The Soviets either evacuated or destroyed everything and the local population was basically subject of genocide so there was anyway noone to work. There was a weird situation that during Operation Barbarossa Luftwaffe was not allowed to bomb Soviet industry to allow using capturing factories (they didn't have capacity for that anyway as was proven later) but nothinng of use was captured. 

 

IMHO It worked basically only in Czechoslovakia and Austria. Austria joined Germany basically willingly but its industry was very weak. Czechoslovakia was more complicated but there was still a lot of local Germans involved in the country's industry already before the war so it was much easier to be taken over - the skilled responsible and loyal people were gained together witht the country just like hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers who happily joined Wehrmacht and SS in the first moment together with weapons - it's unfortunately true that Bohemian Germans were overwhelmingly Nazi - 43% of all local German popuation was SdP party mebers by March 1939 and the overall support was near total (SdP was basically NSDAP in Czechoslovakia). Also the country was occupied before the war started so that there was much more time to create effective control. Most of the workers were however Czechs or slaves and they deliberately often worked as slow as possible and sabotages were a thing too (even in design stage of some weapons - usually indirect through letting known weak properties to get into production or slowing down testing processes with various issues). Still it was the only occupied country where large industry worked for the German war machine. 

 

It's anyway staggering how badly organized the industry was in Germany alone especialy the AFV production, I think that automated welding was not introduced at all, the production was more like a pre-war handcraft manufacture than the real mass-production of USA and USSR (it worked quite well with fighter aircraft though). I was once told that the Nazi leadership was too afraid of the industry tycoons so they tried not to interfere in their affairs. 

 

In the end we get again to the point that the best industrialized activity of WW2 Germany was indeed the mass murder... 

Reading Wages of Destruction is an eye-opener in more than one way. Glad to see it being seriously discussed here

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

18 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I did?

 

Man, I've really lost a few steps since I had a kid 

 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure what thread it was in, but back in the day you did one. I remember being annoyed the kill claims could be possible. It boiled down to they flew a lot of damn sorties. 

[delete013]

On 2/25/2021 at 6:49 PM, DogDodger said:

Germany was never going to out-produce its enemies, so a strategy of "qualitative" enhancement was logical, but it still seems that discretion is the better part of valor in some areas, especially when your tanks are expected to fire from the short halt.

 

Quote

 you please expand on what you mean by Pershing was not a finished vehicle as a medium? Thanks.

Underpowered, too slow, bad off road. Ground clearance was too low.

Considering that it started as a medium and got steadily bigger it makes me believe that the designers exceeded the limits of their design. What they got was neither satisfactory heavy tank, nor a medium. Attempts to make it competitive against tiger B failed because the suspension was overloaded and the hull out of balance. Now, you mentioned those trials and I have nothing much to go with here apart from Hunnicutt and some public "truths". Might also have been a case of institutional inefficiency, who knows.

 

Quote

One was designed, but it seems it was not possible to actually manufacture it in the numbers needed to install on the new medium tank. Spielberger notes an epicyclic final drive had been tested successfully, but "a shortage of gear cutting machinery for the hollow gearing prevented this type this type of final drive from being mass produced." So spur gears with weakish steel were used by necessity.

 

[Donward]

3 minutes ago, delete013 said:

 

Considering that it started as a medium and got steadily bigger it makes me believe that the designers exceeded the limits of their design.

 

 

Wait...

 

4 minutes ago, delete013 said:

 

Underpowered, too slow, bad off road. Ground clearance was too low.

Considering that it started as a medium and got steadily bigger it makes me believe that the designers exceeded the limits of their design. What they got was neither satisfactory heavy tank, not a medium. Attempts to make it competitive ... failed

 

 

Panther says what?

 

 

[delete013]

27 minutes ago, Donward said:

Wait...

Panther says what?

Who had better mobility, panther or pershing?

[Beer]

6 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Just like their aircraft kill claims.

 

I know @Toxn did the math on sorties flown, and how their kill claim totals are possible. But I know just how much everyone overclaimed, and knowing the Germans on the retreat would rarely be able to confirm kills through wrecks, I find 200 plus kill counts really hard to buy. 

 

Their Knights of the sky where an important part of the propaganda to try and keep the people at homes morale up. Seems like Goebbels was not going to be picky about confirmations, and probably encouraged overclaims.  I think all the big nazi aces went to the graves claiming ever kill as real though... But who believes those clowns?

 

In a way it was indeed possible to reach such numbers but we can safely bet they were inflated - after all they were inflated for all sides as deep studies of particular engagements show. To be fair numbers of kills by US bomber crews are probably the most inflated and I guess it was done knowingly to raise morale of the gunners as well. 

 

The reasons why such disproportionally huge number of victories for German fighter pilots could be possible are mainly two. 

 

First they flew until they died while allied pilots were used to train newbies. As a result of this fly-till-death strategy Germany had smaller and smaller group of elite pilots followed by cannon fodder while Allied pilots became gradually better than common German pilots as the war went on.

 

Flying till death brough this disproportionally enormous numbers of combat missions. Hartmann flew 1404 combat sorties with 825 engagements. Kozhedub flew 330 with 120 engagements, in a quick online search unfortunately I didn't find numbers of sorties for Bong, Marmaduke, Albert or Urbanowicz but I guess they weren't higher than 300. By quick math for Hartmann 1404/352=3,99 and 852/352=2,42. For Kozhedub it's 330/62=5,32 and 120/62=1,93. If we took it as real numbers Kozhedub would have worse sortie/kill ratio but better engagements/kill ratio than Hartmann. Let's not also forget that Hartmann was 16x shot down, i.e. he was in a way also extremely lucky. After the war Hartmann was charged in USSR for various crimes including "destuction of 345 expensive Soviet aircraft". The trial was also more of a propaganda show I guess but interestingly it operated with Hartmann's offcial numbers.  

 

The second reason, why, is that to have huge number of kills you need to have someone to shoot down. We can see that the top fighter pilots of battles of France and Britain also scored plenty of kills in very short time because there was more than enough targets to shoot down and they flew non-stop in desperation. As the war went on the number of Germans flying around went so low in comparison to now overwhelming numbers of Allied planes that towards the end of the war some Allied pilots probably never even entered an aerial combat. Best scoring pilot of the Battle of Britain Josef František was credited with 17 sure+1 probable kills in 28 days. The elite French Groupe de chasse I/5 was credited with 71 kills with a loss of only one dead own pilot during the Battle of France (many were shot down but survived and fought again). I.e. in desperate situation against enemy with superior numbers top Allied pilots scored enormous number of kills as well (and their kills were of course also inflated). 

 

In the end I would say that the numbers of aerial kills could be proportionally correct but they were for sure inflated on all sides (that is normal in every war, US kills in Vietnam were grossly inflated too). 

 

 

What I don't believe however is tank kills of pilots like Erich Rudel. Various studies showed that armor losses to airforce were minimal during the WW2. The tests showed that destryoing a tank with WW2 aircraft was extremely difficult even on a static tank without AA fire.  

[N-L-M]

5 minutes ago, Beer said:

After the war Hartmann was charged in USSR for various crimes including "destuction of 345 expensive Soviet aircraft". The trial was also more of a propaganda show I guess but interestingly it operated with Hartmann's offcial numbers.  

Likely, the kill claims are taken as a confession. In many court systems, a confession means the defendant accepts the validity of the charge, and therefore the substance of the charge does not need to be proven, only the guilt of the defendant. 

 

[delete013]

11 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Funny you mention this, Otto Carius mentioned that they routinely doubled or even tripled their kill counts during the war for propaganda purposes.

Did he? Where?

11 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Yeah the smart money is they're completely fake.

So what was it? Doubling claims or not counting at all? So what were the kill rings for? Days without food?

 

Even if you discard post-war writing and propaganda stories you are still left with claims from combat reports. Those have nothing to do with propaganda or myth making and are dead serious stuff. Those claims align quite nicely with actual loss numbers in the east, adjusted for repaired tanks and with a variance of occasional double counting or non reported kills. They also align surprisingly well with British losses in Normandy.

 

Anw, to my knowledge, kill claims were not institutionalised, as were in the air force and started as cumulative sums of stug battalions. They varied from unit to unit, some counting, some not. But the hobby was spread among dedicated tank killers, i.e. heavy tank battalions and panzerjägers.

 

None of this is 100% reliable but there is no indication that these numbers were invented. Propaganda ministry, like in other countries, sought over-performers and made emboldened story around them, rounding up their kills or pinning platoon kills on one commander. Beyond that bling there were still top soldiers.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

1 hour ago, Beer said:

 

In a way it was indeed possible to reach such numbers but we can safely bet they were inflated - after all they were inflated for all sides as deep studies of particular engagements show. To be fair numbers of kills by US bomber crews are probably the most inflated and I guess it was done knowingly to raise morale of the gunners as well. 

 

The reasons why such disproportionally huge number of victories for German fighter pilots could be possible are mainly two. 

 

First they flew until they died while allied pilots were used to train newbies. As a result of this fly-till-death strategy Germany had smaller and smaller group of elite pilots followed by cannon fodder while Allied pilots became gradually better than common German pilots as the war went on.

 

Flying till death brough this disproportionally enormous numbers of combat missions. Hartmann flew 1404 combat sorties with 825 engagements. Kozhedub flew 330 with 120 engagements, in a quick online search unfortunately I didn't find numbers of sorties for Bong, Marmaduke, Albert or Urbanowicz but I guess they weren't higher than 300. By quick math for Hartmann 1404/352=3,99 and 852/352=2,42. For Kozhedub it's 330/62=5,32 and 120/62=1,93. If we took it as real numbers Kozhedub would have worse sortie/kill ratio but better engagements/kill ratio than Hartmann. Let's not also forget that Hartmann was 16x shot down, i.e. he was in a way also extremely lucky. After the war Hartmann was charged in USSR for various crimes including "destuction of 345 expensive Soviet aircraft". The trial was also more of a propaganda show I guess but interestingly it operated with Hartmann's offcial numbers.  

 

The second reason, why, is that to have huge number of kills you need to have someone to shoot down. We can see that the top fighter pilots of battles of France and Britain also scored plenty of kills in very short time because there was more than enough targets to shoot down and they flew non-stop in desperation. As the war went on the number of Germans flying around went so low in comparison to now overwhelming numbers of Allied planes that towards the end of the war some Allied pilots probably never even entered an aerial combat. Best scoring pilot of the Battle of Britain Josef František was credited with 17 sure+1 probable kills in 28 days. The elite French Groupe de chasse I/5 was credited with 71 kills with a loss of only one dead own pilot during the Battle of France (many were shot down but survived and fought again). I.e. in desperate situation against enemy with superior numbers top Allied pilots scored enormous number of kills as well (and their kills were of course also inflated). 

 

In the end I would say that the numbers of aerial kills could be proportionally correct but they were for sure inflated on all sides (that is normal in every war, US kills in Vietnam were grossly inflated too). 

 

 

What I don't believe however is tank kills of pilots like Erich Rudel. Various studies showed that armor losses to airforce were minimal during the WW2. The tests showed that destryoing a tank with WW2 aircraft was extremely difficult even on a static tank without AA fire.  

 

 

Great post. It wasn't just to train newbies that we pulled our experienced pilots out of combat. At least in the Pacific, they found pilots were only at peak effectiveness for about six weeks. They could recover, if taken out of combat, so again in the pacific, they rotated squadrons in and out for three tours then broke them up(Navy, or swapped in many new pilots).  Europe may have been a little easier on the pilots since the living conditions were much better, but they did similar things. Most of the 8th and 9th Air Force Aces eventually got sent home too. 

[delete013]

3 hours ago, Beer said:

 

In a way it was indeed possible to reach such numbers but we can safely bet they were inflated - after all they were inflated for all sides as deep studies of particular engagements show. To be fair numbers of kills by US bomber crews are probably the most inflated and I guess it was done knowingly to raise morale of the gunners as well. 

You put not a drop of though in considering that the tropes your indiscriminately accepted might be easily proven wrong? If you troubled yourself a tad more you would know that Luftwaffe had the most rigorous claim procedure among the belligerent countries, requiring a witness to confirm a claim. It was not unusual for an actual kill to be refused at the ministry due to breaking a procedure. Germans were also the only I know that sanctioned fake claiming.

On the other hand, kill claims in RAF were considered a morale boost and even known overclaiming was deliberately ignored "to keep the spirits high". I assume I don't have to mention the US army air force.

 

But hey, dirty Germans are gentlemen and don't push this topic that would make their former counterparts look bad.

 

Quote

The second reason, why, is that to have huge number of kills you need to have someone to shoot down.

This genius logic, if there are more enemies I will shoot them more down right? Or isn't that I will shoot less since I will fight 5 planes instead of 1? So the only factor has to be? Aircraft or skill. Why not accept the most obvious explanation. Germans had better pilots that could do more sorties, had better schooling, better organisation and great planes = about hundred three digit aces.

 

Quote

As the war went on the number of Germans flying around went so low in comparison to now overwhelming numbers of Allied planes that towards the end of the war some Allied pilots probably never even entered an aerial combat. Best scoring pilot of the Battle of Britain Josef František was credited with 17 sure+1 probable kills in 28 days. The elite French Groupe de chasse I/5 was credited with 71 kills with a loss of only one dead own pilot during the Battle of France (many were shot down but survived and fought again). I.e. in desperate situation against enemy with superior numbers top Allied pilots scored enormous number of kills as well (and their kills were of course also inflated). 

Yes Allies had some good pilots too.

 

Quote

In the end I would say that the numbers of aerial kills could be proportionally correct but they were for sure inflated on all sides (that is normal in every war, US kills in Vietnam were grossly inflated too). 

I'll correct this for you. Overclaiming was present in all air forces but German kills are the most credible, US the least, everybody offended. I you want a descriptive sample of national bias check this gem from Moran's video on air to ground tank claims:

 

Quote

What I don't believe however is tank kills of pilots like Erich Rudel. Various studies showed that armor losses to airforce were minimal during the WW2. The tests showed that destryoing a tank with WW2 aircraft was extremely difficult even on a static tank without AA fire.  

Various <Allied> studies showed that <their> planes had a negligent anti-tank abilities, especially the rocket equipped. Nobody tested German planes. What if Germans had better anti-tank air arm? You can't simply generalise.

[Beer]

21 minutes ago, delete013 said:

You put not a drop of though in considering that the tropes your indiscriminately accepted might be easily proven wrong? If you troubled yourself a tad more you would know that Luftwaffe had the most rigorous claim procedure among the belligerent countries, requiring a witness to confirm a claim.

 

That rigorous system doesnť hold water when you study particular engagements. I give one example because that is very well known to me. 

 

29th August 1944 an air battle over Czechoslovak territory along the today's Czech/Slovak border. Take into account that this battle took place over German-controlled territory, all wreckage was quickly found and nearly all Allied pilots who survived on parachutes were captured (several were hidden by locals until Red army came). The real losses are 100% documented from archives, from found wreckage etc. and all names of shot down crews are known. 

 

Luftwaffe pilots were awarded 19 Abschuss, 7 Herausschuss and 1 eingültige Vernichtung. 

 

The real losses were 9 B-17 shot down, 1 B-24 crashed for technical reasons (outisde of the battle area), 4 B-17 heavily damaged and 2 B-17 lightly damaged. No P-51 was shot down. German losses were 9 Bf-109 and 4 Fw-190 (4 Bf-109 due to broken engine, all the rest but one shot down by P-51). The US awards are not known to me unfortunately. 

 

So the Germans were awarded more than double the actual kills while they must have known that the number is way too high. 

 

 

[delete013]

44 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

That rigorous system doesnť hold water when you study particular engagements. I give one example because that is very well known to me. 

 

29th August 1944 an air battle over Czechoslovak territory along the today's Czech/Slovak border. Take into account that this battle took place over German-controlled territory, all wreckage was quickly found and nearly all Allied pilots who survived on parachutes were captured (several were hidden by locals until Red army came). The real losses are 100% documented from archives, from found wreckage etc. and all names of shot down crews are known. 

 

Luftwaffe pilots were awarded 19 Abschuss, 7 Herausschuss and 1 eingültige Vernichtung. 

 

The real losses were 9 B-17 shot down, 1 B-24 crashed for technical reasons (outisde of the battle area), 4 B-17 heavily damaged and 2 B-17 lightly damaged. No P-51 was shot down. German losses were 9 Bf-109 and 4 Fw-190 (4 Bf-109 due to broken engine, all the rest but one shot down by P-51). The US awards are not known to me unfortunately. 

 

So the Germans were awarded more than double the actual kills while they must have known that the number is way too high. 

 

 

It's this right? All in all, to my knowledge is such situation considered as quite "accurate", and claims honest. You likely wouldn't think so, but scroll down and check claim chart. It is highly likely that several aircraft shoot at the same bomber at the same time, especially since formation attacks were a deliberate tactic, ensuring good results. I think an attacker would be attributed a kill each, but I am not sure.

Some claims were actually refused.
The attackers were scattered by mustangs afterwards, so they likely couldn't observe the final faith of the bombers and could have wrongly counted some surviving bombers as kills.

 

Claims of Hand-Joachim Marseille are one of the most rigorously checked: Wikipedia has a nice chart of claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Joachim_Marseille#Victory_claims

 

His claims are corroborated between 65%-75%, depending on the author, and are considered "relatively" accurate. Also note that there is quite some resistance in admitting the losses, such as 1 September 42.

[Beer]

7 minutes ago, delete013 said:

It's this right? All in all, to my knowledge is such situation considered as quite "accurate", and claims honest. You likely wouldn't think so, but scroll down and check claim chart. It is highly likely that several aircraft shoot at the same bomber at the same time, especially since formation attacks were a deliberate tactic, ensuring good results. I think an attacker would be attributed a kill each, but I am not sure.

Some claims were actually refused.
The attackers were scattered by mustangs afterwards, so they likely couldn't observe the final faith of the bombers and could have wrongly counted some surviving bombers as kills.

 

You just contradicted your previous statement. The whole point was that Luftwafe inflated numbers just like everyone else. You claimed it didn't, I showed you a proof they did. Simple as that. 

 

Anyway this is off topic which has nothing to do with German AFV. 

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

8 minutes ago, delete013 said:

It's this right? All in all, to my knowledge is such situation considered as quite "accurate", and claims honest. You likely wouldn't think so, but scroll down and check claim chart. It is highly likely that several aircraft shoot at the same bomber at the same time, especially since formation attacks were a deliberate tactic, ensuring good results. I think an attacker would be attributed a kill each, but I am not sure.

Some claims were actually refused.
The attackers were scattered by mustangs afterwards, so they likely couldn't observe the final faith of the bombers and could have wrongly counted some surviving bombers as kills.

Do you believe the Germany army was clean of war crimes?  The honorable germans claim that too.  What nazis do you not believe? 

[delete013]

9 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

You just contradicted your previous statement. The whole point was that Luftwafe inflated numbers just like everyone else. You claimed it didn't, I showed you a proof they did. Simple as that. 

 

Anyway this is off topic which has nothing to do with German AFV. 

It is. Let's quit.

[delete013]

2 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Do you believe the Germany army was clean of war crimes?  The honorable germans claim that too.  What nazis do you not believe? 

Actually I don't. If there is smth that German officers indeed did lie quite reliably is war crimes. Or better, tried to hide them. They were ashamed of them.

[heretic88]

21 hours ago, Donward said:

 

Protip: It is OK to be wrong on the Internet. Again. It is OK to be WRONG on the Internet (like you are at this moment). Many of us had Wehraboo tendencies as well when we were young and stupid, like you are right now. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate your opinions? 

Ok. Just answer some simple question. Are Spielberger, Jentz, Doyle (and many others) are "wehraboos"? Because neither author share your opinions about the Panther tank... (in fact, barely any) And Im quite sure they are the real experts, not the denizens of this forum... All of us here are only entusiastic amateurs compared to them. Spielberger even "dared" to say that it was an excellent tank. I just said, it was good, instead of mediocre. So Spielberger is an ignorant "wehraboo"? Young? Stupid? Or even a nazi apologist?

[Sturgeon]

1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

Ok. Just answer some simple question. Are Spielberger, Jentz, Doyle (and many others) are "wehraboos"? Because neither author share your opinions about the Panther tank... (in fact, barely any) And Im quite sure they are the real experts, not the denizens of this forum... All of us here are only entusiastic amateurs compared to them. Spielberger even "dared" to say that it was an excellent tank. I just said, it was good, instead of mediocre. So Spielberger is an ignorant "wehraboo"? Young? Stupid? Or even a nazi apologist?

 

I trust Guderian, an actual Nazi, over Spielberger, Jentz, or Doyle, yes.

Everyone on this forum has read these authors. Their books are excellent, but the authors themselves are, like anyone else, just people who write. It may surprise you, but we are not members of a church who worship people who write as keepers of pure truth. Spielbeger has his narrative, Jentz and Doyle theirs. Doyle will insist the Panther was the "first MBT", a hilarious misinterpretation of a tank that was a direct response to the T-34. So if the Panther is an "MBT", why not the T-34?* There is no conceivable reason. It's just Doyle's story, and that's ok. But neither I nor anyone else has to agree.

*The only thing even close to an argument against this point that I've ever heard goes something like "the Panther is the first MBT and the T-34 isn't because the T-34 was designed within a force structure that assumed both medium and heavy tanks would be used" which sounds like a very smart thing to say until you remember that the Tiger II exists.