Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

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.

 

pUfMFRB.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.   "It had a low profile, only 10cm tal

from physical version of Mittler Report issue on KF41 Lynx (low-res scans are posted on htka.hu forum)   So, I've made couple of comparisons, to the best of my ability

A Dingo 2 of the Belgian army was hit by a pressure-activated IED consisting of about 30 kg explosives. The vehicle was part of a German-lead convoy, several German vehicles narrowly missed the IED be

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I did?

 

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

 

 

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. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

02BKXPq.png

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
 

Link to post
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.

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)
       
      The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.
       
      Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.
       
      The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.
       
      The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).
       
      California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

      The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;


      (near the Californian border)


      The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.
       
      Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.


      (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)
       
      Requirements
       
      As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):
       
      Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds  
      Other relevant information:
      Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.  
       
       
       
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       



×
×
  • Create New...