Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI

[Karoht]

Germans do have a reputation for always trying to build high quality stuff after all.

If it wasn't for such high quality stuff, the allied would've easily rolled over the german lines and ended the war much sooner.

Now I thought, after playing DnD and other such games, it's not what you got, it's entirely all about how you use it. And the Germans were quite good at using what they had available.

Then again, I am no expert, I couldn't begin to tell you if the quality/superiority of equipment really provided an advantage or not. Especially in a war where people died by the thousands. It becomes difficult to equate specific deaths or lost battles to specific causes such as 'the superiority of this standard infantry weapon was to be the telling detail' outside of things like major artillery.

[fusilier]

Bingo. It tries to equate two items that in reality were never intended to be equal. I highly doubt the goal of the Axis or the Allies was to 'create a weapon precisely on par with the weapons on the side of the (insert faction), in order to compete fairly with our enemies of (insert faction again).' The goal in all scenarios is almost always superiority, the exception is when one side has to play catch up, or has to go with a 'make do or do without' solution.

I have seen some games (like the original Battlefield 1942), just make everything equal (a Tiger tank had the same performance as a M4 Sherman). However, what I was referring to are games that attempt to enforce some kind of equality of forces by assigning point values. So a Sherman might be worth 100 points, and a Tiger worth 500 points. So in a game where both sides have 500 points, the Allied player could have 5 Shermans, and the German player 1 Tiger. Various options for different weapon load-outs could change the point value, but the basic idea is that if both armies are built to the same point value then they should be evenly matched. I'm not too sure how well it works out in practice, but plenty of newer miniature war games are built around this concept. Generally speaking, I just want to see as many miniatures on the table as possible. ;-)

I'm reminded of one of the WWII first person shooter games (the name escapes me at the moment) which portrays the Nazi shock troops running around with miniguns and body armor. I don't know if this game strayed into fantasy or not, but I guarantee you that the guy with the minigun and body armor is, typically, in no way remotely fair against the guy with a bolt action rifle or repeating rifle, or heck, even a tommy gun, much less balanced.

Sounds like Wolfenstein perhaps? Which has always been pretty fantastic.

In regards to vehicles, the balancing tends to go that the Germans had better toys in just about every respect, but the Allies had better numbers. I am not an expert in that I do not know if either were true at any point during the war, other than the end.

The Germans were quick to adopt anything they could get their hands on. The Czech M38 tank, many French tanks and trucks were pressed into service, captured Russian T-34's, after 1943 all-sorts of Italian equipment, etc. The German army, like most armies during WW2, still relied primarily on horse transport. Only the US and Britain were able to have completely mechanized armies. When and if German materiel was superior to their Allies is debatable. Even during the Battle of France a large number of the German tank force were Panzer II's. Whereas the French had excellent medium and heavy tanks, well armored and armed. It was the doctrinal use of tanks that varied and is believed to give the Germans the advantage. They concentrated their tank force, whereas the allies parceled out their numerically superior tanks as infantry support. I'm not even sure if this theory is entirely correct, the French cavalry seems to have concentrated their tanks. They ran their tank force to Belgium, just before the Germans launched their attack through the Ardennes. By the time they had run them back, it was too late and their tanks were worn out from the rapid redeployment. So a clever bluff, and an attack in an unexpected area may have been more important to success than superior doctrine.

[Mike_G]

...in the grand scheme of things, how much superiority does an MG-42 have over a M1919 Browning?

It was a lot more portable, being 5 lbs lighter, and could be fired from a bipod, instead of the heavy tripod for the M1919, further reducing the weight a soldier needed to hump. It could serve as a squad automatic weapon, like the BAR, and it was a billion times more firepower than a BAR, with it's 20 round magazine. The BAR also had a fixed barrel, so it couldn't be changed out, like the MG42, thus restricting how much sustained fire it could do.

As a fairly stationary gun, like the role played by the .30 cal M1919, it was comparable, but when you realize that the average German gunner could just throw the thing over his shoulder and keep up with the riflemen, it combined the firepower of the 1919 with the mobility of the BAR. As an old grunt, I can tell you that is an absolute winner.

It did burn through ammo too quickly for my tastes, but it was a very good gun.

[Karoht]

Sounds like Wolfenstein perhaps? Which has always been pretty fantastic.

Nope, way more modern.

[fusilier]

It was a lot more portable, being 5 lbs lighter, and could be fired from a bipod, instead of the heavy tripod for the M1919, further reducing the weight a soldier needed to hump. It could serve as a squad automatic weapon, like the BAR, and it was a billion times more firepower than a BAR, with it's 20 round magazine. The BAR also had a fixed barrel, so it couldn't be changed out, like the MG42, thus restricting how much sustained fire it could do.

As a fairly stationary gun, like the role played by the .30 cal M1919, it was comparable, but when you realize that the average German gunner could just throw the thing over his shoulder and keep up with the riflemen, it combined the firepower of the 1919 with the mobility of the BAR. As an old grunt, I can tell you that is an absolute winner.

It did burn through ammo too quickly for my tastes, but it was a very good gun.

If I can supply three times as many M1919's as MG42's, then what would be better? Having a somewhat more portable MG, or more of them? Remember we're talking about all out warfare here, not minor conflicts where governments can spend lavishly on a relatively small army.

The Vickers, Hotchkiss, and Maxim Guns of WW1 were very popular and very heavy. The German "light" Machine gun M1908/15 weighed something like 50 pounds, very heavy compared to a British Lewis gun, but it was the Germans who "perfected" infiltration tactics. In the grand scheme of things the tactical differences between the M1919 and the MG42 aren't that great, certainly not at the strategic level. Also what you just hit upon was a difference in tactical doctrine. The Germans centered their platoons around a single general purpose machine gun, defended by riflemen, typically armed with bolt-action rifles. Whereas the Americans centered their platoons on riflemen with semi-auto rifles, backed up by a couple BARs. (With some smattering of sub-machine guns on both sides). Further backed up by the occasional M1917 and M1919 medium machine guns.

I'm not talking about which may have had a tactical superiority in an evenly matched fire-fight. I'm trying to point out there other factors that can weigh heavily on which side wins, and the differences in weapons tends to be over stated.

The Chaco War is an example where one side spent money on the best and latest and lost, whereas the other side used older, cheaper weaponry and won. It's not like we're comparing an MG42 to a spear. We're talking about weapons that at a high-level aren't that different. At which point strategy, tactics, and availability(economy) can become the deciding factors.

@Kahrot
Return to Castle Wolfenstein? Or even more modern?

[Karoht]

@Karoht
Return to Castle Wolfenstein? Or even more modern?

More modern. I want to say medal of honor, but I'm certain that can't be correct.

[Mike_G]

If I can supply three times as many M1919's as MG42's, then what would be better? Having a somewhat more portable MG, or more of them? Remember we're talking about all out warfare here, not minor conflicts where governments can spend lavishly on a relatively small army.

The Vickers, Hotchkiss, and Maxim Guns of WW1 were very popular and very heavy. The German "light" Machine gun M1908/15 weighed something like 50 pounds, very heavy compared to a British Lewis gun, but it was the Germans who "perfected" infiltration tactics. In the grand scheme of things the tactical differences between the M1919 and the MG42 aren't that great, certainly not at the strategic level. Also what you just hit upon was a difference in tactical doctrine. The Germans centered their platoons around a single general purpose machine gun, defended by riflemen, typically armed with bolt-action rifles. Whereas the Americans centered their platoons on riflemen with semi-auto rifles, backed up by a couple BARs. (With some smattering of sub-machine guns on both sides). Further backed up by the occasional M1917 and M1919 medium machine guns.

I'm not talking about which may have had a tactical superiority in an evenly matched fire-fight. I'm trying to point out there other factors that can weigh heavily on which side wins, and the differences in weapons tends to be over stated.

The Chaco War is an example where one side spent money on the best and latest and lost, whereas the other side used older, cheaper weaponry and won. It's not like we're comparing an MG42 to a spear. We're talking about weapons that at a high-level aren't that different. At which point strategy, tactics, and availability(economy) can become the deciding factors.

I'm not disagreeing that logistics and doctrine matter more in many cases than equipment. Clearly if you can supply more guns, even if mine are a bit better, you have an edge.

I was just saying, comparing the MG 42 to the M1919 is only half fair, as it wasn't all that much better, but it was far better than the BAR or Bren. The MG 42 was not issued 1 to a platoon, but 3 or 4, and worked as part of the squad, which placed it in the same role as the Bren or BAR. The link to German infantry organization can be found here: http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~a...W2ORG/ger.html

I've heard the argument of differing doctrine that you cite, but I think that's vastly oversimplified. I'm less well versed on the US Army, but the Marines built the fire team around the BAR, so it wasn't a question of riflemen supported by machineguns, as much as it was an important part of the maneuver element of the squad. I don't think the Germans, known for aggressive tactics, sat back and "defended their machine guns" with their Mausers as much as they probably used very similar squad bounds using fire and maneuver, as it seems each squad had an LMG.

[fusilier]

I'm not disagreeing that logistics and doctrine matter more in many cases than equipment. Clearly if you can supply more guns, even if mine are a bit better, you have an edge.

I was just saying, comparing the MG 42 to the M1919 is only half fair, as it wasn't all that much better, but it was far better than the BAR or Bren. The MG 42 was not issued 1 to a platoon, but 3 or 4, and worked as part of the squad, which placed it in the same role as the Bren or BAR. The link to German infantry organization can be found here: http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~a...W2ORG/ger.html

I've heard the argument of differing doctrine that you cite, but I think that's vastly oversimplified. I'm less well versed on the US Army, but the Marines built the fire team around the BAR, so it wasn't a question of riflemen supported by machineguns, as much as it was an important part of the maneuver element of the squad. I don't think the Germans, known for aggressive tactics, sat back and "defended their machine guns" with their Mausers as much as they probably used very similar squad bounds using fire and maneuver, as it seems each squad had an LMG.

You are right, it was squads not platoons, my mistake, and yes it is a simplification. My understanding is that German tactics focused on the proper placement of the squad MG, and the riflemen all revolved around that. This doesn't rule out an assault to secure a good position, or deny it to the enemy, just that this was done to better position the MG.

Anyway, we could talk tactics all day long (if you want an example of aggressive tactics take a look at Italian doctrine, and Japanese practice). My point (and I think we are in agreement), was that while these little technical differences are interesting, in the big picture they're not that important.

[Galloglaich]

I think the German kit gets hyped, I think it's testeament to Goebles. They had a very good fashion sense, very nice uniforms, lots of fashion designers among the original Nazis.

But maybe we need a little reality check.

Fusilier has pointed out some of this pretty well already, but here is my $.02

Small arms

Russians had the PPsh by 1942, against Germans with bolt action rifles. Huge advantage in urban or any close combat which cost the German dearly.

US had the M1-Garand, very effective semi-auto .30-06 which could also reach long range... and the Thompson from the beginning of the war.

The Germans were using the Mauser K-98, essentially a WW I bolt-action, good in certain respects, but hopelessly inferior for close combat. They came up with some good SMGs and Assault Rifles by the end of the war, but they tended to be overly expensive (difficult to make) and came too little, too-late.

Aircraft

The Me 109 was a brilliant deisgn in 1940, but by 1944, it was out-classed. It was a short-ranged interceptor which was a huge operational liability, and inferior in maneuveability to the Spitfire and most of the Russian fighters, and vastly inferior in range to the P-51.

The Fw 190 was very good, but it's strictly a 'Boom and Zoom' fighter, and bega to be owned by Soviet fighters by the end of the war.

Those two fighters were the only two effective front-line designs the Germans fielded through the war.

The Stuka, revolutionary and a critical part of the German war machine in the early days of the war, was obsolete by 1941 and yet, remained their primary tactical bomber. Their other (medium) bombers ranged from average (Ju-88) to mediocre (He 111) in quality by international standards. They never developed an effective heavy bomber.

The Spitfire consistently proved marginally superior to it's chief competitor, the Me 109, and ultimately much more versatile as it remained a viable airframe even in 1945, by which time the Me 109 had exceeded it's design limits.

The Germans evaluated the Italian Fiat G.55 and the Macci C205 and decided they were superior to their own fighters, they were actually going to start production but it turned out to complicated to arrange as Italy collapsed.

By the second half of the war, the Soviets had the Yak-3, the Yak-9, both of which were arguably superior to both the Me 109 and the Fw 190. The Luftwaffe in fact ordered German fighter pilots in 1944 not to engage the Yak-3 below 5,000 meters altitude on pain of courts-martial. The LaGG-5FN and LaGG7 also out-classed the German fighters.

The Japanese N1K1, Ki-84, and Ki-100 were superior to the German fighters.

The best ground-attack aircraft of the war was the Il-2 Sturmovik, bar-none. The best bomber was probably the British Mosquito.

Artillery
Fusilier already pointed out, US artillery was actually better and also turned out to be more accurate, than German artilllery. And on most battlefields the Americans had heavier artillery available (this is the major balancing factor missing in many tactical simulation games). This was for example the 'secret weapon' of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, all the artillery from like 5 divisions was concentrated in Bastogne.

The Russians also invented the Katyushka Rocket and fielded it in huge numbers right out of the gate. It was a critical part of the victory at Stalingrad.

Tanks

Until the mid war, the german tanks (Pz II, Pz III, Pz IV) were good but really not that great. Their main advantage was in having radios As Fuslier (?) pointed out the French tanks were better in many respects, and the Wermacht was relying on Czech tanks early on which I thnk were 1/4 of their armor during the invasion of France (a terrible irony).

By 1942, the T-34 and KV "Pwnd" the Pz III and the PZ IV, which was the reason for the development of the Tiger and the Panther. The Tiger had a deserved reputation for being a tough contender, but it had very poor mechanical reliability, (ironically the US tanks were by far the most reliable) and it was quickly out-matched by the Russian heavy tanks and tank destroyers which answered it, the Joseph Stalin II, the Su-100, Su-122 etc.

The Panther was a great tank, but it was much more vulnerable than the Tiger, initially very unreliable (they used to catch on fire when you started the engine) and the expense which was equivalent to 5 medium tanks did not equate to their survivability on the battlefield.

The Germans did have some very nice tank destroyers. And the best anti-tank gun bar none, the Pak-43 (88 mm)

The US Grant and Sherman actually dominated the Pz III and most marks of the Pz IV initially in North Africa. Their appearance requried the up-gunning of the Pz IV leading to the so-called "F2 Special". They had no real answer to the Tiger or the Panther though, which was trouble by the end of the war... except they tended to rely on artillery and air-support which some people (gamers) seem to percieve as 'cheating'. But they did have tank-destroyers which are usually left out of most pop history, the M-10, M-18, and M-36 which had a gun as powerful as that on the Tiger.

The British modified the Sherman as the Firefly which had a gun (17 pounder) that could take out Panthers or Tigers.

The German super-heavies (King Tiger, JagdTiger, Ferdinand etc.) look cool and very tough on paper, but were actually pretty useless operationally, they performed poorly because they couldn't be deployed, constantly broke down, and due to their huge size were vulnerable to air attack etc. Meanwhile the cost of production was equivalent to like 10 or 20 medium tanks.

Machine guns

I think the MG42 was the best LMG and MMG of the war (it could be configured as an LMG, an MMG or an HMG) but the US had the very ubiquitous M2 .50 cal, on almost every vehicle, and the Germans were scared of this weapon, for good reason. The M2 was the best HMG.

G.

[Thiel]

Machine guns

I think the MG42 was the best LMG and MMG of the war (it could be configured as an LMG, an MMG or an HMG) but the US had the very ubiquitous M2 .50 cal, on almost every vehicle, and the Germans were scared of this weapon, for good reason. The M2 was the best HMG.

G.

The fact that both guns are in widespread use amongst modern armies with only a few modifications is rather telling, I think.

[Galloglaich]

Exactly.

Check out the PPsh-41: (imagine dealing with these in Stalingrad when you have bolt action rifles)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQpJ...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggS-UZIpezs

The Russians were making 3,000 of these per day by 1942

G.

[Thiel]

While we're on Soviet small arms, does anyone remember what that wacky ground attack plane that had the entire bomb bay filled with SMGs was called?

[fusilier]

The Me 109 was a brilliant deisgn in 1940, but by 1944, it was out-classed. It was a short-ranged interceptor which was a huge operational liability, and inferior in maneuveability to the Spitfire and most of the Russian fighters, and vastly inferior in range to the P-51.

This isn't entirely fair, by 1944 Germany certainly needed a short range interceptor. Also the Spitfire was starting to hit it's own design limitations by that time. Although on the Eastern Front, the 109's shorter range may have been more of a liability. Most people feel that the Fw 190 was superior (along with derivatives like the Ta-152), but Messerschmitt had always "played ball" with the Nazis, so they tended to get preferential treatment.

The Stuka was a very serviceable plane even if outdated, it proved difficult to replace for some reason. While the Germans controlled the air they could operate them. The old bi-plane ground attack Henschel Hs 123 gave very good service on the Russian Front (being able to operate from rough fields, and in all sorts of weather). The German air force was built around tactical support of the army. So, long range strategic bombing was something it was not really prepared for. This problem first showed up during the Battle of Britain.

I think that Japanese air force was also designed as providing tactical support (to the army and navy), but due to the nature of the Pacific had better long-range capabilities. (I'm not too sure though)

The Italians, totally lacked the means, but did seem to have more of a strategic bombing mindset. They launched a very long range bombing raid on oil-fields in the Persian Gulf in 1940(?). They had to use long-range transports as their 4 engined bomber crews were still in training (something that took an unusually long amount of time).

The best bomber was probably the British Mosquito.

I've always had trouble classifying the Mosquito. It was also a night-fighter, reconnaissance, ground attack, partially a tree . . . ;-)

I can see it as an excellent light bomber. Although the B-26 was a very good medium bomber.

I think the MG42 was the best LMG and MMG of the war (it could be configured as an LMG, an MMG or an HMG) but the US had the very ubiquitous M2 .50 cal, on almost every vehicle, and the Germans were scared of this weapon, for good reason. The M2 was the best HMG.

G.

Guns like the MG34 and MG42 are referred to as "general purpose machine guns", because they can be configured as LMG's or MMG's.

[Stephen_E]

By 1942, the T-34 and KV "Pwnd" the Pz III and the PZ IV, which was the reason for the development of the Tiger and the Panther. The Tiger had a deserved reputation for being a tough contender, but it had very poor mechanical reliability, (ironically the US tanks were by far the most reliable) and it was quickly out-matched by the Russian heavy tanks and tank destroyers which answered it, the Joseph Stalin II, the Su-100, Su-122 etc.

.

The only part of your post I'd quibble with is the claim that the Tiger/Panthers were quickly out matched by the soviet heavies and tank destroyers.
All the soviet guns were low velocity which meant their AP perormance quickly fell off. The Tigers and Panthers could, and did, shred them givin any sort of range.

What the Soviets did have was numbers. Lots of numbers.
And numbers have a quality of their own. The TDs and heavies didn't have to be better, they merely had to be good enough, i.e. in the ballpark, and numbers would do the rest.

1 remaining quibble. Re: creatures like the Tiger II. The real point with them is that very few were ever built. Something like 500 Tiger 2s were built in the war. At that point it's hard to judge their operation effectiveness. The sample is to small. (this is aside from your very valid points regarding the economics of building them).

Stephen E

[Galloglaich]

What German AFV can stand toe to toe with the Su-100?

I would argue that the Soviet AFV's were better all-around.

Germans:

Pz IVs, Panthers, and a few (very few) Tigers and super-heavies.

Soviets:

T-34/85 (far superior to all versions of the Pz IV), large numbers of JS-II and JS-III's, backed up by Su-100's and ISU-122's etc.

Also, as for the King Tiger et al, the Schwer Panzer companies were never large, there weren't a lot of Tiger I made either, they were always meant to be a kind of fire brigade. They had enough of the Tiger II's to be tactically significant, Joachim Pipers force in the Ardennes Offensive were mostly Royal Tigers, and though they did well for a few days, they rather predictably ran out of gas.

Here is a video of Tigers in action against T-34s and Js-2s, with some pretty cool footage I'd never seen before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaF34wCdF88

G.

[Galloglaich]

You could, for example, attempt to compile statistics on how likely it was that an American 76mm tank gun would puncture the side armor of a Tiger II, but how accessible or accurate that data is can be questionable.

The data is available, actually, in detail. That is what they used to make the penetration tables in the board game Advanced Squad Leader, which in turn is what a lot of the armor based computer games were closely based on (like Steel Panthers, Combat Mission, and Command and Conquer)

G.

[Galloglaich]

I don't know about that. A 109 E was a pretty maneuverable plane, and could on occasion keep up with a spitfire.

The P-40 gets a bad rap, due to poor quality aviation journalism after the war (largely due to a profiteering scandal with Curtiss Aircraft Company). The cliche is that it wasn't as maneuverable as the zero so it was clumsy, it wasn't as fast as the Me 109 so it was considered slow. Actually the P-40 was one of the tightest turning allied fighters in the war, and it was the fastest in the Pacific and the CBI, until about 1943 when P-38's arrived in some numbers.

Like I said, the P-40 could out-turn of the 109, it could also out-roll most variants, this is attested to by combat veterans who flew the aircraft from all over the world; Australia, Soviet Union, UK, USA, and Canada.

That didn't mean it was a better fighter all-around, since most variants of the 109 could still out accelerate and out-climb it, making them better at altitude fighting, and the effective ceiling of the P-40 was only about 16,000 feet so the 109 could always have an altitude advantage if the weather conditions permitted. (In the Eastern Front, the cloud ceiling was often very low so most fighting was at low altitude, which is one of the reasons the Soviets did well with the P-40 and (especially) the P-39).

But the 109E in particular was so outclassed by even the earliest P-40 (RAF designation Tomahawk) that the arrival of the latter aircraft in the North African Theater accelerated the retirement of the 'Emil' and it's replacement by the 'Franz'.

The 109F2 restored parity briefly, and the 109F4 was sufficiently superior to the Tomahawk in speed and climb rate that the Luftwaffe regained a qualitative edge, but this was rebalanced by the arrival of the faster, heavily armed Kittyhawk (P-40E) in 1942. The pendulum swung back again with the eventual arrival of the Gustav (109G), but by then Spitfires had begun arriving in Theater and the Axis was collapsing in North Africa.

Consensus among pilots was that the P-40 was more maneuverable than the 109, but a little slower, equal in the dive but inferior in climb. There are about 5 recent interviews with Soviet pilots which go into a lot of detail about it, also comparing numerous other allied fighters, here:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...akov/index.htm

G.

[Galloglaich]

Speaking of which, on an earlier topic, I found this cool interview with a former Soviet pilot who fought against the Americans in the Korean war:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...cles/index.htm

[Stephen_E]

What German AFV can stand toe to toe with the Su-100?

Define "toe to toe".

Germans:

Pz IVs, Panthers, and a few (very few) Tigers and super-heavies.

Soviets:

T-34/85 (far superior to all versions of the Pz IV), large numbers of JS-II and JS-III's, backed up by Su-100's and ISU-122's etc.

Yes, the T34/85 was superior to all versions of the Pz IV, until it broke down. The chassis was designed to handle the 85mm and the stress shortened the life of the vehicle considerably. But yes it was still a magnificiant AFV.
JS-II came in service Apr 44, the JS-III never saw service in WW2 as far as can be autehticated.

Soviet AFVs also had a common flaw for most models in that they were cramped for the crew (cramped by AFV standards) which resulted in slower fire rate amongst other things.

Also, as for the King Tiger et al, the Schwer Panzer companies were never large, there weren't a lot of Tiger I made either, they were always meant to be a kind of fire brigade. They had enough of the Tiger II's to be tactically significant, Joachim Pipers force in the Ardennes Offensive were mostly Royal Tigers, and though they did well for a few days, they rather predictably ran out of gas.

Running out of gas was rather predictable because by that time the entire german war machine was running on the smell of an oily rag! That's not something you can lay on the Tiger II as a design flaw.


Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

And I note that the SU-100 went into mass production sept 44.

So lets compare it to the Tiger II that came out around that period.
I'd rather be in the Tiger II. I have little doubt who had the advantage in 1 on 1 combat.

Of course by war end 2300 SU-100's had been built compared to less than 500 Tiger II's.
It's like Tiger I's vs T34/85. I there favoured field of war the Tiger would eat a T34/85, but it wouldn't be facing a single T34/85. As a general rule of thumb the soviets would have significant numerical advantage, combined with varying terrain conditions, sooner or later the T34 would get close enough to get in the kill range, or simply get a lucky hit.

Stephen E

PS. Thanks for the video link.

[Stephen_E]

Germans:

Pz IVs, Panthers, and a few (very few) Tigers and super-heavies.

Soviets:

T-34/85 (far superior to all versions of the Pz IV), large numbers of JS-II and JS-III's, backed up by Su-100's and ISU-122's etc.

Interesting use of language -
"a few (very few) Tigers "
1347 Tiger 1, 492 Tiger II
"large numbers of JS-II and JS-III's"
3,800 IS-II, 0 IS-III.

Stephen E

[Subotei]

Germans do have a reputation for always trying to build high quality stuff after all.

If it wasn't for such high quality stuff, the allied would've easily rolled over the german lines and ended the war much sooner.

Not necessarily so - British intellegence got a good picture of what german radar capabilities were, because captured radar equipment showed engineering refinement much greater than needed to do the job they were currently being employed to do, allowing countermeasures to be developed in advance: good enough is just as good as best.

The german war machine was an odd beast, whilst their finest units were second to none in terms of equipment, 90% of the army was unmechanised, essentially World War One standard, with a few improvements. This meant that whilst they had a cutting edge, in a long war their advantage very quickly fell away once industrial might of the allies was fully engaged.

Personally I don't think the war could've ended much sooner than it did, purely for logistical reasons - until the western allied forces were engaged on the ground in large numbers, Hitler could've held out against the Soviets - it was the concerted action in June 44 by the allies on the Eastern and Western fronts which finally broke the back of German resistance. Therefore I think the biggest constraints on the end date of the war was (1) tackling u-boats and (2) building ships to carry US arms and troops to Europe in sufficent quantities to sustain the fight, rather than quality of particular weapons systems.

[Subotei]

The Stuka was a very serviceable plane even if outdated, it proved difficult to replace for some reason. While the Germans controlled the air they could operate them. The old bi-plane ground attack Henschel Hs 123 gave very good service on the Russian Front (being able to operate from rough fields, and in all sorts of weather). The German air force was built around tactical support of the army. So, long range strategic bombing was something it was not really prepared for. This problem first showed up during the Battle of Britain.

The Stukas suffered heavily in the Battle of Britain as they were effectively obsolete with modern fighters around - they particularly suffered due to the fact they were too slow for 109s to escort them effectively - 109s had to fly slow and zig-zag which made them more likely to be bounced by the British fighters. Losses were so high they had to be kept back from the battle - they were the only air weapon likely to be effective against the British fleet, and so sufficient numbers needed to be available for protection of the invasion fleet.

109s and 110s of Erprobungsgruppe 210, delivering low level pin point attacks, were much more effective, though thankfully few in number.

Yes the lack of a strategic bomber was a hindrance to Germany, but effective tactics could've overcome this perhaps - they were not intending to bomb Britain into submission, only suppress air defences to allow the invasion to go ahead.

'The Most Dangerous Enemy' by Stephen Bungay gives a good account of the battle and the effectiveness of the planes and tactics employed. I recommend it to anyone who is interested.

[Dervag]

Considering that the germans managed to slow down the allied forces for one year despite being horribly outresourced, outnumbered, and their main leader diving deeper and deeper into madness and making horrible strategic decisions , I believe that kinda shows the germans had indeed superior training and equipment. And heck, most WWII war books I readed agree with that. The war in Africa was won mainly because the allied used their air superiority to cripple the supply lines of the germans, meaning they ended up running out of fuel, ammo and spare parts.

Yes, and a good WWII simulation (tabletop or computer) should reflect that. Logistics should matter, close air support should matter. Superior training and equipment should matter too, but if the Germans get statistical advantages in a sim because of their superior training, the Allies should get advantages for superior numbers (like units with more hit points because replacements are easier to find, or because an Allied armored division has more tanks than a German panzer division, and so on).

Germans do have a reputation for always trying to build high quality stuff after all.

If it wasn't for such high quality stuff, the allied would've easily rolled over the german lines and ended the war much sooner.

The problem comes when the Germans perform ahistorically well in the games if you give them their historical order of battle.

The German reputation has been greatly enhanced by the tendency (in both East and West) to build them up as the Great Terrible Monsters that Our Heroic Ancestors only just barely managed to stop before they Conquered The World.

They were tough, but they weren't quite that tough.

You are right, it was squads not platoons, my mistake, and yes it is a simplification. My understanding is that German tactics focused on the proper placement of the squad MG, and the riflemen all revolved around that. This doesn't rule out an assault to secure a good position, or deny it to the enemy, just that this was done to better position the MG.

This is fairly reasonable; heavy weapons make up most of an infantry force's firepower even today.

Anyway, we could talk tactics all day long (if you want an example of aggressive tactics take a look at Italian doctrine, and Japanese practice). My point (and I think we are in agreement), was that while these little technical differences are interesting, in the big picture they're not that important.

The Japanese are famous for it; could you expand on Italian doctrine?

Small arms...
The Germans were using the Mauser K-98, essentially a WW I bolt-action, good in certain respects, but hopelessly inferior for close combat. They came up with some good SMGs and Assault Rifles by the end of the war, but they tended to be overly expensive (difficult to make) and came too little, too-late.

MP-40?

The Stuka, revolutionary and a critical part of the German war machine in the early days of the war, was obsolete by 1941 and yet, remained their primary tactical bomber. Their other (medium) bombers ranged from average (Ju-88) to mediocre (He 111) in quality by international standards. They never developed an effective heavy bomber.

Their doctrine never called for an effective heavy bomber; Germany never really tried to build up a strategic bomber force beyond the Napkinwaffe level, with reason. Their main opponents at every step of the way were their neighbors on a continental land mass, so land warfare and the aircraft to support it trumped strategic bombing.

The best ground-attack aircraft of the war was the Il-2 Sturmovik, bar-none. The best bomber was probably the British Mosquito.

...Best bomber for what, though? For precision raids, yes, very much so. For flattening strategic targets too extensive to be taken down in a lone raid? Not so sure.

By 1942, the T-34 and KV "Pwnd" the Pz III and the PZ IV, which was the reason for the development of the Tiger and the Panther.

I'm not sure it was that so much as that they had qualitative parity (or marginal superiority)... combined with quantitative superiority. Also, this analysis neglects the large number of Russian light tanks (the BT-7 does not get nearly enough respect, in my opinion).

Personally I don't think the war could've ended much sooner than it did, purely for logistical reasons - until the western allied forces were engaged on the ground in large numbers, Hitler could've held out against the Soviets - it was the concerted action in June 44 by the allies on the Eastern and Western fronts which finally broke the back of German resistance. Therefore I think the biggest constraints on the end date of the war was (1) tackling u-boats and (2) building ships to carry US arms and troops to Europe in sufficent quantities to sustain the fight, rather than quality of particular weapons systems.

Hmm. Are you sure? The Germans were already falling back alarming far and fast by spring 1944. While action by the Western Allies was probably necessary to give the Soviets an opening, I'm not sure a direct invasion of continental Europe was.

On the other hand, the only other major offensive-boosting efforts the Western Allies took were the campaign to support Russia with American-made goods (which probably hit full speed in 1942-43, I... think), and the air offensive, which wasn't going to be ready until 1944 any more than the Normandy landings were.

[Galloglaich]

Define "toe to toe".

I'll quote from the Wiki:

"The SU-100 quickly proved itself to be among the best self-propelled anti-tank guns of World War II, able to penetrate 125 mm of vertical armor from a range of 2,000 metres and sloped 85-mm front armor of "Panther" from 1,500 metres. This was quite capable of defeating any German tank in service, for which Soviet soldiers gave it the obscene nickname "Pizdets vsemu" ("F-------g end to anything")[1]."

Also front armor was 75mm sloped, equivallent to the hull armor on a Panther, and like most Soviet AFV's, it was much faster than all the German tanks, the Su-100 was particularly fast, about twice as fast off-road as any German tank except the Pz II.

G.

Yes, the T34/85 was superior to all versions of the Pz IV, until it broke down. The chassis was designed to handle the 85mm and the stress shortened the life of the vehicle considerably. But yes it was still a magnificiant AFV.

The T-34 / 85 was much more reliable than German tanks, especiall the Tiger!

JS-II came in service Apr 44, the JS-III never saw service in WW2 as far as can be autehticated.

True on the JS-III, my bad.

Soviet AFVs also had a common flaw for most models in that they were cramped for the crew (cramped by AFV standards) which resulted in slower fire rate amongst other things.

The Soviet tanks also had less ammo typically, and fewer of them had radios and the radios weren't as good, and they had inferior sighting systems and rangefinders.

But on the other hand, vastly superior cross-country mobility, usually better armor. And in the case of the Su-100, T-34 / 85, and Js II, much more powerful guns than their equivalent opponents. The mobility, armor and the guns proved ultimately more important than crew comfort.

G.

[Galloglaich]

The Stukas suffered heavily in the Battle of Britain as they were effectively obsolete with modern fighters around - they particularly suffered due to the fact they were too slow for 109s to escort them effectively - 109s had to fly slow and zig-zag which made them more likely to be bounced by the British fighters. Losses were so high they had to be kept back from the battle - they were the only air weapon likely to be effective against the British fleet, and so sufficient numbers needed to be available for protection of the invasion fleet.

Agreed. Exactly. A bomber which requires total local air superority to operate is a pretty lousy bomber. The Fighter-bombers used by the Western Allies were far more effective both for tactical and operational missions... p-47, P-38, Typhoon, Tempest et al. Long range, fast, good enough performance to get in and out without being interecepted, capable of defending themselves if they were.

Yes the lack of a strategic bomber was a hindrance to Germany, but effective tactics could've overcome this perhaps - they were not intending to bomb Britain into submission, only suppress air defences to allow the invasion to go ahead.

Not just a lack of a Strategic bomber, since Strategic bombing was of questionable value actually in much of the waar, but lack of an Operational or Theater bomber to effectively interfere with enemy supply lines and communications near the battlefield was a major problem; meanwhile their own supply lines and communications were being severely disrupted. This was a big setback for the Germans from the mid part of the war onward.

An aircraft like a Mosquito, a Pe-2 'Peshka', or even an A-20 or B-26 would have been of immense value to the Germans by 1942. The JU-88 wasn't quite there, and it's replacements Ju-288 and Ju-388 had design flaws and production problems which ultimately prevented them from being effective replacements. The Stuka wasn't even in the ballpark.

As a specialized dive-bomber, the Stuka was out-classed by both the Japanese Aichi D3A and the US Dauntless, IMO. Generally fighters seem to have made the best tactical bombers. The Germans did use the Fw-190 this way somewhat, and it was quite effective in the 'Jabo' role, but utlimately they needed them all for air-defense.

The Germans finally developed a decent specialized ground attack aricraft in the Hs-129

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hs_129

Another interesting bomber, the Italian tri-motor torpedo armed Sm 79, very long range, maneuverable, pretty fast, and reasonably well protected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.79

G.

[Galloglaich]

The problem comes when the Germans perform ahistorically well in the games if you give them their historical order of battle.

I think in the relativley accurate games (Combat Mission, Steel Panthers) they did account for this well enough, it's not just numbers but other allied advantages like having more mechanised troops, more mobility in their AFV's (which combined with things like gyrostabilizers actually gives US tanks something of an advanntage in close fighting scenarios) artillery and etc., and the firepower of the allied infantry (especially US)

The German reputation has been greatly enhanced by the tendency (in both East and West) to build them up as the Great Terrible Monsters that Our Heroic Ancestors only just barely managed to stop before they Conquered The World.

They were tough, but they weren't quite that tough.

I think that is a good point. We need to keep in mind the Germans haven't won a war since the 1880s.

MP-40?

I'll quote from the Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP-40

"Despite the impression given by popular culture, particularly in war films, MP 40s were generally issued only to paratroopers and platoon and squad leaders;[citation needed] the majority of German soldiers carried Karabiner 98k rifles. However, later experience with Soviet tactics - where entire units armed with submachine guns outgunned their German counterparts in short range urban combat - caused a shift in tactics, and by the end of the war the MP 40 and its derivatives were being issued to entire assault platoons on a limited basis."

Their doctrine never called for an effective heavy bomber; Germany never really tried to build up a strategic bomber force beyond the Napkinwaffe level, with reason. Their main opponents at every step of the way were their neighbors on a continental land mass, so land warfare and the aircraft to support it trumped strategic bombing.

Per above... there is a distinction between having a Strategic bomber force and an Operatinal bomber force; having obsolete bombers which can only operate within the (very very short) range of your fighters is a huge weakness.

...Best bomber for what, though? For precision raids, yes, very much so. For flattening strategic targets too extensive to be taken down in a lone raid? Not so sure.

best overall bomber. Mosquitos could fly from UK to Germany with 4,000 bomb load with a cruise speed of 370 mph!!! They were used to do heavy 'strategic' type bombing range, many special precision raids like hitting prisons and gestapo HQ etc., marking targets for heavy bombers, and also tactical bombing and day and night intruder missions, disrupting communication etc.

They carried a lot of bombs by WW II standards, they were so fast that they were hard to kill, they had considerable precision in their strikes (much, much better than the Strategic bombers), and they had incredible range.

The Mosquito was many orders of magnitude superior to any German bomber.

I'm not sure it was that so much as that they had qualitative parity (or marginal superiority)... combined with quantitative superiority.

That is probably a fair statement I think. But also, when comparing armor and guns, where it may be parity, you also have to consider things like off-road mobility where the Russians were clearly superior, and mechanical reliability.

Also, this analysis neglects the large number of Russian light tanks (the BT-7 does not get nearly enough respect, in my opinion).

I like the BT-7 too (it has an interesting design history!), and even the T-60, but i don't think they were hugely better than their German equivalents, they were faster and the BT-7 had a bigger gun but IIRC poor armor and apparently difficult command and control due to their small turrets...? they were also used more in the early part of the war (before the T-34 etc.) I think (?) which was when the Soviet army was still much inferior to the Germans in organization and discipline etc.

BT-7 is a cool tank though, I want one for my daily commute

Hmm. Are you sure? The Germans were already falling back alarming far and fast by spring 1944. While action by the Western Allies was probably necessary to give the Soviets an opening, I'm not sure a direct invasion of continental Europe was.

On the other hand, the only other major offensive-boosting efforts the Western Allies took were the campaign to support Russia with American-made goods (which probably hit full speed in 1942-43, I... think), and the air offensive, which wasn't going to be ready until 1944 any more than the Normandy landings were.

Well put. The Germans didn't really win a major battle after Stalingrad in 1942. I think the most impotant US contribution was in arming the Soviets, particulalry with tanks and fighter aircraft which played a major role during the key pivotal time in the middle of the war, during Stalingrad and the siege of Leningrad etc. and with Trucks. Having relatively mobile armies was a huge advantage for the allies.

G.

[Galloglaich]

1347 Tiger 1, 492 Tiger II
"large numbers of JS-II and JS-III's"
3,800 IS-II, 0 IS-III.

Stephen E

Yes but the Tigers were being used in three theaters, Italy, Western Europe, and the East, so you can (very roughly) divide that number by 3, and they lost a lot more tigers, (especally tiger IIs) to mechanical failure or being unable to drive over bridges etc. than the Soviets did with the JS-II.

I think if you compare the numbers operational in the Eastern front at any one time it's a much sharper disparity. A couple of thousand JS-IIs, a couple of hundred Tigers.

Also the T-34/ 85 could actually kill Tigers, weras the PZ IV had no chance against a JS II.

According to the film clip i linked to, General Manteuffel himself said that the JS II was superior to the Tiger I, he beat them through superior generalship. Unfortunately for the Germans the gap in quality of their officers was narrowing rapidly as the war progessed as well as the ratio of quality of their AFV's.

I'm not trying to bash the Germans, they had outstanding equipment, I just think the history we get through military history enthusiasts and mainstream education tends to really downplay the role of the Soviets in the war generally, and the remarkable quality of their armor and fighter aircraft in the last two years of the war in particular.


G.

[Subotei]

Hmm. Are you sure? The Germans were already falling back alarming far and fast by spring 1944. While action by the Western Allies was probably necessary to give the Soviets an opening, I'm not sure a direct invasion of continental Europe was.

On the other hand, the only other major offensive-boosting efforts the Western Allies took were the campaign to support Russia with American-made goods (which probably hit full speed in 1942-43, I... think), and the air offensive, which wasn't going to be ready until 1944 any more than the Normandy landings were.

Yes, I think so. In the East the Germans had space and time to conduct defensive manoevers and counter-offensives, and also could call on reserves from the West. Once they were engaged in Normandy, they couldn't afford to fall back there, as the allies would be into the key industrial heart of Germany within weeks, and so had to commit forces to battle. Neither could they then release reserves to shore up the East when the Soviets attacked later that June. D-day made further prolonged resistance impossible, as from then on German forces were spread too thin.

I have read somewhere that the strategic bomber offensive wasn't worth the effort - if the resources were put into ship building (which the allies were always chronically lacking) and air logistical support, the war could've ended quicker. Not sure I agree with that though, for a number of reasons I wont go into.

[fusilier]

The data is available, actually, in detail. That is what they used to make the penetration tables in the board game Advanced Squad Leader, which in turn is what a lot of the armor based computer games were closely based on (like Steel Panthers, Combat Mission, and Command and Conquer)

G.

Are these proving ground conditions, or results from battlefield studies? Both of which can suffer from different flaws. If enough data is available, you can put this together, but a wargame designer has to a.) find the data if it exists, or b.) make it up if it doesn't (and you can try some sort of mathematical analysis, but even that requires a ton of data), and c.) put it into a game framework that works. ASL certainly works, but that doesn't mean everybody wants to play it . . .

At higher levels of simulation, it's typically easier to abstract all this information into a "total unit effectiveness" value. Leading to a game that is both easier to play and accurate. At more detailed levels, I assume that various bias can and will more easily creep into the game design.