Why Allied & Soviet equipment was superior

[plan_D]

The STG.44 over a M1 Garand could easily be considered a small technological advantage, compared to the nuclear bomb - which is a huge advantage. But equipping your unit with the STG.44 makes them a better unit than that equipped with the Garand.

The immobile Tiger with optical equipment would defeat the mobile Tiger without at 3,000 metres. It's simple , while the mobile Tiger is getting close enough to aim without any aids ... the optical-equipped Tiger is shooting accurately on a stable platform.

Soviet troops late in the war were not much better than those early in the war. Since the vast majority of those that gained experience would die in battle because of faulty tactics. The overall grand strategy of the Red Army changed, that's what made it better. Even in 1945 a few German AFVs could rout whole groups of Soviets ... so much for élite and experienced.

Crash landing a plane, and landing a plane normally is something quite different. There's plenty of crash landed Spitfires that are intact ... it's not hard to fly, land or take-off a Spitfire.

And I believe I stated that the T-34 was better than those types !

Expecting something, and intending something are completely different. The Germans knew nothing of the T-34 pre-war time ... or at least, very little. They knew, however, that the vast majority of the Red Army armour was made up of the T-26 - which was inferior to the Pz.Kpfw III .
The Soviet inspectors of the German factories made no indication directly to the Germans about the inadequecy of their technology. The "tip-off" came when the Soviet inspectors did not believe the Pz.Kpfw IV was the heaviest of the German vehicles - this rang alarm bells in the Waffenamt.

Those are not technologies taken from the Pz.Kpfw III ! They just realised that the Pz.Kpfw III was better in those areas - so improved the T-34 to best it ... ! And the T-34 was never comfortable in relative terms to the German and Allied vehicles !

The Churchill was terrible in icy conditions though ! The 6th Coldstream Guards captured a Panther G during the Ardennes offensive, and stated it made a mockery of the Churchill in the icy conditions - as the Churchills slid off the road, the Panther stuck to it like glue ... !

The Panther suffered from lack of material - it was still more than capable of withstanding both Soviet and Allied armour ... and was, in fact superior to both !

The IS-2 ... all the way through it's production was unhardened ... and it was to keep the production high. Face hardening armour takes a long time !

How would the L/60 done anything !? The armour would have still been diverted - the armour would have still got stuck - the supplies would have still been inadequete . The troops would have still frozen ... they would have still not taken Moscow - 'cos the armour wouldn't have been there to do it ! Sure , with the L/60 the Germans would have had an easier time - no doubt about that ... but in no way would it have won the war ... !

We're talking military situation , not the politics of the Nazi party - Germany needed fighting people, so the Volksturm were used. The British Home Guard never saw action - many were old, and many were young. Would we hold it against Britian if they had to be used !?

[the lancaster kicks ass]

It is true and it was a DO-17

my mistake........

[schwarzpanzer]

PlanD:

Thanks, the nuke would be a big advantage, yes.

I would probably not choose the StG44 over the M1 Garand, even for close combat!


It depends if the Tiger sans optical aids could still hit a target...

the vast majority of those that gained experience would die in battle because of faulty tactics.

After '43 tactics in the UUSR were much improved. Guerilla tactics etc replaced pointless charges etc.

Even in 1945 a few German AFVs could rout whole groups of Soviets ... so much for élite and experienced.

Also vice-versa.

It is said that Stalin learned to be more like Hitler and Hitler learned to be more like Stalin.

While Germany was copying Maginot Line-style WW1 tactics, Stalin was using BlitzKrieg and Guerilla warfare.

Also add to this the material and production advantages the Soviets enjoyed...

There's plenty of crash landed Spitfires that are intact

More so with Me109's? Did the pilots survive these crashes? Any details?

it's not hard to fly, land or take-off a Spitfire.

It's very easy, but landing is a bit dodgy.

They knew, however, that the vast majority of the Red Army armour was made up of the T-26 - which was inferior to the Pz.Kpfw III .

True and true.


The Kurile Islands and Winter wars caused a bit of bother; The Japanese were scared of the Soviets and because the Finns handled the Soviets so roughly, Hitler thought they'd be a pushover (which they very nearly were).

The "tip-off" came when the Soviet inspectors did not believe the Pz.Kpfw IV was the heaviest of the German vehicles - this rang alarm bells in the Waffenamt.

Some influential people thought they Soviets were bluffing and to be honest I can't blame them.

I know Guderian believed it though.

Those are not technologies taken from the Pz.Kpfw III ! They just realised that the Pz.Kpfw III was better in those areas - so improved the T-34 to best it ... !

It's similar for the T34 and the Panther - they certainly influenced each other.

And the T-34 was never comfortable in relative terms to the German and Allied vehicles !

That's true.

Yeah, I can understand 'Cuckoo' being better on hard ground, but then again - so would the Maus.

I agree with your views on the Panther to a point. To me the Late Panther G was the best or equal best tank in WW2.

The IS-2 ... all the way through it's production was unhardened ... and it was to keep the production high.

It was for early versions, then it was realised that the time saved just wasn't worth it.

The armour would have still been diverted - the armour would have still got stuck - the supplies would have still been inadequete . The troops would have still frozen ... they would have still not taken Moscow - 'cos the armour wouldn't have been there to do it !

True, but I think that there would have been a lot less pre-Barbarossa deaths, morale would have been improved and numbers higher.

Germany would then maybe not have been as reliant on the Finns?

The Moscow counter-attack could even maybe been stopped?

A few other counter-attacks would also maybe have been stopped in their tracks and those that were anyway would very likely have had lower German mortality rates.

Would we hold it against Britian if they had to be used !?

A good point, but I doubt any refusers would have had the SS or Gestapo systematically executing them on the streets and hanging placards round their necks as they dangled from lampposts?

- Or would they?...

Dad's Army was about voluntarily defending a country and millenia old ways of life, not being forced to protect some insane Political Ideaology that was obviously on the way out.

"If the German people are incapable of winning the war, then let them rot"

"There can be no Civilians..."

- Adolf Hitler

[plan_D]

Don't choose the STG.44 , and get beaten. It's a well known fact the STG.44 was a great weapon, and would have been much appreciated in all armies.

Tiger optical equipment was ranged up to 5,000 metres, it could well easily hit another Tiger at 3,000 metres.

True, the Red Army had improved tactically but it did not replace mass charges. The only difference was that now, the charges were mobile and the armoured rushes were more co-ordinated.

No, not vice-versa. German troops never had enough to be routed by inferior numbered forces. The Red Army always out-numbered the opposing Wehrmacht , and more often than not the Germans would not rout unless in a hopeless situation. In some circumstances, even then, they'd hold ground.

The Wehrmacht never, ever, ever adopted trench-warfare tactics. Read a book or two, and you'll come across the term "elastic defence" which the Germans used throughout the entirety of the war.

Where are your details for the Bf-109 being more survivable in a crash landing? There's no reports of the Spitfire being any harder to land than any other aircraft. It gave a decent stall warning and had a low landing speed - excellent characteristics for a good landing aircraft.

They may have been influenced , but only because they realised what the enemy had was better ! There's nothing taken from the Pz.Kpfw III that was put on the T-34.

Show me where it says the IS-2 was face-hardened ! Everywhere I have read, the problem remained throughout it's production. And I've provided quotes in the past - obviously you didn't take them on board.

Germany , reliant on the Finnish !? Since when !?! Where do you read this dribble !? Oh right , so the Pz.Kpfw III equipped with the L/60 despite the fact it was still inferior to the T-34 ... was going to stop A) Panzer divisions getting stuck B) Tanks that it still couldn't destroy ... !

The German people mostly volunteered - they were defending their nation from the hordes of Bolsheviks looking to destroy Germany and it's people !

[loomaluftwaffe]

also to destroy the bolsheviks, u see, Germany wanted to attack and destroy the Bolsheviks

and ive seen pictures which said "another conscript doing drills"

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Schwarzpanzer

I would probably not choose the StG44 over the M1 Garand, even for close combat!

If you've ever had the oppotunity to try both, then oh yes you would ! (Unless you have a death wish ofcause )

[CurzonDax]

USSR and US equipment can also be seen from this point of view too. We all agree for example that the US made a lot of everything, right? To a certain point I agree that simplicity was a good thing. Shermans for example were Tiger food but when, for example you compare maintence records and getting them back into combat after being damaged or "destroyed", the Sherman has a record that can't be beat. Therefore no matter how good or bad the Tiger/Panthers were there would still be more Shermans on the battlefield that one could shake a stick at. Simplicity here was lives sacrificed for numbers and it worked and I really don't have a problem with it. Also if you look at the post war record of US infantry weapons in low intensity wars, until the advent of the AK family of ARs, were US infantry weapons because again of thier simplicity.

But...

The US and the USSR could over-engeneer the crap out of equipment that all of us have agreed on other lists was the "best". Again look at another piece of US equipment the Corsair. I have read many accounts from Tommy Blackburn to Pappy Boyington to French pilots, that the Corsair while loved was WAY too overengeneered. Too much junk to watch, worry, and fool with. It was a complex machine in many aspects compared to a 109G or even Tonys and even Raidens. I think it was in Blackburn's auto bio that it was amazing that they had as good as a maintenance record as they did considering how complex these machines were and where they were deployed to before they were used on USN carriers.

My two yen

:{)

[schwarzpanzer]

Regards the M1 Garand vs the StG44:

The StG had it's flaws; it was not comfortable and had a pathetic fore and butt stock.

The Garand was better at ranges over 600m.

At point blank the .30 is going to do serious damage, as is the 7.92 Kurz.

As a Universal gun, both were good weapons - the Garand being more common.

It's like the M16 vs SLR debate.

Unless it was at night, or for long distances both were about equal, the StG having the advantages of full-auto and lighter ammo.


PlanD:

The Red Army always out-numbered the opposing Wehrmacht

You can't make blanket statements like that! Tikhvin-Volkhov, Krasnoe Sero and that incident where 1 T34 smashed 3 KonigsTiger's in -5minutes. IMO simply comparing isolated incidents like this is pointless.

The Wehrmacht never, ever, ever adopted trench-warfare tactics. Read a book or two, and you'll come across the term "elastic defence" which the Germans used throughout the entirety of the war.

Yes it did, but I guess elastic or offensive overall.


The box spar, bulkhead construction of the Me109 with it's landing gear forces being fed into the fuselage makes sense. If I find the source again, I'll notify you.

Surely you must have heard of the 'classic Spitfire bounce'??

It gave a decent stall warning and had a low landing speed

Yes, the 2nd point... well from his account they didn't exactly land that slowly. - suppose it's not that funny really, boy I'm macabre!

Show me where it says the IS-2 was face-hardened !

It's not a case of none were face hardened, it's just that a limited number were not bothered with to save time/cost. The Germans also did this at times. Show me where it says the KonigsTiger and Panther were face-hardened .

Everywhere I have read, the problem remained throughout it's production.

The ones with the sloping Glacis (JS2M to Westerners) were all face-hardened, to my knowledge.

And I've provided quotes in the past - obviously you didn't take them on board.

They were obviously biased, that's why. Though there is truth in the matter and quality was never brilliant.

Germany , reliant on the Finnish !?

I didn't mean completely reliant, obviously. I just meant a little too much.

B) Tanks that it still couldn't destroy ... !

The PzIII J (& even G) could destroy a T34 (harder if it was a pre-'41 model with a good crew, but what are the chances of that?)

The German people mostly volunteered - they were defending their nation from the hordes of Bolsheviks looking to destroy Germany and it's people !

True, but a lot weren't. Obviously German; Communists, partisans, objectors or cowards fall into this category.


CurzonDax:

Therefore no matter how good or bad the Tiger/Panthers were there would still be more Shermans on the battlefield that one could shake a stick at.

That's right. If even the worlds best hunter aims at 2 rabbits - he's going to miss both!

Simplicity here was lives sacrificed for numbers and it worked and I really don't have a problem with it.

Simplicity I agree with, but the technology gap and waste of life I believe to be one of the most horrific parts of the war, 2nd only to the atrocities.

Also if you look at the post war record of US infantry weapons in low intensity wars, until the advent of the AK family of ARs, were US infantry weapons because again of thier simplicity.

Most weapons were like that, only trendy fads are blighting modern weapons IMHO.


I wouldn't think the Corsair was more complicated than the Me109?

- but then again the way I think familiarizes me more with the Me109.


Again is user-friendliness, I actually would choose a Weaver sight over a Zeiss as I find it easier to get along with.

If I had to keep swapping rifles, I suppose the Zeiss would be far better.

- That's a point; if all Zeiss' were the same, but the Weaver's variable - that's a win for the Zeiss. What was Whitforth's Theory called anyone? - I forget.

[elmilitaro]

Couldn't have said it better.

[plan_D]

Regards the M1 Garand vs the StG44:
The StG had it's flaws; it was not comfortable and had a pathetic fore and butt stock.
The Garand was better at ranges over 600m.
At point blank the .30 is going to do serious damage, as is the 7.92 Kurz.
As a Universal gun, both were good weapons - the Garand being more common.
It's like the M16 vs SLR debate.
Unless it was at night, or for long distances both were about equal, the StG having the advantages of full-auto and lighter ammo.

This is beyond absurd, the STG.44 is quite clearly the superior combat weapon. The StG.44 was able in any given situation , and ask any combat soldier which weapon they'd take into Europe; it'd be the StG.44 everytime.

The StG.44 has all advantages over the M1 Garand. It's nothing like comparing the SLR to the M-16. Since the SLR holds it's own side by having superior firepower to the M-16, being more reliable than the M-16, being sturdier than the M-16 amongst other aspects. The StG.44 matches the Garand in single-shot firepower , and it has automatic fire giving it fire superiority !

You can't make blanket statements like that! Tikhvin-Volkhov, Krasnoe Sero and that incident where 1 T34 smashed 3 KonigsTiger's in -5minutes. IMO simply comparing isolated incidents like this is pointless.

Isolated incidents like this? You mean combats against these vehicles? Combat is the best test for any vehicle of war , are you not going to use it's test paper and mark it to see how good the tanks were? Possibly because the German vehicles will come out on top time, and time, and time again.

The only reason the Wehrmacht out-numbered the Red Army during the Tikhvin actions was because the Wehrmacht had smashed the Red Army in the offensives preceding those actions. And even then the action was blown well out of proportion , the German Army mostly escaped the encirclement when the Red Army advanced on Tikhvin !

I haven't heard much of Krasnoe Sero , but I do know it was September 1944. Which, I assume made it part of The Battle of Dukla Pass - which would mean the Germans were out-numbered. Especially since during Operation Bagration , the Red Army had the Wehrmacht beat with a 10:1 numercial advantage in armour !

And what incident was that then !? Maybe a source and story for us all to read.

When did the German forces adopt trench warfare ?! If you say "they dug trenches" as part of your argument , you're stupid.

The box spar, bulkhead construction of the Me109 with it's landing gear forces being fed into the fuselage makes sense. If I find the source again, I'll notify you.

Surely you must have heard of the 'classic Spitfire bounce'??

I'm sure I will be waiting a long time for this 'source' - as both Soren and I have been waiting for many of your sources and pictures.

Surely you could provide something in the way of evidence of this 'classic Spitfire bounce' ? Since all aircraft bounce !

Yes, the 2nd point... well from his account they didn't exactly land that slowly. - suppose it's not that funny really, boy I'm macabre!

From who's account ?

On the IS-2 :

Once again, you're nit-picking at single sentences and it's irritating.

You have not proven my sources on the quality of the IS-2 with any sources of your own . Simply calling my sources bias without any of your own that can disprove it makes your argument null and void. Get some evidence to back up you argument, then come back to me about the quality of the IS-2.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Schwarzpanzer, please lay off the crack.

[CurzonDax]

I wouldn't think the Corsair was more complicated than the Me109?

- but then again the way I think familiarizes me more with the Me109.

Oh yea. The 109 was a simple machine compared to the Corsair. Read either Blackburn's or some of the Blacksheep's comments. But on the other hand I think that was a major complaint that the Luftwaffe boys had about US aircraft, they were complex.

:{)

[loomaluftwaffe]

3 109s could be built at 1 G55, look at the production nos of the 109! its almost as much as the IL-2! and ese of production was one of the reqs of the RLM

[GregP]

hard to use, then you are a Hey, if you find a K98 hard to use, then you are a klutz. It is one of the easiest to use rifles in the world.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ive shot the K98 and found it a pleasure to shoot.