|
I always wonder why people bitch so much about using biplanes to attack big rear end battleship given it worked.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
There's a pretty insane desire by people to prove that German stuff was the best of the best.wdarkk posted:Somebody posted a diagram of the Bismarck's armor scheme in the WoWS thread. Long story short it's not good. Amusingly enough there's an idiot on the WoWS forums that's been arguing that the Bismarck had an incredible armor scheme (relying upon the old canard of her being scuttled) and that the Iowa's armor scheme was horrible (esp. compared to the NorCals)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Better was before we cleared up that the South Dakota's armor layout wasn't the Alaska's. When he thought the South Dakota's armor layout was the Alaska's he kept trying to argue it was better armored than the Iowa because it didn't have an internal belt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Amusingly enough there's an idiot on the WoWS forums that's been arguing that the Bismarck had an incredible armor scheme (relying upon the old canard of her being scuttled) and that the Iowa's armor scheme was horrible (esp. compared to the NorCals) It was scuttled because the British had been blasting it at point blank range straight across rather than sending shots through floatation. Dorsetshire only landed two torpedo hits, and Rodney one (literally the only torpedo hit landed by a battleship on a battleship). It was going to sink eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:It was scuttled because the British had been blasting it at point blank range straight across rather than sending shots through floatation. Dorsetshire only landed two torpedo hits, and Rodney one (literally the only torpedo hit landed by a battleship on a battleship). It was going to sink eventually. BISMARK BEST BATTLESHIP NEVER DEFEATED IN COMBAT TIGER TANK BEST TANK NEVER PENETRATED IN COMBAT MESSERSCHMIDT BEST SCHMIDT NEVER SHOT DOWN
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Well, on the other hand, you end having a warmachine with 19th century rifles, infantry that isn't that mechanized or motorized, logistics pulled by horses, lovely tanks, no heavy bomber capacity, ships that aren't that good, that still took the greatest countries in the world for a six-year ride. I know I already asked what the Germans did right, but it still makes the rest of the world look like idiots for mucking about for so long. Plus, the Jerries just looked really, really cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Tell me about German planes. We talk a lot about German tanks in this thread, but I don't know that I've ever seen a post about what made German planes good or bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
dublish posted:Tell me about German planes. We talk a lot about German tanks in this thread, but I don't know that I've ever seen a post about what made German planes good or bad. Much like the tanks, the workhorses were designed in the 30s and then upgraded again and again until they were well past their prime, while there were a number of projects that tried, in best German fashion, to solve a difficult problem with an elegant and complicated solution. Like a strategic bomber that was also able to divebomb and tried to run two propellers on four engines. That worked about as well as you might imagine. There is really something about the Nazi approach to R&D that I find absolutely fascinating, this idea of trying to solve a problem in one single, massive blow. I mean things like the Maus, the Tiger series, the Amerikabombers, the V-weapons, the Do-335 and Ta-152 and so on. Projects that are incredibly complex and try to leapfrog several levels of technological progress. In the meantime, the frontline forces have to soldier on with equipment that is barely adequate because we just have to get this giant tank operational and then we'll win the war! It'll work any day now! I guess Hitler's desire for monumental buildings kinda plays into that. You can't just have a sort-of big meeting hall, it has to be visible from space! Maybe one of our facism experts can weigh in on whether that is something uniquely German, common to fascists or unique to German fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
So what you're saying is that Germans didn't like gradual solutions to problems, unless it came in upgrading their existing stuff, but only because they had to fill the gap until the Wunderwaffe kills all the commies forever? I still wonder what would have happened if they had just copypasted the T-34, but with German improvements (better radio? Optics? What were the Germans good at that Russians weren't) instead of going for the heavy medium tank, no side armor, lol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
JcDent posted:So what you're saying is that Germans didn't like gradual solutions to problems, unless it came in upgrading their existing stuff, but only because they had to fill the gap until the Wunderwaffe kills all the commies forever? Well, they did, and that was part of the problem. In a video that was posted in this thread about a week ago, one of the guys who wrote Shattered Sowrd mentioned that on average, every sixth Tiger featured a design change of some kind. Germany just could not stop tinkering, which meant they kept fielding all sorts of unreliable pieces of garbage that were impressive on paper but broke down ten feet away from the factory. Consider this: By 1944, every AFV the Soviet Union was building was based on one of three platforms: The T-70 (Long since retired, but the platform lived on in the cheap and plentiful SU-76), the T-34, and the IS. For the US, it was mostly the same-with the exception of the brand-new Pershing and Chaffee, everything being built was on the M3/M4 chassis. With German production, it was just a mess. You had Panthers. You had Panzer IVs. You had King Tigers. You had Hetzers. You had dozens of vehicles based on various chassis and hulls, all armed with all sorts of different guns that might have had the same caliber but couldn't share ammunition. For a country on its back foot fighting a losing war with limited resources, Germany made a lot of boneheaded decisions that, if anything, ended the war a few months earlier. Also I'm pretty sure that the Panther was originally a quasi-straight rip of most of the T-34's good design features before Hitler started doodling on the design plans, but I'd wait for EE or Cyrano to confirm before quoting me on that. Oh, and for a good insight on how hosed German production was (And to partially respond to dublish's post), there's a good pair of posts by a guy from AI in their Aeronautical Insanity thread on the Heinkel 219 'Owl' which goes into a bit of detail of how insane the German aircraft industry was. Fun times! Part One Part Two
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
dublish posted:Tell me about German planes. We talk a lot about German tanks in this thread, but I don't know that I've ever seen a post about what made German planes good or bad. It's much harder to mythologise German planes because they lost the battle of Britain, and everybody knows that, so the history channel can't spin it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Oh, and for a good insight on how hosed German production was (And to partially respond to dublish's post), there's a good pair of posts by a guy from AI in their Aeronautical Insanity thread on the Heinkel 219 'Owl' which goes into a bit of detail of how insane the German aircraft industry was. Fun times! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
drat, you'd need the combined efforts of Gary Grigsby and Paradox to make a game that would give sufficient freedom/simulation to try and win the war as third reich by fixing stuff right. Start in 1930, change Nazi policies and emphasis on Jews... and end the game with a Gay Black Hitler and How Nazi Were you counter. I have little clue how you'd do all the changes to party policy organically... or what how you make folkish and ruin architecture important, game impacting things. The war part would be easier, Grigsby would come up with a way to simulate Wehrmacht going to war with semi-auto rifles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
100 Years Ago This is the way the Konigsberg ends, both with a bang and a whimper. On Gallipoli the preparations for yet another battle make Kenneth Best lose his lunch (literally), and it's time to take a long and sad look at the generals who are arriving in theatre. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW0yPnGXFDU
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago jesus the captain of the königsberg was a tenacious motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Well, they did, and that was part of the problem. In a video that was posted in this thread about a week ago, one of the guys who wrote Shattered Sowrd mentioned that on average, every sixth Tiger featured a design change of some kind. Germany just could not stop tinkering, which meant they kept fielding all sorts of unreliable pieces of garbage that were impressive on paper but broke down ten feet away from the factory. Consider this: By 1944, every AFV the Soviet Union was building was based on one of three platforms: The T-70 (Long since retired, but the platform lived on in the cheap and plentiful SU-76), the T-34, and the IS. For the US, it was mostly the same-with the exception of the brand-new Pershing and Chaffee, everything being built was on the M3/M4 chassis. With German production, it was just a mess. You had Panthers. You had Panzer IVs. You had King Tigers. You had Hetzers. You had dozens of vehicles based on various chassis and hulls, all armed with all sorts of different guns that might have had the same caliber but couldn't share ammunition. For a country on its back foot fighting a losing war with limited resources, Germany made a lot of boneheaded decisions that, if anything, ended the war a few months earlier. Also I'm pretty sure that the Panther was originally a quasi-straight rip of most of the T-34's good design features before Hitler started doodling on the design plans, but I'd wait for EE or Cyrano to confirm before quoting me on that. Yes, Guderian wanted a T-34 clone, but German technology wasn't up to the task at the time. The first Daimler-Benz proposal for the 30-ton medium tank project was definitely "inspired" by the T-34. Observe.  The initial design is at the very bottom, version 2 is at the very top. It's basically a T-34 with some improvements, a lot of which are basically the same improvements that the Soviets made in the T-34M. The result was a nice solid tank, certainly no wunderwaffe, but very reasonable. MAN flipped their poo poo and put their lobbying pedal to the metal. Just look at that tank! Isn't it so very un-German? A forward turret, a transmission in the rear? That just won't do. Here, have a nice tank that's designed with traditional German values! Look, we'll seal the engine compartment so it can ford rivers (and so oil can pool on the bottom and catch fire, but don't tell anyone) and slap more armour on the front so it weighs 45 tons. And a bigger gun that can't do anything that the KwK 40 can't against existing tanks, but it sure is more expensive and cumbersom. Surely increasing the weight by 50% will have no problems for our superior suspension and drivetrain! Since things like logistics and feasibility aren't as sexy as thick armour and huge guns to laypersons, Hitler approved the poo poo out of the Panther, and you know the rest of the story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
I've read in a few places that one of the other reasons the Germans never made a direct T-34 knockoff was serious concern over friendly fire mistaking the German copy for actual Soviet T-34s. Dunno how much factual basis there is for that, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:jesus the captain of the königsberg was a tenacious motherfucker And he ain't done yet!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I've read in a few places that one of the other reasons the Germans never made a direct T-34 knockoff was serious concern over friendly fire mistaking the German copy for actual Soviet T-34s. Dunno how much factual basis there is for that, though. Guderian never mentioned that part in his memoirs, but I can see how it could be possible. I've seen reports of friendly fire on Pz38(t)s by people that confused them for T-34s, so I suppose that frightened gunners can confuse anything that's even vaguely similar for the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I've read in a few places that one of the other reasons the Germans never made a direct T-34 knockoff was serious concern over friendly fire mistaking the German copy for actual Soviet T-34s. Dunno how much factual basis there is for that, though. I can't comment on the veracity of the claim, but it sounds a bit unlikely because...  But I honestly doubt that there was a great difference in the occurence of friendly fire between captured equipment and German ones. The main safeguard is proper communication (including markings), you cannot solely rely on dumb grunts recognizing the tank model especially if the tank is camoflaged or visibility is poor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Wasn't there a story posted here a little while ago of an allied tank getting lost and managing to drive straight through a German-occupied town without any problem 'cause all the soldiers on the ground just saw "tank!" and assumed it was one of theirs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
dublish posted:Tell me about German planes. We talk a lot about German tanks in this thread, but I don't know that I've ever seen a post about what made German planes good or bad. I think I made an effort post about this a while back, probably more detail in there. I think the German aircraft industry in general was a pretty huge success, probably the best thing they did industrially during the war. The 109 was a pretty brilliant design in most respects and when it got hooked up with the DB600 engines it was a real world beater. It held its own against the best the US, UK, and USSR had to offer all the way through 1945, was very simple to produce and to maintain, and could effectively operate in very, very different tactical environments: the high altitude interceptions in the west, the low altitude clusterfuck that was the east. It had its flaws of course (armament, landing gear) but it was a pretty incredible achievement. The 190 was newer of course, more versatile, even easier to produce and maintain. I think it was the best all around design of the war outside of the F4U. And of course, the Me-262 was miles ahead of any competitor; it was a magnificent aircraft in pretty much every respect. They didn't do as well with bigger aircraft, the exceptions being the Ju-88 and Bf-110 (and successors). The Ju-88 was successful at pretty much everything it did; the Bf-110 eventually turned into a tremendous night fighter. They never figured out heavy bombers (maybe not a bad thing minus the sunk development costs) and of course never did much with naval aircraft. bewbies fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Wasn't there a story posted here a little while ago of an allied tank getting lost and managing to drive straight through a German-occupied town without any problem 'cause all the soldiers on the ground just saw "tank!" and assumed it was one of theirs? Sounds about right. I read stories about Lend-Lease tanks being mistaken for German ones even at point blank range, since like Nenonen said, most soldiers weren't really all that great at identifying tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Sounds about right. I read stories about Lend-Lease tanks being mistaken for German ones even at point blank range, since like Nenonen said, most soldiers weren't really all that great at identifying tanks. When American spotter planes reported Japanese ships at the Battle Off Samar, the fleet assumed they were misidentifying American ships until the pilots reported being shot at.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
One interesting thing I've read in Speer's memoirs was that originally they were considering as their major rocket project was a rudimentary SAM system, fire rockets extremely fast to extremely high up to catch the American bombers that were giving interceptors a hard time. But the V-2 looked all super awesome when it launched and so it won. Imagine if they had went with the SAMs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:One interesting thing I've read in Speer's memoirs was that originally they were considering as their major rocket project was a rudimentary SAM system, fire rockets extremely fast to extremely high up to catch the American bombers that were giving interceptors a hard time. But the V-2 looked all super awesome when it launched and so it won. Without guidance systems, it's not going to make much of a difference to the key issue of hitting stuff with AAA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP_-WUMi-nw
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Without guidance systems, it's not going to make much of a difference to the key issue of hitting stuff with AAA. The germans had figured out guided missiles during the war though. Some were even operationally used, like the air-to-surface anti-shipping missiles they used.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:The germans had figured out guided missiles during the war though. Some were even operationally used, like the air-to-surface anti-shipping missiles they used. Ships are a lot bigger and slower than planes. They don't usually dive or ascend either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
I have to imagine that guiding in a MCLOS munition to a bomber waaaaaaay the gently caress up there (and likely shrouded in a cloud of flak) would've been fairly tricky.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Ships are a lot bigger and slower than planes. They don't usually dive or ascend either. Well, they do dive. They just don't get to ascend afterwards. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Wasn't there a story posted here a little while ago of an allied tank getting lost and managing to drive straight through a German-occupied town without any problem 'cause all the soldiers on the ground just saw "tank!" and assumed it was one of theirs? I read one story where the allied tank drove up to the German town like it weren't no thing because all the grunts look alike. Especially at night. Zee Germans were more interested in surrendering than in taking prisoners, though, so it worked out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Doesn't the US and USSR taking so long to develop effective SAMs argue against the Nazis being able to do it, even with completely scrapping the V-1/V-2s? Or was there significant inertia against missile AAA in the postwar armies or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Doesn't the US and USSR taking so long to develop effective SAMs argue against the Nazis being able to do it, even with completely scrapping the V-1/V-2s? The US end USSR didn't really have to invest a whole lot of time or effort into their heavy air defense stuff, and neither made a huge push into rocketry either, so they were both years behind the Germans in both these areas at the end of the war. hence, the mad rush from both sides to round up as many German scientists as they could get their hands on. In any case, the wasserfall missile, by most accounts, worked very well and had a lot of potential as a static defense against heavy bomber raids . The German hierarchy prioritizing other projects over it was a major miscalculation in my opinion. Had they put a substantial efforts towards the missile it had the potential to make large formations flying over Germany an impossibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Hitler: The second best Allies' asset, after Mussolini.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The US end USSR didn't really have to invest a whole lot of time or effort into their heavy air defense stuff, and neither made a huge push into rocketry either, so they were both years behind the Germans in both these areas at the end of the war. hence, the mad rush from both sides to round up as many German scientists as they could get their hands on.  Interesting hypothetical and seems less Gay Black Hitler than swarms of Me-262s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Sorry, I should have clarified that I was talking about post-WW2 SAM development. that was kind of what I was getting at; I don't think the technology was that out of reach for anyone, Germany in particular, during the WWII era, just that it wasn't a priority for the victors during or immediately after the war. After the war it was pretty clear that radar integration was the way to go and that was a significant technological challenge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
sullat posted:I read one story where the allied tank drove up to the German town like it weren't no thing because all the grunts look alike. Especially at night. Zee Germans were more interested in surrendering than in taking prisoners, though, so it worked out. Similar stories from the Blitzkrieg in France where Panzers got cheered by French civilians who assumed they were French troops on the way to the front, and in Russia in 1941. Hell it's probably likely even today and what tanks look like aren't state secrets anymore: I guess many people know what an Abrams looks like because of it's presence in popular media, but drive a Challenger, Leopard, and a T80 through a European or US city and I bet the vast majority of people would not be able to point out which belonged to which country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
bewbies posted:that was kind of what I was getting at; I don't think the technology was that out of reach for anyone, Germany in particular, during the WWII era, just that it wasn't a priority for the victors during or immediately after the war. Yeah, I had (or rather my Dad had since he's the one whose watching the Military Channel 24/7) a book that went into detail on various German armaments particularly their Air Defence stuff, they got really sophisticated with getting their Flak guns to get shells to within fragging range of bombers and I don't think adapting it to rockets in a reasonable time frame would've been implausible either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Similar stories from the Blitzkrieg in France where Panzers got cheered by French civilians who assumed they were French troops on the way to the front, and in Russia in 1941. Folks would be more likely to be able to point out the T80 as Russian than the others but yeah the Challenger and Leopard would have people wondering who the gently caress that is, unless the particular European city is proximate to a training area for those tanks. The T80 just looks Russian as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
The Russian preference for round turrets is just crazy distinctive. Anyone know why they do that? Something something autoloader?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 01:21
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.