|
This is apparently a Panther from I./26 captured by the Free French in Italy. According to Jentz (Jentz, T.L., "Germany's Panther Tank", Schiffer, 1995) The first Panthers to see combat were 76 Panthers (mostly A with a few D) from I./Pz.Rgt.4 in February 1944. On 19 May there were 62 operational with the Abteilung. On 26 May there were 13 Panther operational out of 48 and on 1 June only 6 were reported as operational. On 14 June 1944 there were 11 Panther operational out of 17 available. 38 Panthers were shipped from Germany as reemplacement between 29 May and 5 June. Another 20 were sent between 18 and 21 September 1944 and a final batch of 10 Panthers were sent on 31 October 1944. The Abteilung became I./Pz.Rgt.26 in February 1945. This is one of those things that even 10 years ago would have been impossible to find out without writing in to a magazine. Luckily the internet is full of grogs. I haven't been able to find anything on your Panther in Yugoslavia though. Could it have been traveling to other fronts by rail?
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Luckily the internet is full of grogs. I haven't been able to find anything on your Panther in Yugoslavia though. Could it have been traveling to other fronts by rail? Not sure, I imagine it might've been commandeered while it was being transported elsewhere and subsequently met its end in Yugoslavia but I can't say I've looked into it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Napoleon I :iamafag: Gustav IV Adolf based his foreign policy on his belief that Napoleon was the Anti-Christ and thus refused from joining France's Continental System. Then he ignored all the warnings about an impending Russian attack and left Finland undefended, lost so spectacularly that Russians were coming across the Gulf of Bothnia and then had a Hitleresque meltdown where he was blaming his underlings for everything. At least his officers had the balls to arrest the king and make him abdicate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Well, how do you use it? Do you try an jam coordination, arty spotters, etc? Where is the equipment deployed? Why go helo over ground deployment? Those are all just radio jammers; you put them out where you want to interfere with your opponent's radio transmissions. Ones that size have a range of maybe 10-15km, and I'm pretty sure that specific platform is non directional, so you're kind of constrained in your frequency management and so on. You can put it on an aerial platform but the cost/benefit is the same for most things....it is a lot more expensive and vulnerable, but it has better LOS and is faster, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Gustav IV Adolf based his foreign policy on his belief that Napoleon was the Anti-Christ and thus refused from joining France's Continental System. Then he ignored all the warnings about an impending Russian attack and left Finland undefended, lost so spectacularly that Russians were coming across the Gulf of Bothnia and then had a Hitleresque meltdown where he was blaming his underlings for everything. At least his officers had the balls to arrest the king and make him abdicate. Seems like Adolf is a name you don't want to have for your head of state. Actually, are there any good Adolfs in history? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Seems like Adolf is a name you don't want to have for your head of state. Gustavus Adolphus? It's close.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Gustavus II Adolphus was *sighs heavily, grits teeth* fine he still got beaten by a better general tho, and that's a fact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Great. Thank you! I'm not sure if there were early Panthers in Italy; I remember something about the units in 1943 rejecting them for being rolling dumpster fires and only accepting them after the rebuilds, which'd mean they'd be getting there in 1944.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I'm not sure if there were early Panthers in Italy; I remember something about the units in 1943 rejecting them for being rolling dumpster fires and only accepting them after the rebuilds, which'd mean they'd be getting there in 1944. I think LSSAH had the first Panthers in Italy, but as you said they were in bad shape and never saw combat. I can't find concrete sources but I believe the unit was there for R&R, and as you can see with the Heer Panthers in Italy, I suspect they weren't able to keep them in running order. Is I./4 typical? A handful of tanks in running order, without seeing serious combat? The month where they had 6/(62? 48?) operational Panthers must have been interesting. e: On the face of it, in early 1944 the Allies had nothing in Italy that could defeat the Panther at combat ranges except for possibly M10s and towed 17lbrs. You would think they would have made a huge impact, as 76mm Shermans didn't arrive until later and I can't find references to Achilles or Fireflies in Italy before 1945. I guess it's true what they say about professionals studying logistics. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Has there been any nation that were as incompetent when it came to diplomacy as Imperial Germany under Wilhelm II? Bismarck left them in a pretty good postion but after he's fired every diplomatic action until the end seems moronic. Wasn't there this critique that Bismarck was being to clever for his own good and that he set up a house of cards with a zillion failure points and everyone being wary of him in a sort of fool me once type way? No idea where I have this from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Wasn't there this critique that Bismarck was being to clever for his own good and that he set up a house of cards with a zillion failure points and everyone being wary of him in a sort of fool me once type way? No idea where I have this from. Bismark's system was basically "whatever you do try and keep at least one of either France or Russia on your side or at worst neutral because trying to fight both of them at the same time is a bad idea guys" and it by all right should have worked fine because France is a relatively progressive democracy and Russia is Russia so why would they ever be on the same side? Yet somehow Wilhelm managed to make that happen, so that's pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
I think Bismarck probably would have sniffed out that mutually assured destruction is actually a ridiculous concept with conventional weapons.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Gustavus Adolphus? It's close. You know that Gustavus Adolphus is just a latinized version of Gustav II Adolf, right? It's the same as calling der Führer 'Adolphus Hitlerus' or George Bush 'Georgius Frutexius' or something idk. People who spell it the Latin way are just trying too hard to look posh. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Bismark's system was basically "whatever you do try and keep at least one of either France or Russia on your side or at worst neutral because trying to fight both of them at the same time is a bad idea guys" and it by all right should have worked fine because France is a relatively progressive democracy and Russia is Russia so why would they ever be on the same side? Yet somehow Wilhelm managed to make that happen, so that's pretty bad. Also, let's throw the UK in there for good measure, because they've had a swimmingly positive relationship with France for the last several centuries and they hate Russia more than just about anything, lol like they'd ever fight on the same side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:e: On the face of it, in early 1944 the Allies had nothing in Italy that could defeat the Panther at combat ranges except for possibly M10s and towed 17lbrs. You would think they would have made a huge impact, as 76mm Shermans didn't arrive until later and I can't find references to Achilles or Fireflies in Italy before 1945. Well, for one the M10 has largely the same gun as the 76mm sherman with very similar penetration characteristics, but equally the panther always had very thin side armour and things like the bazooka and PIAT were already in service, and italy wasn't great tank country. Come to think, only having six panthers reportedly showing up probably helped convince the US it was a special-deployment heavy tank, rather than their new standard "medium".
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Come to think, only having six panthers reportedly showing up probably helped convince the US it was a special-deployment heavy tank, rather than their new standard "medium". Strange to think that while there were 6 Panthers in working order in Italy, in France whole regiments were being converted to the type. That is probably also the reason why I can't find Allied reports of them. In Normandy, the Americans massivly overreported Tigers, I imagine in Italy they reported Panthers as Tigers or Pz IVs initially.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Gustav IV Adolf based his foreign policy on his belief that Napoleon was the Anti-Christ and thus refused from joining France's Continental System. Then he ignored all the warnings about an impending Russian attack and left Finland undefended, lost so spectacularly that Russians were coming across the Gulf of Bothnia and then had a Hitleresque meltdown where he was blaming his underlings for everything. At least his officers had the balls to arrest the king and make him abdicate. He also tried fleeing the Royal Palace and got punched in the face by his stablemaster while doing so, who hauled the king back inside. Nevermind that earlier, the Swedish diplomats had even secured an alliance with Russia and Gustav IV Adolf was gonna marry a Russian princess to seal the deal, but he got all worked up over the Russian Orthodox church which demanded Orthodox marriage rites so that went out the window.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Wasn't there this critique that Bismarck was being to clever for his own good and that he set up a house of cards with a zillion failure points and everyone being wary of him in a sort of fool me once type way? No idea where I have this from. It's more that no one was really interested in Bismarckian diplomacy other than Bismarck himself. His diplomatic system depended on remaining friendly with more of the Great Powers and trying not to seem too threatening, which meant avoiding expansionism, minimizing military posturing, and not placing too much importance on colonialism. In ither words, it meant that even though Germany was a predominant power in Europe, it had to refrain from lording it over the other powers too much. Once he was ousted, it was only a matter of time before the ambitious Wilhelm II and his even more ambitious ministers dismantled Bismarck's achievements, all in the name of starry-eyed visions of the greatness of the German Empire and contemporary notions of honor and dignity and prestige. Even worse, the Imperial German government was lacking in checks and balances. Bismarck was able to concentrate a lot of political power into both himself and his own position as Chancellor, so as long as the Kaiser tolerated him he was able to do basically whatever he wanted without real interference from people who disagreed. Once he was ousted, neither Wilhelm nor subsequent chancellors really had the force of personality to articulate a coherent foreign policy and maintain iron-fisted control of the government, so that concentration of power ended up becoming a liability, particularly since Wilhelm was notoriously easy to convince of things and tended not to filter the things coming out of his mouth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Wilhelm also screwed up the relationship with Britain by insisting on building a whole lot of fighty boats that Germany didn't really need for anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Bismark's system was basically "whatever you do try and keep at least one of either France or Russia on your side or at worst neutral because trying to fight both of them at the same time is a bad idea guys" and it by all right should have worked fine because France is a relatively progressive democracy and Russia is Russia so why would they ever be on the same side? Yet somehow Wilhelm managed to make that happen, so that's pretty bad. The problem was that Bismarck really didn't want (Catholic) Austria as part of Germany and he feared that would happen if the Empire dissolved. Therefore he felt the need to patronize A-H which inevitably led to friction with Russia. He managed to successfully handle that while he was in power, but it was bound to happen that estrangement with Russia would mean that France would eventually sacrifice it's liberal principles (the biggest issue being support for a Polish state) to gain the security of an arrangement with Russia. Even then, Germany was not actively threatened by the essentially defensive arrangement so long as they moderated themselves and forced restraint on A-H. Unfortunately, Wilhelm was the opposite of moderation and restraint which meant a confrontation was probably unavoidable. Interestingly, it's possible to argue that one of the root causes of WWI was therefore religion and especially the Hapsburg focus on Catholicising the population of Austria that took place during and prior to the 30 years war. Therefore, Hey Gal is actually the number one WWI expert in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's more that no one was really interested in Bismarckian diplomacy other than Bismarck himself. His diplomatic system depended on remaining friendly with more of the Great Powers and trying not to seem too threatening, which meant avoiding expansionism, minimizing military posturing, and not placing too much importance on colonialism. In ither words, it meant that even though Germany was a predominant power in Europe, it had to refrain from lording it over the other powers too much. Once he was ousted, it was only a matter of time before the ambitious Wilhelm II and his even more ambitious ministers dismantled Bismarck's achievements, all in the name of starry-eyed visions of the greatness of the German Empire and contemporary notions of honor and dignity and prestige. For a great example of this look at Germany's dick waving about colonies etc in the early years of the 20th century. The first Moroccan Crisis did a wonderful job of making Germany a major national security concern for France for exactly zero gain (even the theoretical gain was limited - Morocco isn't exactly a mouth watering prize), cementing the anglo-french entante, and nearly kicking off WW1 a decade early for good measure. THen there's the Venezuelan Crisis which majorly hosed up US-German relations a couple years before. Yeah, Teddy Roosevelt is really the president you want to go pushing the line on the Monroe Doctrine with. edit: ^^^^^ eeeeh, I think you're over playing the Catholic angle. The Kulturkampf was a big loving deal (especially if you were a Bavarian Catholic) but Bismark wasn't so much anti-Catholic as he was trying to create a single German national identity that put regional and sectarian divides on a secondary footing. Grooming Austria was more about having a solid ally that could be depended on against Russia than fears of a collapsed Austria-Hungary pulling on the Catholic south. It was also part of his general policy of trying not to piss anyone off too much. A HUUUUUUUUGE component of all Prussian foreign policy from basically the end of the 30 YW through Napoleon was balancing A-H and France. They ping-ponged between being allied with one or another a lot for about two centuries. The most recent round of that had involved fighting wars with both of them sequentially during the Wars of German Unification, which lead to a lot of bad blood on the borders. France was the tougher nut with regards to that due to the nasty way the Franco-Prussian war ended and the Alsatian issue. Mending fences with A-H was going to be a lot easier, and they did a pretty good job of it. Really, you can understand most of the history of Brandenburg/Prussia/Germany from the 30YW through WW2 as a series of attempts to expand while never, ever, EVER having enemies on two fronts which required some real gymnastics due to their location in Central Europe. They got much less good at this at the end. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:They got much less good at this at the end. Sort of understatement considering they managed to get caught in a multiple front war twice in a period of less than 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
I did (intentionally) overplay the Catholic angle for my 30 years war joke, but the A-H alliance wasn't really about security against Russia. Germany's security against Russia was based on common policies and interests and the alliance was the only major thing interfering with Russian friendship (later on there's agricultural interests and tariffs, but those are still minor issues compared to support for A-H). Germany certainly did permanently ruin it's relationship with France and rebuild it's relationship with A-H in 1870 and after, but that didn't imply a full alliance with A-H. The strongest argument I've seen for the alliance was that it was necessary for German economic penetration of Turkey and the Balkans, but that argument applies after Bismarck's time anyway. Really, signing an alliance (and agreeing to make it perpetual!) instead of just maintaining friendly relations comes off as a blunder by Bismarck that was continued as policy because no one after him had the spine or imagination to change policy. Since he was generally pretty good at diplomacy, looking for domestic reasons for it is a natural continuation of the line of reasoning. blackmongoose fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
So I found this fancy little document from 1991, an explanation from the Naval Weapons Center at China Lake of the Soviet method of acquiring and maintaining weapons systems (from handguns to aircraft) during a war. One interesting note is that the Soviets intentionally made heavy use of cannibalization of damaged and abandoned gear on battlefields for maintenance needs. According to page 9, they discovered during WW2 that 15% of all spare parts manufactured and stocked accounted for 85% of all battlefield needs. They decided that it would be prudent to only stock those 15% and make up the rest with cannibalization. They use "diverse mechanics" with limited training to first strip major components from scavenged vehicles and weapons, leaving the remainder for more skilled engineers to gather up behind them and assemble into complete units. Ironically, the Soviets ended up with a system of factory incentives that actually discouraged the manufacture of spare parts during peacetime: factories were only given bonuses based on the number of complete units recorded as being manufactured, so spare parts would be kept and assembled into complete units instead of being "wasted" by sending them off to storage. They make up for this by only actually using 10% of their equipment during peacetime and keeping the rest in storage, only brought out for maneuvers twice a year. The worn training equipment would theoretically be kept behind and used for further training of new soldiers or given to reserve units while the soldiers who trained on them would go off to battle in brand new tanks. Page 25 starts observations on Soviet design culture and methodology, trying to pinpoint the truth behind the "Rugged but rough" stereotype. Soviet gear was designed to pass tests in which operators would manipulate everything wearing thick arctic gloves and mittens, hence the tendency to use many large knobs, switches, and dials that seem "crude" or "obsolete" in the West. The metals used in vehicles like tanks seem soft and heavy compared to Western materials, but that's because they're designed to not become brittle in the Siberian cold. And all equipment is designed to be limited in individual scope and meant to operate within a larger combined unit, rather than being capable of isolated fighting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:Interestingly, it's possible to argue that one of the root causes of WWI was therefore religion and especially the Hapsburg focus on Catholicising the population of Austria that took place during and prior to the 30 years war. Therefore, Hey Gal is actually the number one WWI expert in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:it's true Would the average 30 years war commander make use of Zeppelins or scavenge the gold beaters skin out of the lifting cells to make fancy gloves for everyone
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
do you want my dudes to be airborne do you really
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:39
|
|
HEY GAL posted:do you want my dudes to be airborne I see it as more of an AirCav scenario.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
I'm sure Wallenstein would get in an air balloon and use rockets with messages attached to send orders to that drat Officer that has deployed 20 ft to the left of where he should be. Did telescopes exist in the 17th century. I remember being told glasses have existed for yonks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:do you want my dudes to be airborne As long as they can fire pistols out of it, oh hell yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:I'm sure Wallenstein would get in an air balloon and use rockets with messages attached to send orders to that drat Officer that has deployed 20 ft to the left of where he should be. spectacles are a thing but GA refuses to wear them in public
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:I'm sure Wallenstein would get in an air balloon and use rockets with messages attached to send orders to that drat Officer that has deployed 20 ft to the left of where he should be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Wilhelm also screwed up the relationship with Britain by insisting on building a whole lot of fighty boats that Germany didn't really need for anything. Wilhelm could've had his big fleet of fighty boats if he'd had someone in charge who knew to build a big fleet that would obviously be used to fight Russian and France. Hell, the British would've encouraged that poo poo like the did Japan. Instead he trusted Tirpitz and everything went to poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:do you want my dudes to be airborne um, yes???? obviously?????????
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
I think Britain would have seen any attempt by Germany to build a strong fleet as a threat to national security, since the defense of Britain depended on local naval hegemony. If Wilhelm hadn't been a moron, Germany could have maintained its solid relationship instead of driving Britain into an alliance with two of its historical enemies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:06
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:um, yes???? obviously????????? It's raining piss, poo poo and drunken half stabbed dudes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:It's raining piss, poo poo and drunken half stabbed dudes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:I think Britain would have seen any attempt by Germany to build a strong fleet as a threat to national security, since the defense of Britain depended on local naval hegemony. If Wilhelm hadn't been a moron, Germany could have maintained its solid relationship instead of driving Britain into an alliance with two of its historical enemies. I think that mostly comes down to Britain being paranoid about anyone who they thought might conceivably become a threat to the supremacy of the British Empire. That mentality was behind much of the British involvement in the War of 1812, for one. Britain seems to have consistently regarded "Our empire's prosperity shouldn't exist at the sufferance of the Royal Navy" as an existential threat to their own success.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:As long as they can fire pistols out of it, oh hell yes Most of out the window isn't actually crucial to the survival of the airship, even, it's a perfect match.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Kanine posted:did anybody in the thread catch the battle of the bastards? it looked like one of the more realistic depictions of a medieval battle ive seen I'm just going to spoiler tag everything unless people think I should come back and edit that out. Things that were unrealistic but I don't have a problem with, because they fit into a visual or narrative convention:
Things that I quite liked:
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:04
|
|