quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Strength (NAZIS) 2,700 tanks 800,000 infantry, 2,000 aircraft SOVIETS: 3,600 tanks 1,300,000 infantry, 2,400 aircraft

wow, there's no end to your stupidity

the soviet tanks were matchboxes compared to that of the Germans. If I had 1 million toy tanks and 3 German tanks defeated me, yet my 1 million toy tanks were able to destroy one real tank, would you consider the German general a superior commander?

the Soviets produced something like 50,000 t-34s because they needed a 5-10/1 ratio to even consider engaging the Germans

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King i listen to trance becuase it is beautifully composed like a classical piece of music.... but with beats in it...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I hardly if ever acknowledge sarcasm from a person I dont know because I ran into serious problems on an undisclosed buying website before.

Last edited by Dopey on Feb-03-2007 at 23:15

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey wow, there's no end to your stupidity the soviet tanks were matchboxes compared to that of the Germans. If I had 1 million toy tanks and 3 German tanks defeated me, yet my 1 million toy tanks were able to destroy one real tank, would you consider the German general a superior commander? the Soviets produced something like 50,000 t-34s because they needed a 5-10/1 ratio to even consider engaging the Germans

You're a pathetic loser trying to jump bandwagons. Listen to someone who actually has the dimploma to kick your ass in this field. So STFU, dick!

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne The fact is that the Red Army broke the back of the German Wehrmacht by 1944. Their elite, cream-of-the-crop troops. What the US/UK forces faced on Western Front was what Germany already began scraping the bottom of the barrel for.

quote:

The fact that Germans kept greener troops on the Western Front is because US/UK was perceived to be a lesser threat than USSR. If you think that US/Uk/Cnanadian/Australian/French forces outnumbered the German forces, what do you think they thought about a pissed-off 11 million man army that was technologically superior to the US/UK forces by a huge margin and numerically superior coming from the East?

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne My arguments are not validated by my diploma, my arguments are validated by thorough, well-thought out logical and sequential arguments that are buttressed and bolstered with a plethora of relevant facts. That's because the "experience" and "training" factor has to be factored in context in 1945 which the Army that we are hypothetically pitting against the West, the Red Army of 1945 and that's what I was referring to. Soviet troops only started to gain experience from 1943 onwards because in 1941-1942, very few got to live through more than a handful of battles. Now, if you want to know why Soviets incurred more losses in Kursk there are 2 reasons. Lack of latitude in tactical decision making at a platoon/detachment level in armored units and lack of radios. What does this mean? It means that Soviet troops had to communicate through hand signals out of hatches which was very hazardous during battles, or a commander's tank would have a central radio that would broadcast on all relevant frequency bands but the subordinate tank units would not be able to respond or report. Furthermore, for any tactical decision - the commander would have to contact his CO and request permission to carry out an action which greatly hampered the Soviet ability to rapidly respond to crises, this rule began to slacken in 1944-45, allowing Soviet ground armor commanders more latitude in tactical decisions. Germans had 2 way radios from beginning and their commanders had the latitude to make tactical decisions on the spot. So for example of a Wehrmacht commander realized that his armor detachment was being encircled, he could immediately make the executive decision to retreat and break out of the encirclement and reconnect with his main force. For a Soviet commander the process involved radioing to his CO who would be in a headquarters, describing situation, obtaining permission, relaying the order via hand signals and THEN retreating if he was allowed to. Like I said, the Soviets began to eliminate those rules in 1943 and somewhat update the equipment in order to emulate German efficiency in the matter much closely.

To tell you the truth, you squeeked out well on that one ;-) I'll give you credit for that ;-) Though I know I could find another latter battle where Soviets suffered greater casualties, out of respect for your great responses (unlike the other dimbwhits on here like Dopey) I won't bother ;-) Plus we are only arguing about something really stupid - Suvorov. If you dont think his story is credible enough, well, I dont have the proof to say that he has the facts. I hope you're not protecting Soviets here, and being just a historian ;-)

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium You're a pathetic loser trying to jump bandwagons. Listen to someone who actually has the dimploma to kick your ass in this field. So STFU, dick!

those quotes by Aquadyne you provided have nothing to do with what I said kiddo

do some research on how many tanks from each side parished in battle kiddo

the t-34 is what won the war for the Soviets along with the harsh winter and Hitler's stupidity. although they were far inferior, there were so many of them! so direct numbers comparison like you provided is useless since 100 German tanks could easily destroy maybe 1000 t-34s, probably more if they were tigers.

read up on this before arguing your moronic case, they have books on it in Russian I am sure since yo have trouble understanding English.

wikipedia ruski anyone?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King i listen to trance becuase it is beautifully composed like a classical piece of music.... but with beats in it...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I hardly if ever acknowledge sarcasm from a person I dont know because I ran into serious problems on an undisclosed buying website before.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey those quotes by Aquadyne you provided have nothing to do with what I said kiddo do some research on how many tanks from each side parished in battle kiddo the t-34 is what won the war for the Soviets along with the harsh winter and Hitler's stupidity. although they were far inferior, there were so many of them! so direct numbers comparison like you provided is useless since 100 German tanks could easily destroy maybe 1000 t-34s, probably more if they were tigers. read up on this before arguing your moronic case, they have books on it in Russian I am sure since yo have trouble understanding English. wikipedia ruski anyone?

You are such a ****. You are now the first person to be placed on my ignore list. You lack logic, sense, and respect. Its pointless arguing with you. I hope you are happy now if thats what you wanted to achieve.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

I wanted to edit my previous post, but fuck it.

Why so many Russians died vs Germans after 1943-ish?

Here's my answer, courtesy of the expert. You lack logic and have terrible reading skills, Dopey:

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Soviet troops only started to gain experience from 1943 onwards because in 1941-1942, very few got to live through more than a handful of battles. Now, if you want to know why Soviets incurred more losses in Kursk there are 2 reasons. Lack of latitude in tactical decision making at a platoon/detachment level in armored units and lack of radios. What does this mean? It means that Soviet troops had to communicate through hand signals out of hatches which was very hazardous during battles, or a commander's tank would have a central radio that would broadcast on all relevant frequency bands but the subordinate tank units would not be able to respond or report. Furthermore, for any tactical decision - the commander would have to contact his CO and request permission to carry out an action which greatly hampered the Soviet ability to rapidly respond to crises, this rule began to slacken in 1944-45, allowing Soviet ground armor commanders more latitude in tactical decisions. Germans had 2 way radios from beginning and their commanders had the latitude to make tactical decisions on the spot. So for example of a Wehrmacht commander realized that his armor detachment was being encircled, he could immediately make the executive decision to retreat and break out of the encirclement and reconnect with his main force. For a Soviet commander the process involved radioing to his CO who would be in a headquarters, describing situation, obtaining permission, relaying the order via hand signals and THEN retreating if he was allowed to. Like I said, the Soviets began to eliminate those rules in 1943 and somewhat update the equipment in order to emulate German efficiency in the matter much closely.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

wow, there's no end to your stupidity the soviet tanks were matchboxes compared to that of the Germans. If I had 1 million toy tanks and 3 German tanks defeated me, yet my 1 million toy tanks were able to destroy one real tank, would you consider the German general a superior commander? the Soviets produced something like 50,000 t-34s because they needed a 5-10/1 ratio to even consider engaging the Germans

Yes, the T-34 was designed for mass production and was produced in much more numerous quantities than any other German tank but it was also a very simple and functional tank. The Soviet innovations to T-34 consisted of the sloped frontal armor which provided additional protection from AT rounds by deflecting them upwards (something that Germans later copied) and very broad tracks that permitted the T-34 greater mobility than German tracks because it allowed the T-34 to dissipate its weight upon the ground much more evenly and make it much more maneuverable.

Then we come to the questions of which tanks we are talking. Panzer Mark I, II, III were obsolete by 1941 and Mark IV that was fighting in the opening stages of campaign against the Russia was already proving to be obsolete. The Mark IV had a 75 mm gun whereas the T-34 had a 76 mm gun. A difference so small is pretty much insignificant but the T-34 had better armor and mobility. However, at that stage the Russians still used the WW I doctrine of using tanks as infantry support pieces, i.e. distributing tanks piecemeal through infantry divisions rather than mass them in their own armored divisions and utilize Blitzkrieg, that was one of the major reasons why Russian tank forces fared so poorly in the beginning.

Moving on to Mark V (Tiger) and Mark VI (Panther), these were exceptional tanks but they were produced in so few numbers comparatively speaking as to nullify their advantages in many ways. The Soviet upgrades to the T-34/85 and the development of IS-1 and IS-2 as well as the SU series of tank destroyers, makes the quality argument very difficult.

Dopey, it is incorrect to refer to the Soviet tanks as matchboxes. They were well designed pieces of equipment. But Germans and Soviets had 2 different approaches to tank design. Germans viewed them strictly as fighting machines and nothing more, Soviets viewed tanks as utilitarian machines that could perform the role of a tractor (pulling supplies or other machinery behind it) or ferrying troops on the back of the tank. it is worth noting that USSR never put an armored personnel carrier (along the lines of the German Sdkfz 232 or 251) into mass production.

Furthermore, Germans made their tanks with a complex design and it made it for a much longer time to produce a tank, whereas the Soviets simplified the design as much as possible in order to maximize mass production.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Why so many Russians died vs Germans after 1943-ish? Here's my answer, courtesy of the expert. You lack logic and have terrible reading skills, Dopey:

The most lethal German tank, the Tiger, was produced in large numbers in 43'

But how does his argument have anything to do with tanks?? Do you know anything about this war? Are you talking out of your ass? I will let Aquadyne set you straight when he/she comes back.

Yes there were logistical concerns for the Soviets in respect to communication, but the tanks each army used played a huuuuuuuge role! German tanks were harder to destroy, had larger, more accurate cannons, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I wanted to edit my previous post, but fuck it.

And you couldn't find the "edit" link? <75

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King i listen to trance becuase it is beautifully composed like a classical piece of music.... but with beats in it...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I hardly if ever acknowledge sarcasm from a person I dont know because I ran into serious problems on an undisclosed buying website before.

As far as me defending the Soviets, it's neither here nor there. I had family who fought for the Waffen SS and family who fought for the Red Army. I'm rather indifferent to both sides, I think.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Dopey, it is incorrect to refer to the Soviet tanks as matchboxes. They were well designed pieces of equipment.

i said they were matchboxes in comparison to the German tanks in response to some numbers he provided.

of course they were not "matchboxes," that was a gross exaggeration to make him look stupid. If anything was close to a matchbox it was the Shermans.

I stand by my opinion that 2,700 German tanks would hold an advantage over 3,600 t-34s.

That, and the point of my original post was to illustrate how giving generalized tank numbers doesn't prove anything if you don't know the details of the battle. ie what kind of tanks they were, how they were used, accuracy/navigation of air support, etc.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King i listen to trance becuase it is beautifully composed like a classical piece of music.... but with beats in it...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I hardly if ever acknowledge sarcasm from a person I dont know because I ran into serious problems on an undisclosed buying website before.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey The most lethal German tank, the Tiger, was produced in large numbers in 43' But how does his argument have anything to do with tanks?? Do you know anything about this war? Are you talking out of your ass? I will let Aquadyne set you straight when he/she comes back. Yes there were logistical concerns for the Soviets in respect to communication, but the tanks each army used played a huuuuuuuge role! German tanks were harder to destroy, had larger, more accurate cannons, etc. And you couldn't find the "edit" link? <75

From Wikipedia:

A major problem with the Tiger was its very high production cost. During the Second World War over 40,000 American Sherman and 58,000 Soviet T-34s were produced, compared to 1,350 Tiger I and 500 Tiger II tanks. The German designs were expensive in terms of time, raw materials and Reichsmarks, the Tiger I costing over twice as much as a contemporary Panzer IV and four times a Stug III assault gun. [1] The closest counterpart to the Tiger from the United States was the M26 Pershing (around 200 deployed during the war) and IS-2 from the USSR (about 3,800 built during the war).

Tigers were produced in very low numbers.