Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

German Kill Claims

Discussion in 'Armor and Armored Fighting Vehicles' started by Walter_Sobchak, Mar 30, 2012.

  1. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    Most of his knocking copy is a direct lift from the book T-34 Mythical Weapon. The book is completely biased.
     
  2. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    In which case it is a coprywrite violation but I don't see how it has much import to the question at hand.
    I'm not even sure what that means. Certainly there was a bias evident on the page listed. However many of the points seam accurate and relevant. So what exactly do you object to?
     
  3. Admiral_Humaid

    Admiral_Humaid New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2014
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    My Dream World, Republic of my Brain
    Tank Crews on both sides sometimes painted kills on Tanks which they saw on the Battlefield.
     
  4. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,192
    Likes Received:
    1,794
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    Sorry to pick something up from so long ago, but,
    'Mythical Weapon' is something of a curate's egg.
    Tremendous for nerdish technical detail, pictures, production values etc., but curiously spoilt by the author/s setting out with a hypothesis from the first page, and their determination to prove that hypothesis throughout.
    I don't know if it's purely a Polish/Russian thing, but the book is no real sort of objective treatise. Enjoyable, excellent in parts, but consistently determined to undermine the machine to an extent that often makes one go 'hmmmmm'.
    Someone very kindly sent me a copy when it first came out, and while I still like it in the way I like any great slab of a shiny tank book; it's content is often worthy of a quick double-check against other references. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with a biased book, as long as you account for the bias.
     
  5. Karjala

    Karjala Don Quijote

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    115
    Location:
    Pohojanmaa, Finland
    German tanks/assault guns were working fine against T-34's. The most important factor, after the numbers of course, is always the level of training of the tank crews.

    E.g. in Finland in summer 1944 Stu-40 G's (StuG III) were more than a match against T-34 - the T-34-85's included.

    "Finland lost 8 of the 1943 batch StuG's. ... The Soviets lost 87 tanks and an uncounted number of anti-tank guns, anti-tank rifles, truck etc., thanks to our Stug's and their crews."

    http://www.andreaslarka.net/sturmi.html
     
    gtblackwell likes this.
  6. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    At least on my machine the "highlighted" text is almost impossible to read, which is a shame as it goes a long way to making your point.
     
  7. gtblackwell

    gtblackwell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,267
    Likes Received:
    661
    Location:
    Auburn, Alabama, US
    Karlaja, Thanks for that link. Most interesting reading. The Stug 111 and it's variations were remarkable AFV's. They seem to do extremely well in defense, I assume the low silhouette and thick frontal armor was a plus. the limited traverse of the main gun being less of a disadvantage than in offense. . By 1944 the Russians had lots of experience on offense so much credit goes to the obviously well trained Finnish tank crews and their overall strategy.
    The T-34-85 was not a bad tank, though I am aware the 85mm gun did not live up to expectations.. ( Anyone know why ?) It speaks well for the Stug's 75MM that it did so well.....of course there were many other.factors.

    The Germans had good sucess with the Stug, I gather, in their retreat from Russia as well. Can anyone elaborate or point me to more information on this Stug-T-34 struggle or am I misreading something ?

    lwd, I am about as blind as a bat and still be legally driving. Have a hard time with lack of contrast, but can make out the highlighted sections of Karlaja's link. I had to get a fair monitor , HP2511X, in order to do so. Then spend lots of time with fine tuning it so I can read the damned grey scaled print !!!

    Gaines
     
  8. gtblackwell

    gtblackwell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,267
    Likes Received:
    661
    Location:
    Auburn, Alabama, US
    I found the last few post very interesting so I went to the beginning and have a much better understanding of the T-34. Good thread.

    Gaines
     
  9. Karjala

    Karjala Don Quijote

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    115
    Location:
    Pohojanmaa, Finland
    You are most welcome!

    Yes, I think too that the low silhuette and good frontal armour were bonuses. StuG III was overall smaller than T-34-85. The widths were 2,95 m/3,00 m, the hights 2,16 m/2,70 m and the lenghts 5,4 m/6,68 m respectively.

    I agree, that not having a turret was a disadvantage. However StuGs were used succesfully in counter attacks too, where the defence was also offensive.

    I rewrote that highlighted bit in my previous post, so now it should be easy to read for everybody! :)
     

Share This Page