Well, I think that wenn die Deutschen identische Betriebsmittel zu den Verbuendeten am 'D-Day' hatten, wurden wir alle Deutsches jetzt sprechen.....

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Regarding the "Crack" 352nd Infantry Division mentioned here is a good bit of info on it .
352nd Infantry division by stewart Bryant

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

Remember that Germany like every other country in World War II made decisions which resulted in great strengths in some areas but vast weakness in other areas. The Germans had great weapons like their tanks, but that resulted in an army that relied on horse for transportation of supplies and material while most of the army marched. In terms of motorization and mechnization Germany was basically a World War I army when compared to the western allies.

maybe earlier on perhaps with the pz I and pz II how ever as the war progress the germans had some of the best armour of the war the pather, tiger, hetzer, pz IV earlier on and the awesome sturmgesshutz III, as well as the hamburg halftrack used to ferry panzer greanadiers to the front the first of its kind (the birth place of the APC as we know it). All great weapons of war I could go on about armour thickness and shell veloicty and how the mere mention of a single tiger being in front of an advancing colum could halt it. but i'm sure you already know all that. The british armour at the time was generally inferior to german tanks look at the crusadar and cromwell, the comet was under gunned and lightley armoured and the honey (AKA M5 stuart) was no good as a battle tank. the only good tank was the 75mm M4 sherman and the 17 pounder firefly . and the americans just look at there M10 wolverine what idiot would create a battle tank designed as a tank killer, design it with an open top, thats just asking for an enemy grenade. and don't get me stated on the pershing, the suppossed match the tiger. I don admit that the hitler went over the top with his 'biggist is best' theory such as the elephant(failure) the bismarck and tirpitz were asking for trouble and the king tiger we that thing in a stationay position was a great weapon, pkus the jadgpanzer and jadgpather lefta bit to be desired.

besides even if the germans were inferior, just look at how many years, mean, machines, and different nationalitys armies it took them to win

so i think your quote there is a bit off see they used horses quite a bit diring the war bit in terms of mechinization they were second to none the allies feared german armour espicalliy the SS panzer divions.

now lets look at germany's generals, amazing Erwin Rommel's tank atatics were second to none, rundstedt was an awesome army commander Model became hilters 'fireman' ( to fix up his problem areas that caught ablaze), Von paulus on the russian front, the list goes on and on.

while allies well, mont was the best, followed by einshower, patton was an idiot. the only reason the allies won normandy was luck with the weather, superior over whelming numbers of men and armour, complete air superiority and because hitler was an idiot and a terrible tactian who really should have listened to his generals.

although the allied mulberry harbour and the flail tanks and the brisith avre corps were quite amazing.

oh and thankyou JCFalkenbergIII that info on the 352nd was quite extensive and impressive i didn't know that existed thankyou.

Germany did have the best military in WWII, however as strong as they were they couldn't prevail because you can't win a two-front war. If most of their forces were at Normandy/D-Day they could have stopped the Allied invasion, but they were spread across continents, Africa, Russia ect... Basically the war was over when the bitter cold hit the Wehrmacht in Russia, after that there was no stopping the Asian hordes but they came sooo close to taking Russia. Like I've always said it was a bad move for going into Russia, I understand why he did it, he was running out of oilfields but Hitler should have understood the threat of the USA and that would lead into two-fronts. If England had been annexed or capitulated then that would have been different.

Ah well, picking up some little bits here and there...

The Hetzer was an impossibly cramped vehicle, totally unsuitable to fight within with the loader on the left side of a gun that was supposed to be loaded from the right... And what's so awesome about the (misspelt, but that's a pattern with this poster, which leaves me worried as well as his lack of capitals) "sturmgesshutz" III? This was only an improvised infantry support gun on a serviceable chassis that just grew along as requirements also grew, so what then?

Yes, we know that, we also know stories about Russian KV tanks holding up entire panzer divisions for days, or so Heinz Guderian himself reports.

The Honey wass no good as a battle tank because it was never a battle tank but a reconnaissance vehicle. The M-10 was not a battle tank either (what is a battle tank, by the way?), it was a tank destroyer. http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/downlo...ubs/gabel2.pdf Try and read something, by the way, you might learn a thing or two.

"and the king tiger we that thing in a stationay position was a great weapon". Despite the funny syntax, if the King Tiger (capitals and all) was so good in a stationary position, then why give it tracks? I used to be convinced that a fighting vehicle is defined by firepower, protection and mobility, but here I am learning otherwise.

And I don't know what a "jadgpanzer and jadgpather" are.

Luck with the weather? Numbers superiority? Air superiority? Hitler an idiot? Well, as for the weather that wasn't luck, it was a good weather service that accurately forecast a decent weather window. As for the three other factors wars are won by the careful management of the strategic preconditions.

Heck, good old Sun Tzu has been dead for the last 2500 years, that gives more than enough time for any staff college to learn a thing or two, or so I would guess.

Sorry, Tomcat, you will have to do a lot better than that if you want to grow above pub talk level.

__________________
No Rest for the Wicked!

Same resources?

I just throw some approx figures from my mind: Germans would need some 1000 fighter planes and 800 bombers more, 500-600 tanks more, and perhaps some 250,000 men more in Normandy. And that´d be just for D-day as the Allied were pouring more tanks and men to the shores all the time. Now, that is a job for you mr Speer!

__________________

I know I posted this in another "What If?" thread but thought it was apropo here also.




"Despite highly ballyhooed emphasis on employment of mechanized forces and on rapid movement, the bulk of German combat divisions were horse drawn throughout World War II. Early in the war it was the common belief of the American public that the German Siegfrieds of Hitler's Blitz rode forth to battle on swift tanks and motor vehicles. But the notion of the mechanized might of the German Wehrmacht was largely a glamorized myth born in the fertile brains of newspapermen. Actually, the lowly horse played a most important part in enabling the German Army to move about Europe.

Public opinion to the contrary, so great was the dependence of the Nazi Blitzkrieg upon the horse that the numerical strength of German Army horses maintained during the entire war period averaged around 1,100,000. Of the 322 German Army and SS divisions extant in November 1943, only 52 were armored or motorized. Of the November 1944 total of 264 combat divisions, only 42 were armored or motorized. The great bulk of the German combat strength-the old-type infantry divisions-marched into battle on foot, with their weapons and supply trains propelled almost entirely by four-legged horsepower. The light and mountain divisions had an even greater proportion of animals, and the cavalry divisions were naturally mainly dependent on the horse.

The old-type German infantry division had approximately 5,300 horses, 1,100 horse-drawn vehicles, 950 motor vehicles, and 430 motorcycles. In 1943, due to the great difficulties in supply and upkeep of motor vehicles in the wide stretches of the Eastern Front, the allotment to divisions in that theater was reduced to approximately 400 motor vehicles and 400 motorcycles, and the number of horses was increased to some 6,300. The 1944-type divisions had about 4,600 horses, 1,400 horse-drawn vehicles, 600 motor vehicles, and 150 motorcycles.

The only fully motorized unit in the old-type infantry division was the antitank battalion. Most of the divisional supply trains were horse drawn, motor vehicles being used chiefly to transport fuel and for the workshop company. A far greater degree of motorization existed among German GHQ troops, the supply units of which were mostly motorized. Motorization of GHQ troops was to a large degree a necessity, since these units included such types of outfits as heavy artillery, for which horse draft would have been a practical impossibility. These motorized GHQ units were assigned to armies, corps, and divisions as originally required. "

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/germanhorse/index.html

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

And in regards to the Pershing,

In the meantime, Combat Command "B" was meeting stubborn house-to-house fighting in clearing out ELSDORF. All streets were heavily defended by heavy log blocks and suicide bazooka teams, plus self-propelled anti-tank guns. During the afternoon, the Germans launched a counter-attack supported by four Tiger Tanks and two Mark IV's. Task Force "Lovelady", in excellent position at GIESENDORF to the south and east of ELSDORF, moved one of the new T26E3 (The General Pershing) tanks into position and, at a range of approximately one thousand yards, knocked out two Tigers and one Mark IV. When this counterattack was broken up, the enemy tanks withdrew to the east. ELSDORF was buttoned up by 1900, and Task Force "Hogan" was moving through the eastern portion of ELSDORF in an attack on ESCH."
G-3 Supplement - The Rhineland

There is also a claimed battle between a "Super" Pershing and a Tiger II. But IIRC there is some question as to if it really happened.

DUEL AT DESSAU
3AD's "Super Pershing" vs. Germany's "King Tiger"
WWII's two most powerful tanks meet in a historic encounter
Super Pershing vs. King Tiger - Dessau

This also In regards to a Pershing and a Panther,

On March 6, 1945, Sgt. Jim Bates, a First Army Signal Corps photographer attached to the 3AD, shot a now-famous 48 seconds of 16mm footage showing the destruction of a German Mark V Panther tank in the cathedral square of downtown Cologne. The Panther was struck by three 90mm rounds from an M-26 Pershing tank of E Co, 32nd Armored Regiment, 3AD. Minutes before this encounter, the Panther had destroyed a 3AD Sherman tank, killing three of its five crewmen.

Bates was positioned on the mezzanine of a bombed out office building about 100 yards from the Panther as events unfolded. Shot at the standard 24 frames per second with relatively grainy, b&w, 16mm film, the image quality was susceptible to any jarring, hand movement, or subject movement. As a result, a number of frames suffered from blurring or mis-aiming, which is understandable in a combat situation. Bates won a Bronze Star that day for his photography, based primarily on this remarkable movie sequence.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-396062011779252155

Still photo sequence

http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/feature.pages/bates.index.htm

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

Does this include naval forces? If not, the Germans still lose.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

JC, Good Pics of the Panther's demise. Can't wait until I get home and can see the video of it.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

The video is petty good . Strange to see it as it happens.

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

Despite all of the invitations to rant I will address the concept here. IF Germany had had exactly what everyone esle had then you would end up with a real-life game of axis and allies. The outcome would depend on dice and general strat.

__________________
"Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Barack Obama

Righto. Well the Crusader was Inferior to many German tanks, though the 6pdr Improved it a bit. The Cromwell was just about on par with the Sherman. Basically the same gun, same Armour, engine ect ect. Comet? Under Gunned and Lightly armored? It had the 77mm (an improved version of the 17pdr) gun, which was about on par with the 88 as in the Tiger. It had 101mm of armour, which, very surprisingly, is the same amount as the Tiger 1. The 17pdr Firefly was just a regular Sherman with a 17pdr squeezed in. Sure, It had great hitting power, at expense of crew comfort and the Tanks Machine guns. As the 17pdr fired a poor HE shell, what is it going to do when facing German infantry with panzershreks and Panzerfousts? Not as much as the Regular Sherman, or The Cromwell. That is why only 1 was included with every tank squadron. The Stuart/Honey was a Reconnaissance tank. Designed to gather information, using it's speed to avoid combat. The M10 was not a tank. It was a Tank destroyer. American doctrine at the time was for the Tanks (with poor anti tank weapons) to break through while the TDs dealt with the enemy tanks. And as for asking for a German grenade, only a fool would send a tank destroyer into Infantry-infested areas. TDs are for open ground Tank vs Tank combat. Nuff said.

I am actually begining to enjoy informing these sort of people about this stuff. Used to hate it.

__________________

LOL Good for you Joe . I did too for awhile . Some just kind of ask for it LOL.

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

And I think I would prefer the M36 and M18 more then the M10.

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

Thats true about the heltzer but the low profile of the tank gave it an extreme advantage at concealment and it was feared for that plus General Guderian himself prasied the hetzer on its battle reports and reliability.
and the StuG III it started out as a inf. tank but later changed to the 75mm high velocity killer that could tear any allied armour apart at normandy and even if it did grow as required , if it works why change it. you must also remember the StuG III was upgraded in the F and G models with a longer barrel gun with 48 calibres capable of bring down the Kv-1 and the T-34 very well. But of the normandy subject,



very true but this thread is about normandy allies not the russian front.