• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

German antitank guns.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#22
Solo4114 said:
Could just be German propaganda. I mean, of course, EVERYTHING the Germans ever touched was made technically LIGHT YEARS better than everything that came before. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

sure thats why they won the war ... ah ... no halt ...



:p



i know, a lot will kill me now for that statement. But even if many of the axis-lovers do not believe that, but in many parts german equipment was even inferior to enemy equipment.
 
Upvote 0
#25
Even if something is technically superior, it may not be suited to warfare at the operational level. In an individual sense, much of the German equipment is superb. Put various individual equipment next to other armies' equipment, and look only at the performance of that equipment both in battle and in testing. I suspect much of the German gear would be quite good, in some cases better than other gear. (not in all cases, though)

But, there's more to warfare than "My rifle's better than yours." Sure, your rifle may perform better on the testing range, but what about in combat? The G-41 is supposedly a fantastic rifle, but it was a pain to keep clean in the field for the average german soldier. It wasn't "Soldier-proof". It was also more complex and expensive to produce.

The Thompson SMG may have been a great SMG, but it was also more complex to manufacture than the M-3 greasegun. The German "Big cats" tanks were some of the war's best tanks, but the T-34 was easier to mass-produce, and was a match for the more numerous Pz IVs and Stugs.


So, yeah, German engineering is the bomb and all, but quality doesn't necessarily beat quantity in warfare. Plus, just because you DESIGNED a great weapon or whathaveyou doesn't mean that you can put it to use when the 8th air force is bombing the hell out of your industry and infrastructure.
 
Upvote 0
#26
Bah, fact is the Germans had some weaponry that was superior in many ways (MG42, StG44, Mp40 to some extent, PzSchreck, good tanks, jet engines later in the war and so forth), but what really gave them the upper hand were superb tactics! In many occations they defeated far superior numbers (especially after the D-day in the European mainland) because of deployment, tactics, mobility and experience. Oh and smart-looking Hugo Boss designer uniforms. Even experienced US and Bristish generals didn't want to attack German fortifications unless they had triple the amount of manpower.

What went wrong then, the krauts having such
 
Upvote 0
#29
ROMMEL34 said:
More like superior Allied numbers/manpower.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes indeed good sir! Like I said many famous Allied generals were hesitant to attack ze germans unless outnumbering them by quite a bit. And they did most of the time from mid-44 and on...

That wouldn't be the case if a certain German dictator didn't give orders which most of his generals and tacticians thought were insane. Like the Eastern Front for example. Or replacing Rommel in Africa, ordering attacks where defense would be the smart thing to do... and so forth. Without those rubbish orders the war would last way longer in a best case scenario!

I am sure you know this though, you having that nickname and all :)
 
Upvote 0
#32
jedinstven-o crni Wuk said:
sure thats why they won the war ... ah ... no halt ...



:p



i know, a lot will kill me now for that statement. But even if many of the axis-lovers do not believe that, but in many parts german equipment was even inferior to enemy equipment.
Click to expand...

Germans made decent tanks, but with the best optics and tank guns in the land. Great radios too. They also had decent aircraft and good submarines. Their outstanding generals didnt hurt them either.

The germans lost the war becuase they were too ambitious, the entire world ganged up on them, and the soviet union was dedicated to victory, even if it cost the lives of 100 million of its people. It took the entire world to bring germany down twice... not bad in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0
#33
Well, not really the ENTIRE WORLD, just the remaining major western powers. And yes, they were overly ambitious. WAY overly ambitious. Much like Napoleon, who also was taken down by "the entire world".

Regardless, the cult of German superiority is a load of crap to me. Yes, the Germans had great equipment in some cases and great generals. But so did the Western powers, who ALSO had what Germany lacked -- production capabilities. It's hard to beat the combined industrial capabilities of the USSR and the USA. So, even if "ZOMG TEH SHERM4N SUXORZ", well, actually, no it didn't. It was quite good, given that it could be mass-produced and fielded faster than the Germans could counter. And yeah, the Tiger roxors our boxors, but as on Orel, it can't be everywhere at once and it can be destroyed.

Sorry, but I just get a little sick of the fawning german fanboys after a while. I mean, jeez, people treat it like they're rooting for a football team or something.
 
Upvote 0
#34
MistaCreepy said:
Germans made decent tanks, but with the best optics and tank guns in the land. Great radios too. They also had decent aircraft and good submarines. Their outstanding generals didnt hurt them either.

The germans lost the war becuase they were too ambitious, the entire world ganged up on them, and the soviet union was dedicated to victory, even if it cost the lives of 100 million of its people. It took the entire world to bring germany down twice... not bad in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Not bad? your criterion of goodness being what? way to plunge the world into a ruinously destructive and murderous war from which it is, even now, recovering, guys.

Nothing against Germany as a nation or its people but picking a fight with almost the entire rest of the world is not most people's idea of very cool.
 
Upvote 0
#37
I'm perfectly calm, Nifel. I just get annoyed by German fanboys, because it tends to affect gameplay in a lot of different ways, and it gets tiresome listening to people prattle on about the awesome uberness of all things German. For that matter, I get just as annoyed by Russian fanboys, although they seem fewer and farther between, and often a lot less vocal. I view this as just a game. I'd prefer it to be realistic, but I have no particular allegiance to any army. Like I said, it's not like this is "my sports team" or something.
 
Upvote 0
#38
Solo4114 said:
Simple answer: bad logistics.

More complex answer: No matter the superior performing technology, and the superior experience and tactics, the Germans lacked the production capacity to defeat the combined forces of all the Allies. Couple that with a gradual whittling away of their industrial capabilities due to Allied bombing raids, and a gradual loss of territory from which to draw labor, natural resources, and manufacturing, and you get a military that simply cannot sustain itself.

The German strategy for fighting the war at an operational level relied on a certain level of arrogance and belief in the ultimate superiority of German forces. Yes, your Tiger tank is a badass tank, but it's expensive and complex to produce, it takes longer to reach the field, it's harder to operate and thus harder to train crews to use, etc. Thus, you have a very small (comparatively speaking) number of really awesome tanks going up against a huge number of fair to quite good tanks (IE: Shermans, Cromwells, T-34s).

While superior ability and technology CAN win the day, you need to have a technological superiority far beyond what the Germans had. They had the edge, but they didn't have ENOUGH of an edge to rely on their technology and tactics alone.

Don't believe me? Try playing Orel, driving a single tiger tank around. Now go up against a Soviet team of 6 players in their T-34/76s. Sure, in a one-on-one duel you'll dominate at pretty much any range. But you can't be everywhere at once. Game over. You lose. Allies win. So much for superior technology.
Click to expand...
You're a funny guy. First you act you are an expert on WW2 German weaponry and strategics (which was pretty much naive and largely wrong)... then you take Red Orchestra as an example. Talk about throwing stones when in a glass house.
 
Upvote 0
#40
Solo4114 said:
More complex answer: No matter the superior performing technology, and the superior experience and tactics, the Germans lacked the production capacity to defeat the combined forces of all the Allies. Couple that with a gradual whittling away of their industrial capabilities due to Allied bombing raids, and a gradual loss of territory from which to draw labor, natural resources, and manufacturing, and you get a military that simply cannot sustain itself.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the Axis had 16 per cent of the world's industrial production capacity against almost 70 for the allies (the bulk being in America); the Sherman, e.g., may have been an inferior tank, but it was produced in superior numbers.

The effects of the allied bombing campaigns are however largely overstated. The studies made after the war for the reconstruction work found the European, and esp. German, industries to be in surprisingly good condition. The only part of the infrastructure that was really damaged were transportations, i.e. roads and the railway system. The only real effects of the allied bombing campaign were cities layed waste and civilians killed.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu