Way off topic, but it has do to with the French

Phil J wrote:
Germany's use
of advanced technology and advanced tactics put them ahead of every
other country on the planet at that time.

Only part of that is true. At the start of the war German tanks were
generally regarded as inferior to their contemporaries. It was generally
superior tactics and training that won their battles. In fact at the outset
of the invasion of Russia, the Russian T-34 was superior in pretty much
every way to anything the Germans had. (I wasted part of my youth playing
board wargames such as Avalon Hill's "PanzerBlitz" and learned a bit about
the equipment and tactics of the era.)

Refs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...n_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerblitz

On Feb 28, 1:18*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Phil J wrote:
Germany's use
of advanced technology and advanced tactics put them ahead of every
other country on the planet at that time.

Only part of that is true. At the start of the war German tanks were
generally regarded as inferior to their contemporaries. It was generally
superior tactics and training that won their battles. In fact at the outset
of the invasion of Russia, the Russian T-34 was superior in pretty much
every way to anything the Germans had. (I wasted part of my youth playing
board wargames such as Avalon Hill's "PanzerBlitz" and learned a bit about
the equipment and tactics of the era.)

Refs:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ki/Panzerblitz

Definitely, not every weapon they had was superior. But their
combination of fast motorized infantry supported with armor and dive-
bombers and their Blitzkrieg tactics made them pretty hard to beat.
Their fighter aircraft weren't too shabby either, especially the
FW-190.

Phil

"Phil J" wrote in message
...

Definitely, not every weapon they had was superior. But their
combination of fast motorized infantry supported with armor and dive-
bombers and their Blitzkrieg tactics made them pretty hard to beat.
Their fighter aircraft weren't too shabby either, especially the
FW-190.


The Blitzkrieg days were long gone by the time the Fw 190 appeared on the
scene.

On Feb 28, 3:29*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Phil J" wrote in message

...



Definitely, not every weapon they had was superior. *But their
combination of fast motorized infantry supported with armor and dive-
bombers and their Blitzkrieg tactics made them pretty hard to beat.
Their fighter aircraft weren't too shabby either, especially the
FW-190.

The Blitzkrieg days were long gone by the time the Fw 190 appeared on the
scene.

You're right. I was thinking it was introduced earlier, but it didn't
come along till 1941.

One of the more surprising (to me) pieces of technology developed by
the Germans was the radio-controlled glide bomb used against
shipping. They were dropped from a bomber and flown into the target
by radio control. They also had radar-guided glide bombs, and near
the end of the war they were even working on a television-guided bomb,
but it was not perfected.

They weren't a factor in the war, but I think some of the most amazing
stuff designed in World War II was the asymmetrical aircraft by Blohm
and Voss. Definitely "outside of the box" thinking.

Phil

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...

The Blitzkrieg days were long gone by the time the Fw 190 appeared on the
scene.

They'd have probably just used them for strafing and busting up formations,
wouldn't they? They couldn't have hung long in a turn fight with
Spitfires.
As I understood it, they sort of took the bull-in-a-china-cabinet approach
to things.

My grandfather's bombardier recalled slugging it out with one attacking them
head-on, watching pieces off the FW's cowl fly off and seeing an exposed
piston working as the plexiglass of the B-17 exploded all around him.
(They crashed in Sampigny, France.)

-c

On Feb 28, 2:18 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Phil J wrote:
Germany's use
of advanced technology and advanced tactics put them ahead of every
other country on the planet at that time.

Only part of that is true. At the start of the war German tanks were
generally regarded as inferior to their contemporaries. It was generally
superior tactics and training that won their battles. In fact at the outset
of the invasion of Russia, the Russian T-34 was superior in pretty much
every way to anything the Germans had. (I wasted part of my youth playing
board wargames such as Avalon Hill's "PanzerBlitz" and learned a bit about
the equipment and tactics of the era.)

Refs:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ki/Panzerblitz

Not exactly.

The T-34 was produced en masse, had a weak main gun, and had very
little room inside for the crew. German tanks were better made and
better gunned.

But -- all Wermacht maintenance was depot level -- throw a rod? Send
the whole tank back to the fatherland by rail.

The US forward deployed maintenance philosophy helped defeat the far
superior German armor. They would blast four of our tanks -- the next
day three would reappear.

The Soviet maintenance and refit was not as efficient, but the sheer
numbers of T-34s helped swing the tide.

The main innovation that German armored units employed that helped
facilitate blitzkrieg was small unit communications (radios). The
French had better (on paper) tanks then the PKZW Mk IV, but the French
employed their tanks as infantry support while the Germans used
penetrate and exploit tactics.

The German Tiger tank was not exceeded in potential by Allied armor
until the deployment of the M-1 Abrams.

Now *that's* a tank.

Dan
(retired US Army Armor Officer)

Dan wrote:
On Feb 28, 2:18 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Phil J wrote:
Germany's use
of advanced technology and advanced tactics put them ahead of every
other country on the planet at that time.
Only part of that is true. At the start of the war German tanks were
generally regarded as inferior to their contemporaries. It was generally
superior tactics and training that won their battles. In fact at the outset
of the invasion of Russia, the Russian T-34 was superior in pretty much
every way to anything the Germans had. (I wasted part of my youth playing
board wargames such as Avalon Hill's "PanzerBlitz" and learned a bit about
the equipment and tactics of the era.)

Refs:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ki/Panzerblitz

Not exactly.

The T-34 was produced en masse, had a weak main gun, and had very
little room inside for the crew. German tanks were better made and
better gunned.

But -- all Wermacht maintenance was depot level -- throw a rod? Send
the whole tank back to the fatherland by rail.

The US forward deployed maintenance philosophy helped defeat the far
superior German armor. They would blast four of our tanks -- the next
day three would reappear.

The Soviet maintenance and refit was not as efficient, but the sheer
numbers of T-34s helped swing the tide.

The main innovation that German armored units employed that helped
facilitate blitzkrieg was small unit communications (radios). The
French had better (on paper) tanks then the PKZW Mk IV, but the French
employed their tanks as infantry support while the Germans used
penetrate and exploit tactics.

The German Tiger tank was not exceeded in potential by Allied armor
until the deployment of the M-1 Abrams.

Now *that's* a tank.

Too bad there will be no more tank battles...

Jim Stewart wrote:


Too bad there will be no more tank battles...



Now that's wishful thinking.

On Mar 5, 5:10 pm, Jim Stewart wrote:

The German Tiger tank was not exceeded in potential by Allied armor
until the deployment of the M-1 Abrams.

Now *that's* a tank.

Too bad there will be no more tank battles...

Don't be so sure. While it's unlikely we will see mass tank battles
such as Kursk, the Tank will continue to dominate the battlefield.

When I was in OCS playing infantry grunt we were assaulted by a
platoon of tanks. Everyone knew it was "war games", but let me tell
you - nothing, but nothing gets the pucker up like 63 tons rolling at
you at 50 MPH, main gun and coax pointing in your direction.

At that moment, my choice of branch was clear -- armor.

Though I completed my 21 years as an infantry Company Commander, and
learn to respect the havoc wreaked by one grunt and a LAW, I think
reports of the tank's demise are greatly exaggerated.

Dan

Phil J wrote:
Churchill was so concerned about it that he ordered the English army
to prepare to use poison gas to defend England's beaches in the event
of a German invasion.

The old ******* was fond of poison gas in general. Ask the Kurds and
Pashtuns, for instance. "I do not understand the squeamishness about the
use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against
uncivilised tribes."