War - thread

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by MutantScalper, Mar 6, 2017.

  1. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
  2. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dozy northern git

    Nov 22, 2009
    Well if British media isn't supposed to cover the Arab world then why did they have even a small news item there? Seems very colonial.
     
  3. Makta

    Makta The DICKtator

    Jul 29, 2010
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  4. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dozy northern git

    Nov 22, 2009
    Finland might be buing our next fighter planes from Sweden to replace the aging F-18's. I think it's a great idea, prefer Sweden to USA.
     
  5. Makta

    Makta The DICKtator

    Jul 29, 2010
    Sweden have made some really impressy weaponary but apperantly our leaders don't want us to use em but instead they sell em. Ohh well.

    Also one of my all time favorite tanks.

     
  6. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dozy northern git

    Nov 22, 2009
    That tank was probably made from Swedish steel. :)
     
  7. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    However, he Tiger I is easily one of the most overhyped objects of WW2, surrounded by rumors, myth and propaganda.
    If you look really deep in to it, the historical details, the battles and the design behind the Tiger, it really shows that it was actually a tank with many limitations.

    It was Impressive for 1942, however it's first use at Leningrad has also shown it's drawbacks. It required a very well trained crew and very knoweledgable staff, versed in the difference between the stratetical and tactical values of armored vehicles. WW2 was in many ways a 'numbers-game', it really doesn't help much if you have an decent tank but which can be outnumbered by the enemy if they simply manufacture much more tanks than it can actually destroy. In skilled hands, the Tiger I was a fearsome weapon, but this was also proved to be a major problem for the German army, particularly in the later periods of the war. The Tiger I was at least for its class a better tank compared to the Panther, which was in my opinion an overengineered mess, and that is coming from someone who was a Panther fanboy.

    The first mistake is to see the Tiger I as a 'battle tank', as its inteded purpose was of a brake trough tank, like the KV2. The KV2 was a 57 ton behemoth with a 152mm gun, intended to directly blast any bunker or fortification away while being invulnerable to most anti tank weapons while also supporting the advancing infantry, a role where the Tiger I was actually prety decent in. The Tiger I was not designed as answer to Russian tanks, and even less to the hordes of T34 the germans encountered, if anything that was more the intended role of teh Panther. Up to 1942 and also 43 the Germansh had actually little issue in dealing with Soviet armor, they destroyed in 1941 alone more than 20 000 Russian armor! The war simply demanded from the Tiger I to also be used in destroying tanks because they often simply had no other choice but to use anything they had to destroy enemy tanks, which it did well enough due to the powerfull 88mm gun. However, it's design limited it's protection, the US, the Soviets and the British forces rather quickly developed some answers in how to deal with the Tiger I on the battlefield. The Soviets got several designs armed with 85mm guns like SU-85 a tank hunter on the chasis of the T34, the British developed a very powerfull medium tank with combing the Sherman and the 17pf and the US pushed the production of their 76mm anti tank guns on various vehicles in cluding the Sherman.
    Even the Germans themself knew about the limitations of the Tiger I so they actually ordered the design and production of a successor while the Tiger I was not even in serial production, which eventually ended in the designs of the Tiger II.
     
  8. Makta

    Makta The DICKtator

    Jul 29, 2010
    Ofc it was overhyped but it is still one of the most badass tanks out there! Just reading about what Michael Wittmann did with a single tank is quite awesome.
    But outside of WW2 i do actually look more at the usefullness seeing how my current favorite tank is the russian T90 i guess.
     
  9. zegh8578

    zegh8578 Keeper of the trout Orderite

    Mar 11, 2012
    I bet you guys got the balls to actually go through with it. Finland, the country, is famously shaped like balls (when watched along with Sweden, and Swede's famous... shape)

    I say this, because Norway was more or less promising Sweden to buy several Gripen jets, untill America more or less told us "no."
    The real story is a bit more complex, but pretty much boils down to "no." "why?" "because." "oh." and that was that, more shitty old F-16 Falcons for us, untill we replace them with F-35 Lightning after 2020

    I always wished for more defense cooperation in Fennoscania, we have historically shown great potential in making things hard for invaders. Finland's achievements need no mention, they are famous. Norway, less so, but considering we held off the might of Germany for 3 months with most of our army in shambles, I always wonder how we'd do if we had managed to truly rally the armed forces, the way Finland did.
     
  10. Makta

    Makta The DICKtator

    Jul 29, 2010
    Screw all the currenty political spectrums. I want Sweden Norway Finland Denmark and Island to make a union without EU and all the other crap! Would have been so good!
     
  11. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dozy northern git

    Nov 22, 2009
    I always preferred to use Panzer IV's in Steelpanthers, Close Combat and other tanks games since it seemed like a more realistic tank for the Germans to use and requires more manouvering and tactics to use successfully.

    And Stug III's.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
  12. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Even up to 1945 the Panzer IV was always the backbone and the workhorse of the Wehrmacht and it was overal a 'decent' medium tank, it had it's flaws, like narrow tracks and well the amunition was really stored in every corner of the tank not to mention the armor layout was well outdated. But it got the job done, it's crews knew the vehicle and it had an excelent logistic behind it.

    What people often forget, is that almost no vehicle in WW2 was a completely new design, almost every tank that saw combat, was based on older prototypes or actually developed before WW2, like the Panzer III, Panzer IV, T34, etc. And even the Tiger I and the Panther have been based on prototypes which started as blue prints in the early 1930s. The whole process from desgining to actual serial production of a tank can take between 4 and 7 years - on average. Not to mention of all the issues that come with it, like unreliability, production issues and other flaws that you simply don't have with an vehicle which has seen some extensive use.

    If you ask me, the most effective vehicle the Germans had, was probably the Stug. It was produced in very largen umbers, it had a powerfull gun, a low profile and considering the situation the Germans faces in the later stage of the war - defensive - it was a very dangerous weapon. Probably much more than the Tiger, which saw maybe 1300 units compared to some of the aproximately 8000 stugs and 8000 Panzer IVs with the long anti tank guns.

    No doubt. DOn't get me wrong, I don't want to trivilaize the feats of individuals like Wittmann, Carius, Bolter etc. But, those are individuals, when you look at them, their achievements haven been also impressive in vehicles outside the Tiger I. Like Wittmann who started his career inside a Stug if I remember correctly, and where he also destroyed a considerable amount of armor. However, I want to say one thing, Wittmann was THE poster boy for the Waffen SS, and there is a hell of a lot of propaganda that surounds him that's something one has to keep in mind.
    What I am trying to say is, their achievements have probably less to do with the Tiger but more with their individual skills. I mean you can look at the other nations and you will find tank aces in the Firefly, the Sherman, the T34, the IS2, the KV1 etc. Particularly with the KV1e you have some really remarkable individuals. However, the KV1 sees much less interest by WW2 enthusiasts compared to the German "Zoo" (Tiger, Panther, Elephant).
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
  13. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dozy northern git

    Nov 22, 2009
    Despite Finland mostly fighting against the Soviets in WW 2, I've always appreciated their achievements in that war and also their tanks. Not necessarily Stalin, I think they probably could have had a better leader then him. But I do appreciate the average Soviet soldier/military person who had to face up to 85% of the Third Reich's military machine and beat it and then win the war. By the end of the war the Soviets were beginning to run out of fresh young guys, and it was a big country. That sacrifice has to be appreciated.

    Over here in Finland we mostly only hear about Winter war and how 'cowardly' Soviets attacked us, I prefer to look at the bigger picture of the global world war including the genocides etc. that were committed. There isn't much talk about WW 2 genocides by the Axis in Finland even to this day.

    Some winter camo T-34's.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  14. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Yes, if you ignore Stalin and his goons, what the Soviets achieved from a simple military and economic point of view was staggering here and pretty amaizing. Like I said, the Soviets lost in 1941 alone 20 000 tanks and like 1,5 milion men. ANd they STILL(!) managed to keep going.
    Imagine if the Germans suffered the same looses in like 6 months. It would have been over for them.
    The average Soviet soldier and citizen, had really to endure a hell lot during those early war periods in the east.

    Hence why I am always roling my eyes when I see politicans going confrontational with Russia these days, which is funny, because military leaders like German generals are a lot more conservative here and rather cautious in their choice of words. How easily some people forget history ... we simply have no leverage when it comes to Russia. An Ex-Nato general from Germany once said, sanctions are the tool of the helpless. And I agree with him. The only way, how we can ever achieve something in Russia, is by getting them to the table, by playing a game of quid pro quo.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  15. Makta

    Makta The DICKtator

    Jul 29, 2010
    When the people means shit to you and you are getting weapons etc sent to you in an never ending stream it is not too hard to win something like that, But there is actually a few russians that made some really great stuff during WW2 but most of them was pretty much cannon fodder.

    God damn zergs!
     
  16. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I wish I could slap you with a history book right now :P.

    You need to read more stuff from russian/soviet vets. Fuck, there are anecdotes from German generals in WW2 which even complimented the 'average' Russian soldier for what he was capable to endure in combat.

    You can shit on their lieadership and their ideology as much as you want, but you can not say something about their feats as soldiers and workers during the war.
     
  17. valcik

    valcik Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Dec 20, 2008
    Yeah, especially these penal battalions formed by comrade Stalin. Cannon fodder par excellence, forged in deadly environment of Siberian gulags under -40 degrees Celsius and constant food shortage for years. Basically indestructible and self-sustainable multiheaded steal&rape machine fighting for their own personal amnesty instead of some fluffy ideals.
     
  18. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dozy northern git

    Nov 22, 2009
    I've read some first person narratives of WW 2, some from generals and high level officers, some from soldiers and sailors and airmen. The Soviets had a mentality of always trying to attack and ambush unexpected. Sometimes this worked, sometimes it didn't. It was costly. They also used partisan troops etc. and they sometimes also attacked civilians so it's not so black and white. However looking at the casualty figures Soviet military and civilians suffered the most in the war.
     
  19. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    You shouldn't forget that the Soviets have been also on the advance since 1943, against an army that became somewhat proficient in defensive battles, this is was also true for the Brits and Americans for example, when you look at their looses in armor, of which many simply happend because the Germans had excelent anti tank weapons in their arsenal.

    Name me one army which wouldn't have suffered heavy loses in such situations.

    And your point is? Penal battalions existed in the German army as well. Half of the German movie "Stalingrad" plays in such a penalty battalion - not that a movie is a good source for historical information, just saying the so called 'Strafbattalione' have been there.

    I understand that many people don't like Russia and the Sovietunion. But seriously, could we forget this *ideological bullshit for a second? Or do we have to talk about German concentration camps here that came with the 'mighty' German army? No, I guess no one wants that. So let us not step into that "who's the worse nation bullshit" and actually give credit, where credit is due.

    And when you look at the average Soviet soldier and worker, you can admire the feats they achieved during war time, for the same reason as you would no clue glorify individuals like Wittmann, German generals like Rommel or the American soldiers of Bastogne for holding out in their dire situation.

    What kind of imagine do people have anyway about the Soviet military of WW2? That every unit had a machine gun behind their front line, shooting at their own troops in case they retreat? - Talking about movies not beeing historical references here ... Yes, those cases happend, but they have been neither common, nor a practise in the Sovet army, in fact you will have actually a hard time to even find real historical evidences for something like that to happen, doesn't of course mean it couldn't have been the case in some instance. What is true, is that the Soviets had very strict approaches when it came to retreats, and yeah penalty battalions existed. But when we really look in to the history of WW2 and the combat in the east, Soviet morale and discipline was actually held up by the soldiers on the front, without the constant fear of punishment. Infact, most soldiers actually WANTED to fight the germans, why? Well maybe some did it for the great Stalin, others for mother Russia but most people probably simply really wanted to beat the fucking germans, who invaded their nation and have been known to well, not really treat occupied nations very well. For the Soviets it was really a win or lose everything scenario, it's not like Hitler didn't made that one clear in all of his speeches.

    But naw ... let us rather pretend the Soviet soldier was a coward, who only fought because Stalin would have purged them all ...

    *There can be no doubt that the Soviet-Union was an inhuman system, which comitted all kinds of attrocites in WW2 and after WW2. But let us not get bull-shit ideology in our way here, and actually look at the army, the soldiers and the nation as a whole.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
  20. Kadscaner

    Kadscaner Still Mildly Glowing

    Feb 4, 2016


    reminder that Russia should BTFO before they start WW3. Slava Ukraini.