Western Europe and America vs Russia WWII - chances of Poland being saved

There was no King Tiger in Kursk because battle of Kursk happened in 1943 and King Tiger enetered service in german forces in 1944.
However T-34 was inferior to Tiger 1 but it was much cheaper thus able to be produced in much higher quantities which was the decisive factor.I mean it was better to have 5 T-34s in the front than just one Tiger 1.

Nobody likes the KV1 tank eh?

Hands down the T-34. The T34 was tough, maneuverable, reliable, and could cross virtually any type of terrain.


The main gun specification of the King Tiger was a hybrid of the 88mm anti-aircraft gun. Although the 88mm was initially designed for an anti aircraft role, it proved to be an excellent tank killer.

The King Tiger was not an open field tank. Because of the size and weight of the King Tiger had its share of problems. It suffered mechanically with many breakdowns and had poor maneuverability. The infrastructure (roads/bridges) was not suitable for a tank of this size. The fuel requirements of the King Tiger were enormous. Many King Tigers were abandoned due to lack of fuel rather then being destroyed during the offensive in the Ardennes.

WTF?????

*shopgirl puts her antique Sherman tank in gear and drives over Sokrates rock-filled head*

What geographical questions did you have in mind????

Like Heisenberg and the bomb?

How many of the 1600 russian tanks shot down at Kursk had been T-34's...hmmm...:)


More like these:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderwaffen

Can you believe it? Already developed 65 years back:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zielger%C3%A4t_1229

The most important point to be made about the Kursk operation is this: If the Germans were smart they never would have engaged the Soviets at Kursk.

Your point being what? That the Russians could mass produce a rugged killing machine? Thus the number of Russian tanks to be killed just happened to be the T-34? Are you sure all of those kills were due to the "flawed" T-34 and not the individual responsible for the T-34?

Well..the point was a comparison between the russian and german panzers...contrary to your "hands down the T-34" statement the stats of Kursk tell it clearly! :)

If we don't have the better Panzers then for sure we had the better crews as they were much more successfull in killing enemy tanks!

(Wittmann was there too!!!)

Sometimes it's better to make objective decisions not fitting to ones political preferences...:)

Like beside how many oceans Ukraine lies :D


If Germans didnt try at Kursk Russians would (as they did) have three new armies, nineteen armored and cavalry/mechanized brigades created and would have swarmed Germans like they did anyway, Kursk was the last attempt to take over the initiative and it had a chance of success, marginal but it did.


Kursk shows the superiority of your crews, Russians at the time no longer had dedicated tankers, you still had plenty of surviving veterans.


Correct, but in regards to Wittman most of his success comes from driving a tiger, before he was driving a Stug and his achievements were not nearly as impressive.

Well..yes...but only already distinguished crews got the chance of the new Tigers...and he already made clear in his Stug that he was a top dog! :)

panzerace.net/english/pz_bio.asp?page=3

There's a reason he got moved to France though, by 43 Germans tankers in the East were dying like gerbils in a meat grinder, high command realized that if they leave Wittman in the East he's going to be dead within weeks thats why they transferred him to a place where enemy tanks were jokes on wheels.

ouch.

Now lets go back to reality and how majority of German soldiers looked like:



lonesentry.com/articles/germanhorse/index.html

As compared to?

ww2incolor.com/poland/DZWI-KZ_110_1%23.html%5D%5Bimg%5D


Yeah...to all who say the superiority of the german forces were because of their being motorized or better equipped...nooo...we just had the better soldiers and the better tactics...in short we were the better army even faced with better equipment or a numerous superior enemy we won!

(for awhile that is...)

If you only hadn't forgoten winter jackets ...


You lost. You haven't prepared to war properly ... your comanders were insane, ideology crazy ...

That too...


You can only kill so many people till they overwhelm you....

War sucks!

Well said. Violence only breeds more violence and in Europe
we learnt that lesson too many times in the past.

Roosevelt asks of Hitler not to invade a list of countries.

Maybe at the begining your tactic was interesting ... but your overall startegy was inferior.

The overall strategy was...what exactly???
Our army did the best and even overperformed often enough with what she had or better not had as she was overstretched, undermanned and without free, unlimited access to important, vital resources!

This world war was unwinnable but the third Reich wouldn't had been viable in peace times...so war to the bad end it was...only most people didn't know!

It was insane!


Agreed!

Rubbish, violence breeds great movies and computer games.

Maybe somebody should have told these officers that. The German soldier fought in fear of retaliation from above. They were not the heroes that you make them out to be.

The Battle for the Bridge at Remagan
Although the Germans intended to destroy the bridge, they were unsuccessful. Several attempts failed, thus the Americans were given a clear passage over the Rhine, altering the course of the war. Hitler laid the blame for the failure on five officers who were collectively responsible for the whole bridge complex, calling them the "traitors of Remagen." Four were immediately executed, however one was already in American hands as a prisoner. Later, historians called these men "innocent scapegoats".

No, he didn't (not generally anyways). They weren't brainless automatons as you make them out to be. /Infantry-Aces-Soldier-Stackpole-Military/

Well I could ask you the same question.


I'd say that Poles overperformed ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II

For sure not Germans ... as long as they were fighting against alone small Poland ... France (blizkreig was succesful) ... or alone Great Britan (lost battle of Britain) ... they had successes but later ...


Germans and their resonable leadership ...

It was a rhetorical question....if there was a grande strategy it was about even more conquest...nothing something would had ever had a chance of success in the end.

It was in the nature of the third Reich...but hindsight is everything.


ROFL...yes as long as they conquered the whole of Europe they were successfull! :)
It needed the alliance of the huge manpower of Russia plus the huge advantage in material by the US to beat Germany...congratulations!
Scrap it Luki, you can't downtalk the german forces!:):):)
I wonder why you still try? It makes Polands surrender after 4 weeks not look better....
(Even as they had better equipment and were more brave as you say)


If you say so....

@Salomon:

I think you're not being fair to German army, mate. God knows I have not a single
bit of sympathy for Wehrmacht and their deeds during WW2, but they were certainly
good, disciplined soldiers who fought skilfully and bravely against a very often more
numerous and better equipped enemy.


We'd last longer than that if the Soviets didn't stab us in the back.

In all honesty I have to admit that the average German soldier fought well, especially when they were overwhelming other countries.
At this time their morale was high. They were convinced that they were supermen.
On the other hand there were the SS crazies. They were fanatics. A good example, Panzergruppe Joachim Peiper and his mad men murdering American POWs at the Malmedy Cross roads on December the 17th 1944 in Belgium

Well....in the end most got free and he too after 10 years in prison.
Do you think they had let them go after the trial if he had been really guilty?
They hanged war criminals for less!
He wasn't even near as the massacre happened.

And don't you think americans killed surrendered german soldiers too?
Where are the trials for them?

....okay...I'm a bit biased concerning Peiper....I own both huge bios about him.....

A Times article from '49:

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,780092,00.html

I wont admit that it did not happen on isolated individual occasions. But this was frowned upon by the American military.. But show me one case where this happened. On many occasions the Germans were ordered not to take prisoners

You are kidding, right?
They weren't likely any survivors and if there was one was soon more busy to stay alive in some POW cage...ever heard of "the victor writes history"????

**** happened, Malmedy's happened....someone pulled the trigger...most likely some 16 year old who had already seen to much...

Did you know about the Canadiens in Normandy against the SS Hitler Jugend?
The Canadiens wanted revenge for Dieppe and didn't take german prisoners for the first days. The HJ retaliated...both didn't show the other any mercy..but guess who get's all the blame after the war???

No photographers, no researchers, no trials for allied war crimes...that doesn't mean they didn't happen!

PS: Did you know that the black uniform of the Panzer troops was for awhile a death sentence???
The americans thought there were all SS soldiers...because of the black, even as they were mostly "only" Wehrmacht...they just killed them because of their uniform even as they had surrendered!

BS , BB. There was no isolated 16 yr. old boy alone. History shows where the Americans were lined up 8 deep, and under orders a truck backed up and opened up with a machine gun. There were reports that a few Germans protested but were ordered to shut up. After it was over the Bastards stood over the wounded and shot them The brave German soldier strikes again.