Jump to content


Fury: Battling German Die-Hards


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

KrasnayaZvezda #41 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 12:41

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10239 battles
  • 2,629
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Oct 26 2014 - 06:02, said:

Cool to have Mr. Yeide type up a very interesting article on the final days of the European War. Can we expect more from him or other guest writers like Zaloga or Estes?

 

Yeah. This will be really nice if WG is not planning to do OTT season 2.

BDNeon #42 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 12:46

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 29622 battles
  • 855
  • [TLSC] TLSC
  • Member since:
    12-25-2010

It still confuses me why the Germans put up such stiff resistance on the Western Front. It seems to me the smart thing to do would have been to transfer all remaining combat forces to the Eastern Front and offer an open road to the Western Allies to Berlin. It would have made things incredibly awkward for the Allies, the ever-paranoiac Stalin would think the Western Allies were plotting with Germany while the Western allies would be put in the uncomfortable position of having an open path but being politically bound to refrain from action.

 

Even a war weary German soldier in 1945 would fight fanatically and desperately against the Russians knowing what they would do to his homeland and family and himself if captured.


Edited by BDNeon, Oct 26 2014 - 12:48.


Balue #43 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 13:34

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 51241 battles
  • 83
  • [NASF] NASF
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012
Thank you for the interesting read. 

Account_Name #44 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 15:43

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 0 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    09-07-2014

^^

 

They tried, but were stopped by Stirlitz.  :glasses:

 

More seriously: quite a few of them wanted to reach out to the Allies, but Hitler was having none of it.  The Western Allies would also never have entertained their delusions either.


Edited by Account_Name, Oct 26 2014 - 15:44.


The_Chieftain #45 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 15:58

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10262 battles
  • 9,634
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostKrasnayaZvezda, on Oct 26 2014 - 12:41, said:

 

Yeah. This will be really nice if WG is not planning to do OTT season 2.

 

I'm pushing for one next year. Possibly in Ottawa.

Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #46 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 16:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16986 battles
  • 5,628
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

Great post Chieftain and thank you very much Harry Yeide for providing the content. I love your books, can't wait for the next one. I just finished up The Infantry’s Armor and it was a great read, and I recognize a few of these stories from there. 



Dominatus #47 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 16:08

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 26 2014 - 10:58, said:

I'm pushing for one next year. Possibly in Ottawa.

Hell, yeah!



Walter_Sobchak #48 Posted Oct 26 2014 - 16:11

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 26 2014 - 10:58, said:

 

I'm pushing for one next year. Possibly in Ottawa.

 

That would be awesome.  If it happens I will be there. 

zloykrolik #49 Posted Oct 27 2014 - 02:27

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 30817 battles
  • 409
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 25 2014 - 13:34, said:

The official term tankers would use for infantry, as per the FMs of the time, is "Doughs". We use "Troops" today.

 

View PostDonward, on Oct 25 2014 - 13:52, said:


Just like now the appropriate tanker terminology for infantry - I've been solemnly informed - is squishies...

 

During my time in Armor (82-97), we called them "crunchies".

 

They called us "DATs".

 

:tongue:



RobbyBear #50 Posted Oct 27 2014 - 02:39

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8368 battles
  • 155
  • Member since:
    02-02-2012
Excellent article. True history awesome.

Meplat #51 Posted Oct 27 2014 - 17:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 6648 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Oct 25 2014 - 19:01, said:

 

 

 

I do find it interesting that Tankers generally referred to "Jeeps" as "Peeps" during the war.  Patton uses the term several times in "War as I knew it."

"Jeep" was the handle originally hung on the 1/2 and 3/4 ton Dodge command cars. "Peep" was a "little Jeep".



AutobotMech #52 Posted Oct 29 2014 - 21:40

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 14346 battles
  • 210
  • [-BDS-] -BDS-
  • Member since:
    03-14-2011
And "Seep"was the sea jeep. Of course "Deep" was the result of a flooded seep which caused the crews to go "eep"

;)

zloykrolik #53 Posted Oct 30 2014 - 03:28

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 30817 battles
  • 409
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012
Creep.

inktomi19d #54 Posted Oct 30 2014 - 04:06

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 3901 battles
  • 123
  • Member since:
    06-28-2014

View Postzloykrolik, on Oct 27 2014 - 03:27, said:

 

 

During my time in Armor (82-97), we called them "crunchies".

 

They called us "DATs".

 

:tongue:

 

That’s the term I heard when I was a tanker too. The Cavalry sticks with the more neutral “dismount” instead though, since scouts end up on either side at one time or another.

Globemaster1998 #55 Posted Oct 30 2014 - 05:16

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 15068 battles
  • 2,184
  • Member since:
    04-13-2014

View PostSlayer_Jesse, on Oct 25 2014 - 14:33, said:

 

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/The_Cheiftains_Hatch_Sherman_PR_Bigger_Cooper/

 

the cheiftan is more than aware.

 

Speaking of the actual Movie Fury, what did you think of the fight between the tiger and the Shermans? The Shermans were well within kill range, yet Fury still had to circle around to the rear.

 

A Tiger's armor is far more superior to that of a Sherman. Also, the guns that were on the Shermans (using real facts and not WoT gun pen. Info) were not built to counter Tigers. Sherman tanks could not even pen. Panthers and they are medium tanks. The Sherman could never penetrate a Tiger unless they got behind them. It wasn't until the British mounted a 17-pounder gun on the Sherman that it was able to kill Tiger Tanks. I am just using true, historical facts about why the Fury went to the rear of the Tiger.

Legiondude #56 Posted Oct 30 2014 - 05:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,047
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostGlobemaster1998, on Oct 29 2014 - 23:16, said:

Also, the guns that were on the Shermans (using real facts and not WoT gun pen. Info) were not built to counter Tigers.

The 75mm was not mounted with Tigers in mind, it was made to have a tank armed with a weapon superior to that of the known values of the Panzer IV. With the push to get the 76mm on the Shermans however, they were adequate in punching through it's flat plate

 

View PostGlobemaster1998, on Oct 29 2014 - 23:16, said:

Sherman tanks could not even pen Panthers and they are medium tanks.

Zaloga mentions the 76mm gun had difficulty penning the Panther's glacis, but even 75mm guns could punch through the Panther's relatively thin sides

 

Also the Panther's glacis plates are more effective than a Tiger's front

 

View PostGlobemaster1998, on Oct 29 2014 - 23:16, said:

The Sherman could never penetrate a Tiger unless they got behind them.

Except for the fact that the Tiger had equal armor on it's sides as it's rear, and thinner armor between the sponsons and the tracks

 

And Tigerfibel supports this assertion



Account_Name #57 Posted Oct 30 2014 - 10:41

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 0 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    09-07-2014

Also, I'm not really sure it's correct to call Panther a medium tank, and more than the 26 ton Italian P40 was a "heavy".  If you look at how much Panther weighed, it was about 44 tonnes or so - which is a cool 14 tonnes more than a Sherman and more than or around equal to the weight of other tanks the Allies designated heavies, such as the Churchill, M26, and IS family.  



Meplat #58 Posted Oct 30 2014 - 16:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 6648 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostGlobemaster1998, on Oct 29 2014 - 21:16, said:

 

A Tiger's armor is far more superior to that of a Sherman. Also, the guns that were on the Shermans (using real facts and not WoT gun pen. Info) were not built to counter Tigers. Sherman tanks could not even pen. Panthers and they are medium tanks. The Sherman could never penetrate a Tiger unless they got behind them. It wasn't until the British mounted a 17-pounder gun on the Sherman that it was able to kill Tiger Tanks. I am just using true, historical facts about why the Fury went to the rear of the Tiger.

 

Feel free to post your "real" facts.

Shanzival #59 Posted Oct 30 2014 - 19:45

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9301 battles
  • 557
  • [PANSY] PANSY
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011

View PostAccount_Name, on Oct 30 2014 - 05:41, said:

Also, I'm not really sure it's correct to call Panther a medium tank, and more than the 26 ton Italian P40 was a "heavy".  If you look at how much Panther weighed, it was about 44 tonnes or so - which is a cool 14 tonnes more than a Sherman and more than or around equal to the weight of other tanks the Allies designated heavies, such as the Churchill, M26, and IS family.  

 

It was a 'Medium' based more upon role and comparative size. Sure it ate a lot, but it didn't eat nearly as much as those Mark VIs. (We don't talk about the Mark VII)

Legiondude #60 Posted Oct 30 2014 - 20:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,047
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostPresident_Romney, on Oct 30 2014 - 13:45, said:

(We don't talk about the Mark VII)

Which one? VK 65.01 or VK 70.01?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users