Jump to content


Common Myths debunked.


  • Please log in to reply
636 replies to this topic

EnsignExpendable #581 Posted Oct 20 2015 - 05:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostChepicoro, on Oct 19 2015 - 23:12, said:

And you spread false information tooo many times....basically you are your own source. Now retire your lies about me or quote me if you want to see anything. Or get a job and by your books.

 

I'm not my own source. The archives are my sources. You, on the other hand, just make things up and then chant "Krivosheev" and "Suvorov" over and over again as though it is some kind of enchantment against evil.

Zinegata #582 Posted Oct 20 2015 - 09:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9553 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostChepicoro, on Oct 20 2015 - 12:10, said:

 

Yes that includes all losses, but in a little war like ww2, the overwhelming majority of theses losses have to be combat losses. For an industrial or economic point of view an irrecoverable loss is... well irrecoverable no matter if the tank is scrapped, blown to pieces or abandoned in a retreat.

 

Lol, what? British and American tank studies both shows that the overwhelming majority of tank losses were not even due to enemy fire! Biggest problem was always dealing with breakdowns and other non-combat losses.

 

Again, this is the classic example of insisting on presumptions that were false to begin with



Harvester_0f_Sorrow #583 Posted Oct 20 2015 - 20:51

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 19304 battles
  • 364
  • [CB] CB
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013
not another one of these

EnsignExpendable #584 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 00:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostHarvester_0f_Sorrow, on Oct 20 2015 - 14:51, said:

not another one of these

 

If you want a vision of the future, imagine one of these being posted in the forums - forever.

stalkervision #585 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 19:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 48263 battles
  • 7,547
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

I have a problem with your posting real evidence and truths with actual links. Will you please stop it. The Russian's were and still are our friends and are real nice guys and would never officially raped anyone except for one Russian guy who was a huge sex addict in the Kremlin and just couldn't help himself. I believe he was one of Stalin's more popular illegitimate sons born to a non consenting women.. He would follow the army throughout the captured german lands and the Russian soldiers around him were just to afraid to make him stop it. That is all there is to it.

 

and the comments that Russian players constantly TK NA players on the test server is a total fabrication. I dare you to post one bit of evidence for this !


Edited by stalkervision, Oct 21 2015 - 19:31.


stalkervision #586 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 19:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 48263 battles
  • 7,547
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
All this stain hate. I just can't stand it. He was in truth a wonderful man just a bit misunderstood is all. I believe there is even talk of digging up his body,propping it up in mobile advertising bus and using him as the new spokesmen for a brand new line of Russian revolvers and ammo that Stalin himself would have approved of and that have absolutely nothing to do with the company that furnished the NKVD assassination firearms.

pizzastorm #587 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 19:42

    Community Manager

  • Administrator
  • 10729 battles
  • 1,556
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012

Hey everyone,

 

Please be mindful of what you are posting. 

 

If you are not sure if what you want to say is against our forum rules, please feel free to refresh yourselves here - http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/forum-29/announcement-100-world-of-tanks-forum-rules/

 

We will be watching this thread closely. :confused:

 

 



stalkervision #588 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 20:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 48263 battles
  • 7,547
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

The common myths isn't really specific PZ. Does it have to be only about german arms being inferior to American, Russian and British arms? Even the title is misleading and should say common armor and armament myths. "common myths"  sounds like mythbusters which is OT

 

BTW love you gamer name. How did you get it ?   :)  I want to rename myself Ho Chi Minh but I bet that one is taken :(


Edited by stalkervision, Oct 21 2015 - 20:20.


stalkervision #589 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 20:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 48263 battles
  • 7,547
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
Naming and shaming...Just like you to try to add additional fuel to the fire W/H.  PS has it covered. BTW do you have more then two accounts here as that plus one came up exactly when your comment appeared on my screen and I do not have a slow connection.

stalkervision #590 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 20:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 48263 battles
  • 7,547
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
I would just like to know if I have to always make pro-american equiptment posts as the OP appears to want ? 

stalkervision #591 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 20:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 48263 battles
  • 7,547
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostDestin65, on Jul 30 2015 - 04:23, said:

I was reading an article earlier titled "Common Myths about WWII" that was posted on the FTR site and contained some rather brazen and loosely-based "historical" facts. In the introduction it even states that The Chieftian "WGA's historian" even signed off on the article as being legit.

Are you serious? Let's debunk this...

"Myth: German tanks in general, and Tigers in particular, were impervious to Allied guns.
Fact: Tigers were vulnerable to even Shermans armed with 75mm guns."

STOP RIGHT THERE.  First, the question does not contain a range gauge. Second, it fails to mention the fact that the 75mm gun could only pen the Tiger from the side or rear at a range of 100 meters or less. A Sherman would have been knocked out 2,000 meters before ever having that chance as a Tiger could penetrate the Sherman at 2,100 meters, taking out critical components and bringing it to an immediate halt.

"The longer 76 mm gun (superior in AP performance to the Soviet 85 mm gun, which could handle Tigers just fine) had no problem with Tigers or Panthers."

True, as long as they were within 600m and 500m, respectively, on average in order to have any hope. So if you had a meeting of a T-34 paired with a Sherman and a Tiger I tank, one of the two would be knocked out before either one could start moving. The second would be knocked out well before they could close to within 1500 meters, some 1,000 meters short of being able to penetrate the Tiger I.

And now we know the real reason WG designed cage-style maps measuring a paltry 1k by 1k at the largest and with no open range areas and visibility reduced to 445m in contrast to the real thing comprising tens of thousands of meters and view ranged limited only by the weather and terrain.

So in keeping with the Chieftain's rules that there be no opinion-based information here, I decided to shoot down the wholly opinion-based article he was name-dropped in. Feel free to fact-check my information, but do not use Russian-based sources. Every other Allied nation ran penetration tests on the tanks. Hint, hint.

"The myth that they were impervious to Sherman was because oftenly, the tigers would engage the M4's across open areas, and there, at long range, it WAS impervious, and it could knock out the enemy tanks. However, within 500m or less, the Sherman could have the upper hand."

 

 

REBOOTED


Edited by stalkervision, Oct 21 2015 - 20:57.


stalkervision #592 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 20:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 48263 battles
  • 7,547
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
I saw a history channel show where a British commander in a allied sherman tank said that his sherman was hiding behind a hedgerow when a tiger tank stuck it big barrel through. They pumped shot after shot at the tiger with no effect but when the tiger fired that was a different story. They were only feet from each other mind you.

WulfeHound #593 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 21:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 12884 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 21 2015 - 14:56, said:

I saw a history channel show where a British commander in a allied sherman tank said that his sherman was hiding behind a hedgerow when a tiger tank stuck it big barrel through. They pumped shot after shot at the tiger with no effect but when the tiger fired that was a different story. They were only feet from each other mind you.

 

Greatest Tank Battles? That show is generally about as historically accurate as Braveheart is.

stalkervision #594 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 21:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 48263 battles
  • 7,547
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Oct 21 2015 - 15:04, said:

 

Greatest Tank Battles? That show is generally about as historically accurate as Braveheart is.

 

This was a personal interview with a British tank commander. WHY would he be Pro -German ? Your post isn't a explanation it's a excuse.I believe many of his crew were injured and died in that shot. Are you calling him a liar? Maybe I can find his name and have him post a reply to you here about this incident.

Edited by stalkervision, Oct 21 2015 - 21:12.


CK16 #595 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 21:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 21 2015 - 14:10, said:

 

This was a personal interview with a British tank commander. WHY would he be Pro -German ? Your post isn't a explanation it's a excuse.I believe many of his crew were injured and died in that shot. Are you calling him a liar? Maybe I can find his name and have him post a reply to you here about this incident.

 

Because many Allied tankers feared the tiger so much it got a reputation about as much as you hype it? And I know exactly what show your talking about...

Tell me did it use 3d "reenactments "? And did this M4 survive with a big hole going along the top of the turret?



WulfeHound #596 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 21:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 12884 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 21 2015 - 15:10, said:

 

This was a personal interview with a British tank commander. WHY would he be Pro -German ? Your post isn't a explanation it's a excuse.I believe many of his crew were injured and died in that shot. Are you calling him a liar? Maybe I can find his name and have him post a reply to you here about this incident.

 

You mean the heavily edited "interview" done to suit the "History" Channel's viewpoint? I don't have an issue with the man, I have an issue with you holding up "History" Channel as the end-all, be-all of WWII tanks when they can't even figure out that the Super Pershing's encounter with a Tiger II never happened at all

stalkervision #597 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 21:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 48263 battles
  • 7,547
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
WH the interview was certainly NOT "hevily edited" but if you believe everything on the history channel is just lies and nonsense what can I say.

WulfeHound #598 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 21:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 12884 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
It was the Battle for the Hochwald Gap episode?

CK16 #599 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 21:40

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

Normandy was the episode I think. 

 

32:00 Mark it starts....This is exactly what you were describing...Its a memoir and not all memoir's are fact's...


Edited by CK16, Oct 21 2015 - 21:42.


WulfeHound #600 Posted Oct 21 2015 - 21:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 12884 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

And besides, as Zinegata pointed out earlier in this thread, no Tigers took part in the German response to Operation Goodwood.

Block Quote

 

I have actually looked at what happened in Goodwood, many times before. You're pretty much going to regret posturing yourself as an expert on this battle because unlike your fairy tale, I know what actually happened there.

 

Goodwood was the single greatest lost of Commonwealth armor in a single day, costing the Allies 100 tanks. The thing is, it was not a great tank vs tank battle.

 

Because in that entire Operation, only one regiment - 20-odd British tanks - encountered any German tanks at all. One regiment out of nine participating regiments in the battle drawn from three Divisions. And these twenty British tanks faced an equivalent regiment from 9th or 10th SS Panzer, and they mutually destroyed each other.

 

No Tigers were involved either. 101st SS was still pretending it wasn't destroyed at Villers-Bocage and the two other Tiger battalions were pretending their Tigers were already working despite most of them being found in the repair yard. What? You didn't know there were only three Tiger battalions in Normandy and except for the mauled 101st SS were pretty much non-factors?

 

So again, where are you coming from with this utter nonsense that Goodwood was some great tank vs tank battle? It seems like the usual posturing of someone whose cherished sacred cows were proved stupid. Again - 1.5km shoots? Never happened in real life, your accuracy drops to 5% at that range, and the Sherman can close that distance in just two minutes anyway. It was a stupid scenario that falls apart in the face of a simple examination of actual combat tactics, performance, and the simple laws of physics - all of which are ignored by scale model marketers trying to sell another Panther variant that uses the same molds as the one last year but with different decal stickers.

 

Goodwood, if anything, was about a concealed Luftwaffe flak battery shooting up two regiments of British tanks. It was not a tank vs tank battle, and having a concealed battery in fact gives the gunners plenty of time to shoot and kill because the Brits are going to spend minutes figuring out where the shots were coming from to begin with.

 

And it's worth noting that the worst single day for the US Army, which was the Anzio breakout, had the 1st Armoured Division lose 100 tanks to two infantry Divisions with no tanks at all. Spielberger tries to claim that it was the Herman Goering Panzer Division that did the killing, but close examination of its records show it was not encountered by US 1st Armoured unitl two days after the bloody first day of the breakout. And guess what the two German Infantry Divisions used against the Shermans? Concealed towed anti-tank guns!

 

As for the East, more non-specific anecdotes. Give me an actual date, location of engagement, and units involved. People keep repeating bloody fairy tales that fall apart once examined.

 

Block Quote

 

Quote

Notice all the major Panzer divisions in the battle yet?

 

Lol. So to cover up you humilating lack of information, you take an excerpt listing various Panzer Division's movements... on July 14, 1944. When Goodwood happened four days later?

 

And are you aware of all the Panzer Divisions and Heavy Tank battalions your excerpt actually mentioned, only 21st Panzer actually fought at Goodwood? And your entire excerpt fails to mention the 9th SS Division at all, which was the only Panzer Division whose tanks fought the British.

 

Moreover, as noted in the excerpt, 21st Panzer only had 30 assault guns. Meaning by definition they are not tanks like Tigers or Panthers?

 

You do realize that "Panzer" Divisions by this point were primarily mechanized infantry outfits, yes? And assault guns are distinct from tanks, yes - because the assault guns were in fact more effective than the worse than worthless Panthers? Only a company from the 21st Panzer actually got into action on the 18th, but they stopped a regiment of 20+ British tanks on their own.

 

 

Quote

Notice all the Tigers and tiger 2's you discount ?

 

There were again no Tigers in Goodwood. Your article mentions 10 Tiger IIs in Cagny, except these were in reserve and never actually participated in the battle. The battalion which owned the Tiger IIs was very clear that they couldn't get to the battle in time.

 

Meanwhile there were eighty actual 88mm pieces at Cagny - which was primarily responsible for the destruction of two regiments. The infantry Divisions meanwhile accounted for another 20. So add up the 20 destroyed by the 21st's assault guns, the 40 destroyed by the flak batteries, and the 20 destroyed by the Divisional anti-tank guns, and we are already at 80 tanks destroyed.

 

And guess who destroyed the remaining 20? The tanks of 9th SS - which your excerpt didn't mention because you very dishonestly quoted unit dispoitions from four day prior to the battle.

 

You not only listed units in the area four days before the battle, and then suddenly completely fail to explain what happened during the battle; whereas I could pretty much describe which units did the killing. Really, who's the guy who understood what happened at Goodwood, and who's just quoting Wikipedia and didn't even comprehend his own excerpt?

 

 

Quote

Notice all the Panthers and various other German armored fighting units Yet?

 

Nope. There is in fact no evidence that it was 9th SS's Panther battalion that contested the British advance to begin with. The British encountered only one enemy tank regiment - and it was most likely a battle group built around the 9th SS's Mk IV battalion, not its Panther battalion. You are aware Panzer Divisions generally only had two battalions of tanks left at this point, right, and the rest of the regiment-sized battlegroups was Panzergrenadiers?

 

Probably not, given this doesn't even cover the single most embarassing mistake on your part.

 

And that mistake? You keep posturing that were so many Panzer Divisions in the battle. However, the excerpt only mentioned three Panzer Divisions - 21st Panzer, 1st SS, and 12th SS, and two of those three Divisions were explicitly stated as being moved away from the Goodwood battlefield! 12th SS was moved to "an area between the Orne and the Seine"  - too far from Goodwood (Seine is the river along Paris), while 1st SS was replaced on the frontline by the 272nd Infantry Division - which is why it was the 272nd, and not 1st SS that contested the initial British advances.

 

So really you are describing an utterly hilarious level of reading miscomprehension. You didn't even realize that of the three Panzer Divisions mentioned in your excerpt, two were explicitly described as being taken off the Goodwood sector four days before the battle! Talk about trying to posture instead of determining the facts!

 

But yeah, sure, lots of "major Panzer Divisions" in the battle. Keep posturing, because the more you posture the more you embarass yourself.

 

 


Edited by WulfeHound, Oct 21 2015 - 21:48.





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users