Jump to content


The Chieftain's Hatch: German Tactics, as Told by the USSR


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
98 replies to this topic

Donward #21 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 03:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 45150 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

*******

 

[content moderated - inappropriate/off topic]
- Yshoneist



Donward #22 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 03:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 45150 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

View PostManicDVLN, on Apr 05 2016 - 17:24, said:

[Content Moderated - Insults]
--Rhonico

 

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Apr 05 2016 - 18:29, said:

OK, Manic. Fun's over. Constructive/mature posts only from this point on, please.

 

SAYWA???

 

The Chieftain actually RO's a Nazi for spouting Nazi beliefs?

 

Is it still April Fool's Day or have we wandered into a Bizarro World version of the WOT Forums???


Edited by Donward, Apr 06 2016 - 06:46.


schwert_2015 #23 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 03:54

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 28407 battles
  • 1,739
  • Member since:
    01-21-2015

View PostManicDVLN, on Apr 05 2016 - 13:15, said:

Germany was not too far from Moscow, their plan could have succeeded.

 

They had no plan, that was their problem. Their "plan", such as it was, was to destroy all the troops the Russians had massed near the borders, and then they'd surrendered. But they didn't. If they'd gone hell-bend for Lenningrad or Moscow they could've taken either, but they had no plan, tried to do everything, and failed.



saru_richard #24 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 04:13

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24823 battles
  • 2,219
  • [NA-CL] NA-CL
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Apr 06 2016 - 03:29, said:

OK, Manic. Fun's over. Constructive/mature posts only from this point on, please.

 

trust me he's not going to listen and he will continue to act the way he does anyways, i've try to help him out and talk sense into him but he basically ignored me and behave in a similar manner as shown in his post here

Walter_Sobchak #25 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 04:25

    Major

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

View PostManicDVLN, on Apr 05 2016 - 20:22, said:

*******

 

******

 

[content moderated - non constructive/insults]
- Yshoneist

 

 



mrmojo #26 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 04:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 20064 battles
  • 2,581
  • [-LEG-] -LEG-
  • Member since:
    07-24-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Apr 06 2016 - 11:25, said:

******

 

Agreed.

 

Interesting article, an excerpt from "Krasnaya Zvezda (Russian: Кра́сная звезда́, literally "Red Star" is an official newspaper of Soviet and later Russian Ministry of Defence"

 

I thought it was unbiased, lacked any form of propaganda (which could be forgiven given it's context) and gave a real insight into tactics of both sides. I enjoyed it.

 



schwert_2015 #27 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 04:40

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 28407 battles
  • 1,739
  • Member since:
    01-21-2015

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Apr 05 2016 - 19:25, said:

*******

 

I liked the article. They say that winners write the history, but I think that just after the war, the Germans were allowed to write the history because it fit the new geo-political situation of the cold war. Thus the Germans army being allowed to portray itself as an unstoppable force only derailed by Hitler, and that the atrocities were all committed by the SS and the Heer had no blood on its hands.

mrmojo #28 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 04:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 20064 battles
  • 2,581
  • [-LEG-] -LEG-
  • Member since:
    07-24-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Apr 06 2016 - 11:25, said:

*******

 

But the Red Chorus play their usual part as well...



schwert_2015 #29 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 04:46

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 28407 battles
  • 1,739
  • Member since:
    01-21-2015

View Postmrmojo, on Apr 05 2016 - 19:41, said:

 

But the Red Chorus play their usual part as well...

 

Well, they were the good guys, in a relative sense. It takes some doin' to make Stalin out as a good guy, even for a few years, but the Germans managed. 

Cutthroatlemur #30 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 05:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 19032 battles
  • 10,453
  • Member since:
    08-24-2011
Interesting article Chieftain.  Too bad about the mouth breathing forum trolls.

Amused_By_Ragers #31 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 06:05

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18032 battles
  • 125
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011

Unfortunately, there has always been a big gap between the development of effective doctrines and the ability to organize, equip, train, motivate and lead troops to effectively employ such doctrines.



Daigensui #32 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 07:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 29505 battles
  • 29,974
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

What caught my eye for the April 1943 article:

 

"During the winter of 1942-43, the Germans were forced to still further distribute their tanks and attached them to infantry units of smaller than the division. They began to organize composite assault tank forces, and never since have they used tanks in mass."

 

I find it amusing that there is no mention of the concentration happening in preparation for Zitadelle. Yes, obviously you don't go noting everything (assuming the writer actually knew), but still amusing how the article became outdated two months later.



Donward #33 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 08:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 45150 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Apr 05 2016 - 22:22, said:

What caught my eye for the April 1943 article:

 

"During the winter of 1942-43, the Germans were forced to still further distribute their tanks and attached them to infantry units of smaller than the division. They began to organize composite assault tank forces, and never since have they used tanks in mass."

 

I find it amusing that there is no mention of the concentration happening in preparation for Zitadelle. Yes, obviously you don't go noting everything (assuming the writer actually knew), but still amusing how the article became outdated two months later.

 

Wait, what???

During the attack, the enemy tanks deliver intensive fire directed principally for effect against morale. These tanks are supported from the air -- the planes endeavoring to pin the defenders to the ground by covering the battlefield. They do not drop their bombs all at once, but do so periodically, delivering automatic fire against ground elements in the meantime.

The measures taken to meet such attacks are chiefly in disposing in-depth anti-tank weapons and primarily artillery; also in the use of the mobile anti-tank reserve against enemy tanks which break through, and of mobile infantry reserves to meet the enemy motorized troops.

Experience has shown that when Germans run up against a strong anti-tank position, they are unable to obtain success and are forced to withdraw.

To be successful in repulsing tank attacks, careful attention must be given to reconnaissance. This reconnaissance must establish exactly where the enemy intends to deliver his attacks. It is necessary to determine the plan of the Germans; the positions they're expected to break through, and to take timely measures to meet them. All reconnaissance means must be employed to determine regroupings and concentrations of enemy troops.

Oh wait. That's EXACTLY what happened during Kursk.

 

The German armored thrusts were repulsed by in depth defenses of anti-tank weapons. The Soviets had excellent recon. And when faced with a strong defense, the armored thrust at Kursk was eventually forced to withdraw.

 

In the German Army, all troops support the tanks. If the defenders will pay no attention to the air attacks and concentrate all of their fire on the tanks and cut off the infantry from supporting small arms fire, the attack will fail. At no time should the ground units dissipate their fire by firing at airplanes. These must be left to the anti-aircraft batteries. For the artillery, armored units and grenadiers there is only one target -- the tanks -- and no matter how many planes are overhead, all troops armed with anti-tank weapons must concentrate only on tanks.

 

Oh WAIT. Artillery that's also what happened at Kursk.

 

It should be stated that once having sustained some losses, the combat power of the German units dissipates rapidly. To overcome this, the Germans frequently attach detachments from other divisions, and this is even contrary to the German concept of accomplishing combat missions.

 

Wow. This also happened. 

 

The Germans sometimes try to accomplish their defensive missions by offensive methods -- by delivering distracting counterattacks to lessen the pressure on the main sector. In such cases, they do not divide their tanks out but use them concentrated. Neither do they divide their tanks in delaying actions or when securing the flanks of large units on a wide front.

 

And also this.

 

It seems that rather than "being outdated after two months" as Dai amusingly ponders, this article was exceedingly prescient.

 

Nothing ever changes here at WoT.

 


Edited by Donward, Apr 06 2016 - 08:21.


Belesarius #34 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 08:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 7951 battles
  • 3,586
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

******

 

[content moderated - insults/inappropriate language/inciting unrest]
- Yshoneist



Rakkedyman #35 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 11:40

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 27560 battles
  • 223
  • [DEJAH] DEJAH
  • Member since:
    04-25-2015

View PostDonward, on Apr 06 2016 - 02:20, said:

 

Wait, what???

 

Did you read Daigensui's post? They were specifically talking about the writer of the article not thinking the Germans were going to concentrate armor again - the "never since have they used tanks in mass." Not about the rest of the tactics.

 

You jumped the gun.



baxter_105 #36 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 12:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8922 battles
  • 649
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

Block Quote

 Tragic that there's no downvote button for the poster above me.

 

Or for your post...



Vanagandr #37 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 14:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 25337 battles
  • 3,622
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostRakkedyman, on Apr 06 2016 - 04:40, said:

 

Did you read Daigensui's post? They were specifically talking about the writer of the article not thinking the Germans were going to concentrate armor again - the "never since have they used tanks in mass." Not about the rest of the tactics.

 

You jumped the gun.

 

"Never since" isn't a phrase that indicates a belief that something will never again happen, just that it hasn't happened up until the ink on the page dried. Who knows what the original words in Russian were, but if it was faithfully translated, you can't assume that the author is taking a strong position about using 'tanks in mass'. If that weren't the case I don't see how it invalidates Walter's argument anyways

Edited by Vanagandr, Apr 06 2016 - 14:33.


EnsignExpendable #38 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 14:43

    Major

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

View Postmrmojo, on Apr 05 2016 - 22:41, said:

 

But the Red Chorus play their usual part as well...

 

It's the Red Orchestra, get it right

View Postschwert_2015, on Apr 05 2016 - 21:54, said:

 

They had no plan, that was their problem. Their "plan", such as it was, was to destroy all the troops the Russians had massed near the borders, and then they'd surrendered. But they didn't. If they'd gone hell-bend for Lenningrad or Moscow they could've taken either, but they had no plan, tried to do everything, and failed.

 

 

Really? How? Do they magically make the roads be able to support more troops? Do Red Army forces from other sections of the front suddenly disappear? What sort of sorcery does the Wehrmacht manage in your version of events?

 



Walter_Sobchak #39 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 14:53

    Major

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

View PostVanagandr, on Apr 06 2016 - 08:22, said:

 

"Never since" isn't a phrase that indicates a belief that something will never again happen, just that it hasn't happened up until the ink on the page dried. Who knows what the original words in Russian were, but if it was faithfully translated, you can't assume that the author is taking a strong position about using 'tanks in mass'. If that weren't the case I don't see how it invalidates Walter's argument anyways

 

I think you mean Donward, not Walter.  

Rakkedyman #40 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 14:54

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 27560 battles
  • 223
  • [DEJAH] DEJAH
  • Member since:
    04-25-2015

View PostVanagandr, on Apr 06 2016 - 08:22, said:

 

"Never since" isn't a phrase that indicates a belief that something will never again happen, just that it hasn't happened up until the ink on the page dried. Who knows what the original words in Russian were, but if it was faithfully translated, you can't assume that the author is taking a strong position about using 'tanks in mass'. If that weren't the case I don't see how it invalidates Walter's argument anyways

 

This is what happened.

 

Article: "Germans don't use tanks in mass anymore."

 

Daigensui: "The article got that one specific thing wrong, because Germans used tanks in mass two months later."

 

Donward: "You are wrong, Daigensui, because the article got all these different things that you didn't take issue with right."

 

Donward misread Daigensui's post and responded to a claim Daigensui didn't make. That is the whole of my point.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users