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 #41 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 15:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 39723 battles
  • 7,067
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

View PostRakkedyman, on Apr 06 2016 - 05:54, said:

 

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.

 

*******

 

As I mentioned. No, the article didn't become obsolete in two months for the areas for the variety of reasons listed.

 

And has been mentioned elsewhere, it is remarkable how the Soviets, from the high command all the way down to the lowly conscript quickly mastered all the aspects of modern mobile warfare in a few months while the supposedly superior Germans abandoned everything for static warfare.

 

[content moderated - insults]
- Yshoneist



Vanagandr #42 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 15:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 25015 battles
  • 3,622
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Apr 06 2016 - 07:53, said:

 

I think you mean Donward, not Walter.  

 

Guess who is running on two hours of sleep

 

View PostRakkedyman, on Apr 06 2016 - 07:54, said:

 

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.

 

Dai's argument was that the report was obsolete as of Kursk, Donward argues that the report's descriptions of how to most effectively fight the Germans was played out in Kursk, to good effect (IE the opposite of outdated).



Rakkedyman #43 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 15:10

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 22986 battles
  • 221
  • Member since:
    04-25-2015

View PostDonward, on Apr 06 2016 - 09:00, said:

 

*******

 

As I mentioned. No, the article didn't become obsolete in two months for the areas for the variety of reasons listed.

 

As I said above, the only point of obsolescence mentioned was on Germany's use of massed tanks. But I've made my point; your response is a naked, unreasoned disagreement coupled to a personal attack. Clearly nothing is to be gained by this discussion.



Daigensui #44 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 15:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostDonward, on Apr 06 2016 - 00:20, said:

-Kursk Blah Blah Blah-

 

*******

 

View PostVanagandr, on Apr 06 2016 - 06:22, 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'.

View PostRakkedyman, on Apr 06 2016 - 06:54, said:

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.

 

I'm just noting how there is some emphasis on the "evolution" of panzer formations which seems quite strong compared to what one might usually write.

 

From the very beginning of the war, the Germans used their tanks in mass to make concentrated attacks against deep objectives. Up to the Winter of 1941-42, the tactics of all German units were based on the tanks; these fought in massed formations and were not used to support infantry. This did not mean that they fought without infantry. The tank units had their own motorized infantry.

- German tanks were massed for the (almost) exclusive use in attacking the enemy. 

 

Because it was found that infantry could not alone carry out its missions after the winter of 1941-42, the Germans began to attach small groups of tanks to the infantry divisions. These tanks were forced to open up routes of advance for the infantry.

- After being pushed back from Moscow, the Germans started attaching tanks to infantry divisions.

 

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. By the end of the second year of the war, not only are the Germans departing from the existing organization of tank units and combat teams, but they are even placing tanks in the motorized infantry divisions.

- During the time Uranus and the Donbas and Kharkov Operations the Germans were forced to further distribute their tanks, and are departing from the organization used at the start of the war.

 

As Vanagandr said, there is nothing that indicates the writer is particularly taking a strong stance about the absoluteness of Germans no longer using massed formations, but the general focus on the evolution of the German's use of tanks, particularly with "By the end of the second year of the war, not only are the Germans departing from the existing organization of tank units and combat teams", does leave room for dramatic irony from a modern day's perspective.

 

Ultimately, it's just a minor amusement on my part, separate from the (well-written) general content of the article which focuses on actual tactics. Only those engaging in absurd mental gymnastics just to get some failing cheap shot would understand it differently.

 

 

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

If that weren't the case I don't see how it invalidates Walter's argument anyways

 

Donward's conduct would only strengthens Walter's argument.....

 

Oh wait, you probably meant Donward's argument. 

 

[content moderated - personal attack]
- Yshoneist



The_Chieftain #45 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 16:15

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10166 battles
  • 9,598
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Postmrmojo, on Apr 06 2016 - 03:38, 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.

 

 

That was pretty much my conclusion as well. It's almost like the sort of article which, in the US, would be found in "Infantry Journal" as opposed to Stars and Stripes. Surprising, and pleasing both.

 

I wonder if Red Star still does the same thing, or if it's evolved since?



Carde #46 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 18:08

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 37336 battles
  • 81
  • [B0H] B0H
  • Member since:
    07-12-2013

View PostManicDVLN, on Apr 05 2016 - 21:15, said:

Russians talking about German tactics, yep no bias there just like there is no bias in this game. Yet everyone fails to mention every German killed 4 russians. Most of them were serfs with a rifle. Russia won because of winter and limited resources by German army since they fought on two fronts. Germany was not too far from Moscow, their plan could have succeeded.

 

100 percent correct.  I love this guy.



WulfeHound #47 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 18:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 12888 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostCarde, on Apr 06 2016 - 12:08, said:

 

100 percent correct.  I love this guy.

 

He's hilariously wrong

Blackhorse_Six_ #48 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 18:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 45100 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Apr 05 2016 - 21:29, said:

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

 

Yeah, but let those other posts remain here to testify as the Wehraboo horsepuckey they really are ...

 

Glad I got over that phase long ago.



stalkervision #49 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 19:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 51156 battles
  • 8,101
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
Was ist ein Wehraboo? Ist es ein Kinder Regenjacke? :confused:

EnsignExpendable #50 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 19:32

    Major

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

View Poststalkervision, on Apr 06 2016 - 13:08, said:

Was ist ein Wehraboo? Ist es ein Kinder Regenjacke? :confused:

 

You'd think that with your blind devotion you would have learned some German. There is no "ein Kinder", Kinder is plural.



stalkervision #51 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 20:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 51156 battles
  • 8,101
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Apr 06 2016 - 13:32, said:

 

You'd think that with your blind devotion you would have learned some German. There is no "ein Kinder", Kinder is plural.

​It was a "joke" fellow. look up what the definition of a joke is in the dictionary. Seriously?  "blind devotion" ?? Where the hell did you get off on that particular soapbox you mounted ?  I have no blind devotion to any language ! lmbo

 

Wow, just WOW..:amazed:

 

 



Vanagandr #52 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 20:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 25015 battles
  • 3,622
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
 

Daigensui, on Apr 06 2016 - 08:13, said:

Donward's conduct would only strengthens Walter's argument.....

 

Oh wait, you probably meant Donward's argument. 

wow rekt [x] not rekt [ ]



WulfeHound #53 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 20:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 12888 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Apr 06 2016 - 14:43, said:

​ It was a "joke" fellow. look up what the definition of a joke is in the dictionary. Seriously?  "blind devotion" ?? Where the hell did you get off on that particular soapbox you mounted ?  I have no blind devotion to any language ! lmbo

 

Wow, just WOW..:amazed:

 

 

 

"Oh I was just trolling, see?"


Edited by WulfeHound, Apr 06 2016 - 20:59.


Dr_Zeke #54 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 21:03

    Private

  • Players
  • 18083 battles
  • 3
  • [POSHY] POSHY
  • Member since:
    07-07-2012

Gotcha...I catch the ball regarding "off-topic-ness":

 

//Begin of smart-assing

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Apr 06 2016 - 18:32, said:

 

You'd think that with your blind devotion you would have learned some German. There is no "ein Kinder", Kinder is plural.

 

If stalkervision would have written "Kinderregenjacke" (rain jacket for childs) instead of "Kinder Regenjacke" he would have been correct with "ein" regarding the singular/plural issue in terms of the German language / grammar, but still wrong regarding the gender, as "Jacke" (jacket) is female in German. So at the end it should be "eine Kinderregenjacke" (one rain jacket for childs).

 

  //end of smart-assing

 

Besides that: No idea, where the link to Wehraboo is...

 

Have a good one


Zeke



stalkervision #55 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 21:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 51156 battles
  • 8,101
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Apr 06 2016 - 14:57, said:

 

"Oh I was just trolling, see?"

 

I see birds of a feather.  If you want that in the correct German it will take me a long while though since I don't speak the language. How about Pig Latin? :P

stalkervision #56 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 21:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 51156 battles
  • 8,101
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostDr_Zeke, on Apr 06 2016 - 15:03, said:

Gotcha...I catch the ball regarding "off-topic-ness":

 

//Begin of smart-assing

 

If stalkervision would have written "Kinderregenjacke" (rain jacket for childs) instead of "Kinder Regenjacke" he would have been correct with "ein" regarding the singular/plural issue in terms of the German language / grammar, but still wrong regarding the gender, as "Jacke" (jacket) is female in German. So at the end it should be "eine Kinderregenjacke" (one rain jacket for childs).

 

  //end of smart-assing

 

Besides that: No idea, where the link to Wehraboo is...

 

Have a good one


Zeke

​I tried my best but everyone's a critic. Shezzz !  Wehraboo sounded like a brand of german children's rain wear to me because of the weh. :)



EnsignExpendable #57 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 21:23

    Major

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

View Poststalkervision, on Apr 06 2016 - 15:09, said:

 

I see birds of a feather.  If you want that in the correct German it will take me a long while though since I don't speak the language. How about Pig Latin? :P

 

Pro tip: if you can't speak a language, don't post in it.



stalkervision #58 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 21:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 51156 battles
  • 8,101
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Apr 06 2016 - 15:23, said:

 

Pro tip: if you can't speak a language, don't post in it.

​Pro-tip > Don't take these forums postings that seriously. There are lots things in life that you will have to do just that and I hope that is a lot later for you then sooner.



Donward #59 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 22:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 39723 battles
  • 7,067
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Apr 06 2016 - 06:13, said:

 

******

 

I'm just noting how there is some emphasis on the "evolution" of panzer formations which seems quite strong compared to what one might usually write.

 

From the very beginning of the war, the Germans used their tanks in mass to make concentrated attacks against deep objectives. Up to the Winter of 1941-42, the tactics of all German units were based on the tanks; these fought in massed formations and were not used to support infantry. This did not mean that they fought without infantry. The tank units had their own motorized infantry.

- German tanks were massed for the (almost) exclusive use in attacking the enemy. 

 

Because it was found that infantry could not alone carry out its missions after the winter of 1941-42, the Germans began to attach small groups of tanks to the infantry divisions. These tanks were forced to open up routes of advance for the infantry.

- After being pushed back from Moscow, the Germans started attaching tanks to infantry divisions.

 

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. By the end of the second year of the war, not only are the Germans departing from the existing organization of tank units and combat teams, but they are even placing tanks in the motorized infantry divisions.

- During the time Uranus and the Donbas and Kharkov Operations the Germans were forced to further distribute their tanks, and are departing from the organization used at the start of the war.

 

As Vanagandr said, there is nothing that indicates the writer is particularly taking a strong stance about the absoluteness of Germans no longer using massed formations, but the general focus on the evolution of the German's use of tanks, particularly with "By the end of the second year of the war, not only are the Germans departing from the existing organization of tank units and combat teams", does leave room for dramatic irony from a modern day's perspective.

 

Ultimately, it's just a minor amusement on my part, separate from the (well-written) general content of the article which focuses on actual tactics. Only those engaging in absurd mental gymnastics just to get some failing cheap shot would understand it differently.

 

 

 

Donward's conduct would only strengthens Walter's argument.....

 

Oh wait, you probably meant Donward's argument. 

 

*******

 

[content moderated - off topic]
- Yshoneist



Daigensui #60 Posted Apr 06 2016 - 22:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

******

 

[content moderated - off topic/personal attack/inciting unrest]
- Yshoneist






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users