Who started WW2?

[plan_D]

You beat me to it, Soren. And that radio transmission was the one I was thinking of, but couldn't remember where I have it. I've seen it on some site too, but I can't remember which one.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hmm good interesting info. Tanks are deffinatly a weak spot of mine.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

I intended this to be a short, quote-free post. Oh well, here goes!:


DerAdler:

Hell it was the basis for the AK-47 which still today is one of the best weapons ever built.

True in a way, but that statement is very misleading.


Syscom:

The Me-109 doesnt even deserve to be mentioned for anything post summer 1944. It was a great design at the start of the war, but decidely inferior untill the last few months when it didnt even matter.

It wasn't user-friendly, but I do really like the 'Kurfurst' - I think the kinks were ironed out, though unfortunately I feel the 'Emil' was inferior to the Spitfire MkII.

US fire control of the artillery were the best in the world.

Several Sherman kills @ 6 miles impresses me (German "88's"). Soviet artillery was also great, as was British.

German tanks and halftracks were superior to the allies,

Tanks yes, halftracks no.

except for the T34, which could give the Panther a run for its money.

I'll back you up on that one.

Allied proximity shells were superior to the German ones.

Bollocks, where have you heard this ?

I've heard this too, though they were in development. I think he especially means Flak shells?


Soren:

And don't even get me started on the halftracks !

Actually, the US halftracks proved superior to the Famo's and Hanomags - surprizing result.

But if you want to discuss shells I can tell you the Germans were light years ahead of the Allies in terms of quality, precision 'and' fusing!

Not with slave and saboteur labour, no.

Yes, and the K98k is the best bolt action rifle design of all time

I take it you weren't being serious?

And the German also had the Stg44, the best infantry small-arm of WWII.

Hard to disagree with that.

And although the Garand IS superior to the K43

Surely you mean the G41?

No syscom3, the US designs won the day because of quantity quantity quantity...

I think it was because of the asymetric equation of comparable quality, plus far superior quantity.

The Panther shared nothing with the T-34 except for its sloping armor, and even this had been used on tanks before and can therefore not be considered copying.

It re-wrote the rulebook! Sloping armour, high power-weight ratio, high speed, overhanging dual-purpose gun. The Panther was, essentially a Germanised T34 - with all the good and bad points that entails.

These had proven to work on the T34 and needed to be 'emulated' on the next-gen Panzers.

Having said all this, you may be one of those who thinks the AK47 is a Stg44 clone?

A gun which couldn't harm the Tiger Ausf.E unless it came within 100m of its side armor

The T34/85, SU85, SU100 and SU122 certainly could kill a Tiger and were still essentially the same vehicle.

'sides the Tiger was a heavy battle and breakthrough tank, the T34 was a Medium/exploitation tank, the comparison's unfair.

and a sloped armor protection which could be penetrated frontally as far away as over 2km by the 88mm Kwk36 L/56 main gun of the Tiger Ausf.E. (And at even longer distances by the Panther's 75mm Kwk42 L/70 main gun)

Lucky shots, against a (fast travelling/quality) T34 the shot could bounce at a few hundred metres!

Probably the worst by late 1943 and onwards. Even the US Sherman can be considered better by 1944 with the introduction of the EasyEight.

T34 development wasn't stagnant either, T34/85 anyone?

The E8 was very nice though.

it litterally became gun-fodder throughout the second half of the war.

Well, it was often deliberately used as target practise.


PlanD:

There were 50mm/L60 equiped PzIII's in '41, and PzIV Specials come to think.

The PzIII AusfJ could manage a T34, but only if it was an elite German crew vs a crap Soviet crew (as was often the case).

But the introduction of the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F/2 and Pz.Kpfw VI Ausf E in that year rendered the T-34/76 an obselete design.

The same happened with the Grant/Sherman, however most Allies used new tactics, whereas the Soviets on the whole didn't.

As the Tigers would simply destroy dozens before being made inoperable themselves, mostly by breaking down or getting stuck.

The Soviets did intelligently use Arty, mines and Sturmoviks though, where the Tiger was much more vulnerable than the T34 and a T34 could kill a Tiger, as could other Soviet AFV's.

Even in those circumstances, the Tiger was an effective tank destroyer and could halt any Soviet counter-offensive sometimes on their own!

Yup.

The Panther's cannon was superior to both the 76mm and 85mm T-34 cannons, and none could hope to strike back at the same distances. The optical equipment in a T-34 wouldn't give them a chance in hell to hit anything anyway.

It would be possible to frontally kill a Panther with a T34/85 up close only, due to the small vulnerable are presented, combined with the lesser accuracy of the Soviet gun. - I've given you that, please don't exgaggerate now!

The Panther, however, had the most precise optics of the war. And had superior radio to anything Soviet, making it a more flexiable tank.

Yes.

The armour of the Panther was superior in thickness and sloping.

Nope, the sides were thicker on the T34 and the sloping was better everywhere - usually a perfect 60 degrees rather than the dodgy 80 on the Panther, it also had a lower silhouette and faster acceleration.

It was on par with the IS-2, and that was a Soviet design itself superior to the T-34.

Now that is an interesting comparison, stilletto vs sledgehammer!

Panthers would often destroy dozens of T-34s with little loss to themselves. I've seen ratios in battles of 70 : 2 between T-34s and Panthers , and there well could be higher.

This is more down to the improper use of the T34 than anything.

and a lot had the unfortunate incident of trapping their hands in the loading mechanism

I think you're getting confused with the T72 prototypes auto-loader - a common myth in the West.

However the turret ring was easy to get trapped in!

The reliabilty of the Panther was an issue in the first two marks, D and A. But by the G the problems were largely solved. And the production would have been extremely high had Germany not wasted resources on hundreds of dead end projects, and costly tanks. Had we seen a complete replacement of German armour by the Panther and Panther alone ... you'd have seen a lot more dead Allies and Soviets on the battlefield.

Good statement, the JagdPanther too was a very useful variant.

And the King Tiger was the most powerful tank ever to see the battlefield during World War II.

In theory, yes, but in reality poor quality and other deprivations meant that it wasn't.


On the Kubel vs Jeep thing:

IMHO in the West, the jeep was perhaps equal to the kubel, except in NA where the air-cooled, longer-ranged Kubel had the advantage.


On US vs Axis planes:

All US planes seemed to have good range - this makes much more sense to me than the Shermans reliability/numbers arguement.

However more fuel has it's disadvantages...


On the quantity v quality thing:

I've seen Allied and Axis production reels as Engineering is my 'bag'. The Allied planes and ammo were excellent quality and design.

The Sherman and T34 however were stupidly left unupgraded - as soon as was possible all in-production Shermans should have recieved the 17pdr and all T34's the 85mm (sooner).

On the whole though, ease of production is a major design plus.

"Quantity IS a quality!"

- Yosef Stalin

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Schwarzpanzer are you trying to tell me that the Stg 44 was not the basis for the AK-47? I hope you are not. The AK-47 is a very different gun but it was adapted from the design of the Stg 44.

 

[Soren]

Oh god here we go again !!

Schwarz all of the above we have discussed endlessly in other threads, so leave it out of this one !!!!

Now I'm going to create a new thread where you, Schwarz, in order to prove your claims will post all your sources, thank you!

 

[plan_D]

"There were 50mm/L60 equiped PzIII's in '41, and PzIV Specials come to think."

I will reply to this one part, as it is so easily proven wrong. Schwarz, if you thought and read a little more you would have never made that statement.

Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 : 175 produced from March - July, 1942. Plus 25 converted from F/1. Chassis # : 82370 - 82650.

Mostly sent to front-line as replacement units, all in 1942.

Pz.Kpfw III Ausf J (Sd Kfz 141/1*) : 1,067 produced from December 1941 to July, 1942. Chassis # : 72001 - 74100, 68001 - 69000.

Deployed early 1942 in five new tank detachments for the 3rd, 16th, 29th and 60th Motorised Infantry Divisions, and the SS Motorised Infantry Divsion 'Wiking'.

*The Sd Kfz 141/1 was equipped with the KwK 39 L/60 50mm cannon. The armament was changed mid-production of the Pz.Kpfw III Ausf J (Sd Kfz 141).

As is plainly clear, both the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F/2 and Pz.Kpfw III Ausf J (Sd Kfz 141/1) were not on the battlefield in 1941.

Source: Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two: 1933 - 1945 - Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle. Technical Editor - Thomas L. Jentz. Cassell - 2003 reprint of 1999 edition.

Schwarz take note of source!!!

 

[102first_hussars]

Schwarzpanzer are you trying to tell me that the Stg 44 was not the basis for the AK-47? I hope you are not. The AK-47 is a very different gun but it was adapted from the design of the Stg 44.

I do beleive it does but to me (just an opinion) more closely resembles the H&K MP5

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Now I'm going to create a new thread where you, Schwarz, in order to prove your claims will post all your sources, thank you!

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

France? Do you think that the French input into the treaty of Versailles put Germany in a position were a leader like Hitler could rise to power and there by causing the war? The British and American input was not anywhere as near as the harsh punishment wanted by the French. If the treaty had been realistic would it have prevented WW2?

I asked this on another forum and got some interesting answers, discuss away!

I think there is a lot of merit in your query. The French were the most vindictive in setting harsh terms against Germany, setting the stage for WW11 and the rise of Hitler to power as Chancellor in 1933-

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ultimately only one country is to blame for the start of WW2 in Europe, and that is Germany. There however were many contributing factors, i.e., Treaty of Versailles, the economy, land treaties, etc.

 

[pbehn]

There is absolutely no doubt that Germany under Hitler started WW2 as far as Europe is concerned however Hitler had many more supporters in Europe in 1939 than anyone admitted to in 1945, Japan was already at war with China. If economic depression is an excuse to invade a neighbour then Canada-USA-Mexico should have had a war too

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I did not say it was an excuse, I said it was a contributing factor...

 

[The Basket]

AK v StG? I would say that the StG certainly pushed the AK but it's not a copy or a clone.
As far as ww2 there certainly was players. Is the Spanish civil war part of ww2? Is the Japanese invasion of China? Soviet invasion of Finland? Italians in Abyssinia?
I am not sure ww2 started on a particular day but was a culmination of events over a period of time.

 

[pbehn]

I did not say it was an excuse, I said it was a contributing factor...

I didn't say that you did Adler. In 1930s Germany people were not as well off as they previously had been, they were still better off than most people in the world as a nation and as individuals.

 

[swampyankee]

In many ways, including reparations, the Treaty of Vienna, which ended the Napoleonic Wars, was more vindictive than the Treaty of Versailles. The main difference was that Metternich and the [Un]Holy Alliance actively intervened to keep that horror of anti-monarchism suppressed, while the victors of WWI actively ignored the development of fascism.

Of course, the Treaty of Vienna rewrote the map of Europe, even more so than did Versailles: the number of German states was reduced, Poland was eradicated, as was every republic in Italy except San Marino was put under the Austrian thumb.

 

[The Basket]

Check out the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
The Germans cant complain about Treaty of Versailles when they themselves imposed an extrmemly harsh treaty on the Soviets.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think you can find examples of this throughout history. It's not about just or unjust in this tense, but more of how it contributed.

You have to remember that usually it's not the heads of state and country leadership that is suffering, and likewise it is not the civilian population dictating the terms.

 

[The Basket]

I would say that WW1 and WW2 are actually the same war with a gap in the middle.

If you look at the Russo-Japanese war 1904-1905 then did WW2 start there?
or the Franco-Prussian war in 1870?

 

[pbehn]

People can always complain, I have major issues with the terms of the Treaty of Picquigny in 1475.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would say that WW1 and WW2 are actually the same war with a gap in the middle.

If you look at the Russo-Japanese war 1904-1905 then did WW2 start there?
or the Franco-Prussian war in 1870?

I agree completely. WW1 and WW2 were really the same conflict, with a 21 year cease fire.