America didn't do much in World War II (in Europe), page 12
Pages: <<  9    10    11    12  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 17 times


reply posted on 24-10-2011 @ 02:43 PM by Evolutionsend
reply to post by misterbananas



Soviets pushed the Germans back to regain their own border, and didn't push very far. The Americans helped push back the entire European theater, and met the Soviets at Berlin. Who covered more ground? Maybe the soviets just sucked badly at fighting? They were on home turf in the Russian winter after all. How did the Soviet Union do later in other theaters? Not very damned well, that's how they did. If not for American ingenuity, the European theater would've been a loss. The soviets were never very intelligent in their tactics, which is why the had such a high number of people that went into battle haphazardly, to die, for "mother Russia".

There are accounts of eye witnesses claiming that they were throwing t-34s in the face of 2-3 Panthers, and the Panthers were destroying the t-34s in the hundreds. They would corner a few tanks, and then ride them into the ground with Soviet casualties and t-34s until the Panther crews ran out of ammo. That's why the Soviets had a high body count, they were stupid. It's also why so many t-34s were produced. They were using them as bullet stops for Panthers, thereby sending their own soldiers to the grave. Yea, they really helped.


Again the defending Panther changed his position. After an hour, the second Panther returned from being resupplied and took up his defensive position. The enemy hadn’t given up their attempt to enter the city. During the afternoon, the enemy with an infantry battalion supported by four SU assault guns, under cover of the tall corn fields, tried twice to break in from the southeast. But, both attacks were completely repulsed by the two defending Panthers. All four SU assault guns that took part in both of these attacks were shot up. Two Panthers defending the city from the south and southeast had broke up two tank and two infantry attacks. The enemy suffered the loss of eleven tanks and very heavy losses of men.


source

This account came from, "Combat and Experience Report on the Action near Wilkowischken from 9 to 11 August 1944 by Oberfeldwebel Heinz Bergmann of the 4. Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment 26".
edit on 24-10-2011 by Evolutionsend because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 24-10-2011 @ 09:02 PM by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by Evolutionsend



Last time I checked, the Soviets decimated several veteran German armies in Eastern Europe, including SS divisions, retaking the strategic Kursk Salient oilfields while smashing their way into Germany... which is when the Third Reich fell apart and Hitler disappeared. By the way, did I mention that this was all after the Soviets were pushed to the brink of annihilation, only to regroup their forces from the Japanese front to the European front?

Your Panther vs T-34 story is rather convenient. I've seen a lot of documentaries where German vets couldn't comprehend how T-34s outnumbered and outmatched them on the battlefield. Most high-end Nazi tanks were overengineered to the point where they couldn't even leave a flat road or risk serious malfunction and maintenance cost.


reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 12:00 AM by Subjective Truth
reply to post by misterbananas






This OP should say sorry 416,800 times for the amount of dead Us soldiers in WW2. I post very little on ATS these days because of posts like this and other Anti-American crap. Whats the point? Look around every country sucks.


reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 03:25 PM by Evolutionsend
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi



The Panther was by far the most feared tank in WW2. They were responsible for so many deaths, per vehicle, that it was really kind of pathetic that no one could do anything about it. They also were more than capable of leaving a road.


reply posted on 26-10-2011 @ 04:14 AM by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to
post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi



The Panther was by far the most feared tank in WW2. They were responsible for so many deaths, per vehicle, that it was really kind of pathetic that no one could do anything about it. They also were more than capable of leaving a road.


It seems like the Panther was big, expensive and as the Nazi military industrial complex dissolved after extensive bombing of industrial zones, not practically maintainable for constant combat conditions.

It was certainly a good tank if you have a fuel and engineer convoy to support it, just like the modern Abrams.

T-34 was relatively cheap to produce, had a powerful gun and innovative armour. They were designed with simple tractor controls so crew training was not intensive, and the Soviets were able to field literally thousands of them.

And after Berlin fell, the Allies were crapping themselves at the sight of the IS-7 in Soviet parades because none of them were fielding anything like that at the time (earlier IS models were used in combat since 1943). The next tank to be produced in this generation was the British Centurion, which was not fielded in time for combat operations in WWII.
edit on 26-10-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 26-10-2011 @ 07:57 AM by seagull
reply to post by Essan



Many, not sure if it was a majority, of the allied senior officers, especially Gen. Patton; felt that the Western Allies should have pushed on to Berlin, if not further. Churchill was probably in agreement with that, but Roosevelt was not, or his cabinet was not. Probably his cabinet, since by then Roosevelt was dying by inches, and may or may not have been in control of his White House.

It's an interesting subject for discussion. What would Europe, the world even; look like had the Western Allies not stopped?


reply posted on 26-10-2011 @ 04:11 PM by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Originally posted by seagull
reply to
post by Essan



Many, not sure if it was a majority, of the allied senior officers, especially Gen. Patton; felt that the Western Allies should have pushed on to Berlin, if not further. Churchill was probably in agreement with that, but Roosevelt was not, or his cabinet was not. Probably his cabinet, since by then Roosevelt was dying by inches, and may or may not have been in control of his White House.

It's an interesting subject for discussion. What would Europe, the world even; look like had the Western Allies not stopped?


Interestingly enough, we were watching the Nuremburg Trials yesterday in class and it was mentioned that Rudolph Hess flew to Britain in order to try to build an alliance between the Allies and the Nazis against the Soviets (officially, he was deemed insane of course). Apparently the British didn't want it, and personally I think mostly everybody besides military brass wanted an end to conflict.


reply posted on 29-10-2011 @ 09:17 AM by seagull
reply to post by hudsonhawk69



We started the day we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Prior to that, there was a bit of an undeclared war going on in the Atlantic. Try googling "Rueben James" for the story. Or "Kearney". Or any number of ships flying the American flag who were attacked by german uboats.

Hate to break this to you, but we were right on time. Unfortunately. I'm sure all those American soldiers and sailors had better things to do...
Pages: <<  9    10    11    12  >>    ^^TOP^^



Israeli Company Has FAA Permission to Fly Drones in U.S. Airspace
  Posted 12 days ago with 6 member flags
Colt Commander, finally failed
  Posted 7 days ago with 5 member flags
Laser Firearms
  Posted 18 days ago with 4 member flags
US Army Launches Phase II of competition to replace M4
  Posted 19 days ago with 3 member flags
Show us your bow
  Posted 1 days ago with 3 member flags