WW2 From the German Perspective (New Documentary)

[Retributarr]

It's all true. The Sherman wasn't the best tank, but it was the one that could be made in large numbers. And in WW2 that was the winning move.

Numbers, Numbers, Numbers

Everything is summarized in these three words. The point I was trying to make was that I couldn't imagine Germany winning against the immense industrial power of the Allies, no matter what early strategic decisions Germany had made. No amount of heavy tanks would have reversed this. If Germany had had more artillery, if they had had more fuel, if they had had more air cover, if they had invented atomic intercontinental ballistic missiles before April 1945, etc, who knows what would have happened, but that's a lot of requirements that simply couldn't be met.

The "Whole-Point" in case "You" somehow just missed it!... was that everything "i-said"... it really ... just very "Nearly-Did-Actually-Happen"... it was that close!.

[Sequester Grundleplith, MD]

It wasn't that close though. Saying it was a close run thing is like saying "I almost got a flush" with two spades, a heart, a diamond and a club

Germany had a few innovations, but in the main they were overengineered, under-resourced, ill-led and, after 1942, they got rofl-stomped.
The only Interesting counterfactual, for me, is what if Germany didn't foolishly, preemptively declare war against the United States

[Retributarr]

It wasn't that close though. Saying it was a close run thing is like saying "I almost got a flush" with two spades, a heart, a diamond and a club

Germany had a few innovations, but in the main they were overengineered, under-resourced, ill-led and, after 1942, they got rofl-stomped.
The only Interesting counterfactual, for me, is what if Germany didn't foolishly, preemptively declare war against the United States

Your statement has real-merit, but!... however i am looking just a little farther past that into this situation... than the point at where your statement is... and i see that depending on a few unexpected shifting circumstantial occurrences... that these alternative situations could have had a real go at it to do their thing!. So!... i don't think that getting the final determination of... "got rofl-stomped"... is necessarily the final "Nail-In-The-Coffin". I have mentioned before to check out the "Hunting-Hitler-T.V.-Series"(It's Online and its Free)... they have convincing evidence of much of what i have been mentioning here at these postings. Check it out for yourself and then make a final-decision on whether there is any merit to any of these presented allegations.

[Sequester Grundleplith, MD]

Unfortunately, "The History Channel" has belied its name for over a decade, and "Hunting Hitler" is 100% entertainment and 0% history.

[Retributarr]

Unfortunately, "The History Channel" has belied its name for over a decade, and "Hunting Hitler" is 100% entertainment and 0% history.

On what Basis?... what hard evidence do you have to back up to justify your claim... other than using someone elses opinion?.

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

Man, what is this thread?

Retributarr you are spreading so much bullshit.

I try to go through your many points you made, but I would propose that this thread gets closed or even deleted. There is so much disinformation here. Retributarr is just doing a gish-gallop, jumping between so many different points that it get's really annoying for anyone else to refute them.

The germans weren't even close to having an atom bomb. The person who claims that germany tested an atom bomb in 1945 is an economic historian and his claims have been widely debunked. Rainer Karlsch is his name and he is at most as credible as Gavin Menzies. There have even been investigations of the claimed area of the nuclear test and the ground did not have any nuclear contamination that such a test would have left.

The german nuclear program was very far from ever having a nuclear bomb ready. It wasn't even close. There is conclusive proof for that and a complete consensus amongst historians.
They did not even have the materials to build a nuclear bomb.

You claim the V3 would fire 90.000 rockets per hour. While that might be theoretically true, you completely ignore the logistics. How would you get enough rockets and materials to the launch site? The launch site was never even close to ready to start firing at any speeds. It was a giant waste of resources. All the protection for the site was basically useless since it did not protect against tallboy bombs which actually destroyed the fortress of Mimoyecques.

Then you talk about how bad shermans were. The shermans were probably the best medium tank in world war two. You can't compare shermans to tigers. Tigers are heavy tanks. Shermans would have to be compared to Panzer IV. That comparison ends very favourably for the sherman.
You claim that the M4 was pathetic. You say it was okay in 1942 and terrible in 1944. That is like saying that the Panzer IV A was not suited for combat in 1944, which is true. But just like the Panzer IV was updated regularly, the same is true for the Sherman. There were many variants in use like the M4A3, the 105(W), the Easy-Eight, the Jumbo and especially the firefly.
You go on to claim that the allies lost 3 shermans for every heavy german tank that was destroyed in combat. Do you figure in all the german heavy tanks that got abandoned?
The american doctrine was different from the german doctrine, american tanks weren't supposed to engage enemy tanks, that was the job of Infantry most of the times.
If we construct a perfect battlefield for the german tanks, so no airpower or artillery, no infantry (!), no need for the german tanks to maneuver, the flanks are perfectly secure and the american tanks drive at the german tanks in a straight line with no regard for their lives, then yes, the german heavy tanks would devastate the shermans, but that almost never happens.
Apart from that you overestimate the typhoon-rockets, modern investigations and research have shown that the rockets were actually quite inefficient at destroying german tanks. It was actually known during wwii as well, for example during operation goodwood typhoon pilots claimed that they knocked out 222 german tanks, but after the conclusion of the battle only 10 of those could actually be confirmed.

Your comparison with the gulf war is also completely nonsensical for two reasons.
1.) The difference in tank designs. Iraq used T-72s and T-55 mainly which were main battle tanks (MBTs) of the first and second generation, while the allies used mbts of the third generation (M1 Abrams and Challengers). Tanks of an older generation will almost always get completely wrecked by newer generation mbts. In this case one of the main reasons was the night fighting equipment that the allies used while the iraqis did not have it.
2.) Difference in doctrine and cooperation between the different branches. The iraqis had none. They did not stand any chance at all. They tried world war one style tactics with trench fighting, but that is it. The army wasn't trained, prepared or equipped well enough to offer any real resistance.

Then you go on to claim that we should watch "Hunting Hitler" and that we should not critisise it until we have done so. This is not how it works. We do not have to watch a whole series to be able to dismiss it.
a.) We already know that the history channel is not historically accurate, this has been proven time and time again. We do not need to critically examine everything they send. It is the same with holocaust denial. The holocaust happened and there is enough proof and a consensus amongst historians. If some random person writes another unsubstantiated book about how the holocaust never happened, we can just dismiss this book without reading it.

b.) you yourself cherry-pick your sources to fit your agenda. For example, just look at your claims that the germans tested a nuclear bomb in 1945. There is one single person that claims this and it has been widely refuted by scientists from multiple fields (physicists, chemists, historians). Still you go on to pretend that this actually happened.

c.) It is intellectually dishonest. It is actually a common strategy to swamp a discussion with questionable source after source and ignore refutals and just jump around from one claim to another while demanding that people read whole books, watch whole series or a 3-hour long youtube video.
I could demand the same from you: Watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY and then you will know that everything you said about the sherman tank was untrue. But I do not demand that, because that would not be fair.


If I forgot anything else I need to talk about, feel free to remind me to do it, but I think I covered all of your points.
And for the love of god, if you reply to this, just write normally and don't use different colors and fonts and letter sizes and ... in every sentence.

Apart from that I would strongly recommend to either close or delete this thread. It is just gish-gallop and disinformation galore.

[Retributarr]

Man, what is this thread?

Retributarr you are spreading so much bullshit.

You are "Truely-A -Clueless-Wonder!!!": Not worth replying too!.

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

You are "Truely-A -Clueless-Wonder!!!":

What is that even supposed to mean. That is not a word.

Not worth replying too!.

You know well enough why you write that, because you aren't actually able to respond to this. Please try to respond to my points.

[Sequester Grundleplith, MD]

Because I stupidly decided to get involved in this, let me endorse pewp3w's point.

PzC2 is obviously a game that focuses (for now, hopefully) on the German forces during ww2. For fun factor, it already includes a bunch of units that were historically only prototypes or even only existed on paper, and I'm fine with that-- it's just supposed to be (and is imho) a fun game.

And we can talk about all sorts of "what if?" stuff we might like to see *in the game*
But separate from that, we should try refrain from making grandiose wehraboo-style claims, completely outside accepted and well-documented history, about the actual German regime and its military.

[koopanique]

Because I stupidly decided to get involved in this, let me endorse pewp3w's point.

Without surprise, same goes for me.

Then you talk about how bad shermans were. The shermans were probably the best medium tank in world war two.

Although I of course agree with all your other points, and give thanks for taking the time to patiently write them down, thank you especially for defending the Sherman, which is far too often the target of unfair attacks from people putting the German tanks on a pedestal.