Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

One of the odder choice of Germans in late war is their looted tank companies. With confident trained (mainly french) tanks that are on par or even cheaper than rifle companies point wise and stats that make shermans and panzer 4s look like tigers, these fellas look like they're fighting uphill. Not to mention their limited support compared to most other german forces

I'm just wondering though, are they at all viable? Or are they more of a "history fluff" army?

Well they werent a viable option for Panzer-Ausbildungs und Ersatz-Abteilung 100...

kenshin620 wrote:One of the odder choice of Germans in late war is their looted tank companies. With confident trained (mainly french) tanks that are on par or even cheaper than rifle companies point wise and stats that make shermans and panzer 4s look like tigers, these fellas look like they're fighting uphill. Not to mention their limited support compared to most other german forces

I'm just wondering though, are they at all viable? Or are they more of a "history fluff" army?

They were better suited to anti-partisan duties than full on combat with other armored forces. If you are facing enemy *armor* they are not really viable. If you are facing enemy mechanized or infantry forces they can do ok. The armor on those old tanks is still not too horrible all things considered, but the guns are way outclassed by LW. Too many short barreled guns on those captured french tanks. I do like the 21st panzer division lists, though, which converted a lot of captured french equipment with much more current guns and weapons and made for a unique looking, but still viable force as well.

Skriker

edited to change the word army to the word armor set off by asterisks.

I've been tempted to make a Beutepanzer list. Some of the rules have changed to their advantage in V3 IIRC. I think they'll be a challenge to play.

What about captured Soviet equipment?

IIRC there's a list somewhere that allows T34 platoons in a German panzerkompanie. Grenadierkompanies can also have a single T34 or KV1,

Das Reich fielded 2 small T34 companies at Kursk, the list is in the Eastern Front book, they are very expensive in terms of points though, the bare minimum combat platoons and HQ costs 1200 points which get you 8 tanks.

Grenadier Kompanies have a limited range of captured Soviet equipment, from T60s to KVs. Some of the Normandy formations also have access to Shermans and Fireflys.

I quite like using crappy armour in FoW. I am seriously considering making a Finnish T26 Panssari Komppania for late war.

The French Beute Panzers in Earth & Steel might make a super spammy list of tanks because they are cheap. Since V3, my friend Pete mentioned them a few weeks back and said they seem more viable now and you can take an absolute skip full of them for 1750 points, and he doubts most armies have enough AT to neutralise them quick enough. This is third hand so I don't know what his thinking is or what rules have changed to make them more viable.

Orlanth wrote:What about captured Soviet equipment?

The germans did use some captured soviet tanks in the east, and soviet tanks are very well made tanks. There is a dramatic point difference, though, between german crewed T-34s and soviet crewed T-34s. Of course the germans don't have hens and chicks, tend to generally be better trained and get all the german special rules like the stormtrooper move ability. You will still be heavily outnumbered if facing a soviet force using the same tanks, but that isn't really any different than a standard german panzer company against a soviet list.

Skriker

Soviet tanks are the worst made tanks...

Poor ergonomics, crude design, uncomfortable, poor optics and crude construction.

But they can be built very quickly and easily crewed by peasents...

Big P wrote:Soviet tanks are the worst made tanks...

Poor ergonomics, crude design, uncomfortable, poor optics and crude construction.

But they can be built very quickly and easily crewed by peasents...

From any standpoint they have capable weapons and solid armor that is hard to penetrate and simplicity in design to allow crewing by peasants doesn't t change the fact they can be very effective in the hands of german crews. What is more important? A Technologically advanced tank like the panther that could only be built in limited numbers due to his complexity or a tank that can quickly and easily be built in massive numbers and crewed by just about anybody? Given the russians eventually stomped the germans into the ground in the East I think I know which one I vote for in the long run.

Skriker

Indeed.

As Josef said;

"Quantity has a quality all of its own"

Hell... You could run a T-34 on coal, they did at Leningrad.

On coal? What Coal Tar?

Sounds like another urban myth, along with the unsubstantiated but persistent stories about unpainted T-34s being driven unpainted out of the Stalingrad factory straight into combat.

Big P's overly dismissive comment about Soviet tanks is the kind of thing that triggers pages of vociferous argument. Here is an analysis by Chrysler of a T-34/85 (arguably the best tank of WWII) captured in Korea:

"Manufacturing methods had been adequate for the job, with crude exterior finish being countered by precision machining on functioning parts, according to need. Engineering development was actively continued; it was evident that most of the changes had been made to improve tank performance and especially service life, rather than to simplify or reduce costs. Materials were found to be ample for the job - better than those to be used in AMerican tanks, in some instances. Design was simple to the degree that the average mechanically trained crewman could attempt repairs with some assurance of success." The report was critical of the steering, ride and cooling, as well as the lack of turret basket and noted that unskilled workmanship had led to manufacturing defects.

The fact is that tanks like the T-34 proved better suited to offensive warfare than technically superior late war Panzers like the Panther. And, as the quality of German crews deteriorated (and the logistical support grew increasingly inadequate), it proved increasingly difficult to keep sophisticated, high-maintenance tanks like the Panther in serviceable condition.

The term "Critical Mass" applies to both sides, USSR had it, Germany didn't. The Western Allies were at best tied up german resources or worst a distraction. There can be no doubt that the USSR won the War in Europe.

mwnciboo wrote: There can be no doubt that the USSR won the War in Europe.

The USSR won the war against Germany, but lost the war for Europe to Allies.

Tailgunner wrote:Sounds like another urban myth, along with the unsubstantiated but persistent stories about unpainted T-34s being driven unpainted out of the Stalingrad factory straight into combat.

Big P's overly dismissive comment about Soviet tanks is the kind of thing that triggers pages of vociferous argument. Here is an analysis by Chrysler of a T-34/85 (arguably the best tank of WWII) captured in Korea:

"Manufacturing methods had been adequate for the job, with crude exterior finish being countered by precision machining on functioning parts, according to need. Engineering development was actively continued; it was evident that most of the changes had been made to improve tank performance and especially service life, rather than to simplify or reduce costs. Materials were found to be ample for the job - better than those to be used in AMerican tanks, in some instances. Design was simple to the degree that the average mechanically trained crewman could attempt repairs with some assurance of success." The report was critical of the steering, ride and cooling, as well as the lack of turret basket and noted that unskilled workmanship had led to manufacturing defects.

The fact is that tanks like the T-34 proved better suited to offensive warfare than technically superior late war Panzers like the Panther. And, as the quality of German crews deteriorated (and the logistical support grew increasingly inadequate), it proved increasingly difficult to keep sophisticated, high-maintenance tanks like the Panther in serviceable condition.

You call it dismissive, I call it an accurate summary and you assume that means I think its crap... You assume wrong.

Thanks for proving my point - "adequate for the job".

The T-34, despite its shortcomings, is simply the greatest tank ever built in my view. Its crudeness and simplicity were perfect for its job. It was a true war winner (when backed with Lend-Lease supplied US Trucks of course...)

Without Lend-Lease, the USSR wouldnt have 'won the war in Europe'. Those 450,000 trucks are what allowed them to advance... and build lots of tanks.

The victory was an Allied one...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tailgunner wrote: it proved increasingly difficult to keep sophisticated, high-maintenance tanks like the Panther in serviceable condition.

What period are you talking about?

You got any proof of this unsubstaniated rumour? Because the Werkstatte system seems to work rather well right to the end...


Agreed on lack of crew training and fuel though... In Hungary they even had Panther drivers with a grand total of three hours driver training... On a Panzer I training tank...

CainTheHunter wrote:

mwnciboo wrote: There can be no doubt that the USSR won the War in Europe.

The USSR won the war against Germany, but lost the war for Europe to Allies.

Agreed although that wasn't World War 2, that was the conflict that resulted out of it, The Cold War. However your premise is essentially correct.


Is anyone going to enlighten me as to T-34's running on coal? I mean did someone replace the internal combustion engine with a Boiler and steam turbine, or triple expansion engine (As an Ex-Navy man, I know Steam power is manpower intensive and bloody dangerous so unlikely if not ridiculous) so was it coal gas, coal tar, ground up coal?

mwnciboo wrote:

CainTheHunter wrote:

mwnciboo wrote: There can be no doubt that the USSR won the War in Europe.

The USSR won the war against Germany, but lost the war for Europe to Allies.

Agreed although that wasn't World War 2, that was the conflict that resulted out of it, The Cold War. However your premise is essentially correct.

Is anyone going to enlighten me as to T-34's running on coal? I mean did someone replace the internal combustion engine with a Boiler and steam turbine, or triple expansion engine (As an Ex-Navy man, I know Steam power is manpower intensive and bloody dangerous so unlikely if not ridiculous) so was it coal gas, coal tar, ground up coal?

No, as far as I've read, they (and Germans towards the end of war as well) were experimenting with first synthetic prototypes of fuel made out of coal, but "results were as always".
As regards the Cold War, I was rather meaning the end-phase, when Russians made the push and Brits and Americans suddenly realised that they have to hurry up as well, or else they will be living in a Europe, taken over by the World Revolution, starting with Germany.

I was under the Impression the Germans force capitulated at an unprecedented rate to the Western Allies in order to save the Fatherland from the inevitable Communist reprisal that would be conducted against the German people.

They wanted to surrender to the Western Powers, and were fighting to hold back the Red tide, to allow the allies time to race east and save more of central germany. Every Hour, every minute counted.

The end of the second World war was an unprecedented and monumental mess and we are still living with the ramifications today. Crazy how the ribbon of history just keeps on unfurling.

Coal to liquids is the Fischer-Tropsch process.

Basically you take some from of feedstock..back then it was coal, now days coal/trash pretty much anything can be used...then gasify it in a reduced oxygen environment until you get CO and Hydrogen.

After that, you reform the CO back up into your target chemical...in this case diesel...by use of a catalyst. I think the Germans were using an iron based catalyst to reach diesel.

The basic science was all done in the 20's and 30's and since Germany had a fair amount of coal but crappy oil reserves it was a natural development. However, the technology was new and quality suffered so I think the main use was to make F-T fuel for civilian use and shift the better quality oil refined fuels to the war effort...maybe 5-10% of war fuel was F-T but somewhere in the 20-30% was civilian.

It has been used in other places. Typically those places that have good coal and bad oil resources. South Africa used a lot of it under apartheid and the embargoes that entailed.

As gasification processes have improved it is experiencing a bit of a rebirth. I think New York with its trash problems has been looking into the process. Trash is actually a good source as it is typically low in sulfur and low sulfur is key as sulfur poisons the catalyst.

I also think it was a fair bit of both, the Western allies realising they needed a better position to negotiate with the Soviets and the Germans knowing what would happen if the surrendered under Soviet rule. I think the prespective has a lot to do with what side of the "curtain" you were born and raised under. I have a Romanian friend that talks of his education and how it was presented that western allies push at the end was more as Cain described and explained, at least at the time to him, as Western greed.

mwnciboo wrote:I was under the Impression the Germans force capitulated at an unprecedented rate to the Western Allies in order to save the Fatherland from the inevitable Communist reprisal that would be conducted against the German people.

They wanted to surrender to the Western Powers, and were fighting to hold back the Red tide, to allow the allies time to race east and save more of central germany. Every Hour, every minute counted.

The end of the second World war was an unprecedented and monumental mess and we are still living with the ramifications today. Crazy how the ribbon of history just keeps on unfurling.

Also, I believe that the West had no intentions of taking Berlin, considering they knew it would be a brutal streetfight. The West took the surrounding countrside instead, capturing scientists, engineeers etc.

I had read a report some years ago that the original casualty count of the Soviets taking Berlin was somewhat "conservative" and that they lost far more than they reported.

mwnciboo wrote:I was under the Impression the Germans force capitulated at an unprecedented rate to the Western Allies in order to save the Fatherland from the inevitable Communist reprisal that would be conducted against the German people.

They wanted to surrender to the Western Powers, and were fighting to hold back the Red tide, to allow the allies time to race east and save more of central germany. Every Hour, every minute counted.

The end of the second World war was an unprecedented and monumental mess and we are still living with the ramifications today. Crazy how the ribbon of history just keeps on unfurling.

This is true, near the end, Hitler thought that the Western allies would make peace with Germany and help Germany fight off Russia.

ThirdUltra wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:I was under the Impression the Germans force capitulated at an unprecedented rate to the Western Allies in order to save the Fatherland from the inevitable Communist reprisal that would be conducted against the German people.

They wanted to surrender to the Western Powers, and were fighting to hold back the Red tide, to allow the allies time to race east and save more of central germany. Every Hour, every minute counted.

The end of the second World war was an unprecedented and monumental mess and we are still living with the ramifications today. Crazy how the ribbon of history just keeps on unfurling.

Also, I believe that the West had no intentions of taking Berlin, considering they knew it would be a brutal streetfight. The West took the surrounding countrside instead, capturing scientists, engineeers etc.

I had read a report some years ago that the original casualty count of the Soviets taking Berlin was somewhat "conservative" and that they lost far more than they reported.

Eisenhower actually diverted forces from attacking Berlin to Southern Germany because of Goebbels's propaganda about a German Alpine Fortress being prepared in the mountains in Southern Germany, where Germany could hold out for a long time against assaulting forces.

The fortress was a complete myth, but the western Allied command was deceived by Goebbels propaganda and took the false reports very seriously.

We should have let Patton loose on the Commies!!!!! Then their would have never been a Cold War...Too bad he was assinated... hmmm i mean died in a car wreck that involved critical brake failure.

col. krazy kenny wrote:We should have let Patton loose on the Commies!!!!! Then their would have never been a Cold War...Too bad he was assinated... hmmm i mean died in a car wreck that involved critical brake failure.

Actually if the US and British had pushed the issue I think the more likely outcome would have been a completely communist European continent and a not no Cold War.

Skriker

Skriker wrote:

col. krazy kenny wrote:We should have let Patton loose on the Commies!!!!! Then their would have never been a Cold War...Too bad he was assinated... hmmm i mean died in a car wreck that involved critical brake failure.

Actually if the US and British had pushed the issue I think the more likely outcome would have been a completely communist European continent and a not no Cold War.

Skriker

HMMM i smell a polictal debate.The Soviets never would have defeated the Allies.They were broke and in dire need of resources.That is why PAtton wanted to move on them right away.So they did not have enough time to requip themselves.

BEtter lets ask are resident expert for his opion on this matter.mwnciboo...

I'm no expert, I'm not even in the same league with BIG P who is quite literally our Guru and then theres George Spigott, Tailgunner and quite a few others.

It's a well known fact that Churchill was no great fan of communism (due to his background and the then social structure in the UK), but he and Stalin had a strange relationship (almost the different sides of the same coin). Britain was crippled both financially and socially our entire infrastructure was hammered, we could barely feed the Nation and Rationing continued for many years after, and we only paid off the WW2 debt in the last decade.

Much as I would like to say we would have fought the good, fight, I think Britain was pretty hollowed out by total industrial war and to attempt to stop the RED TIDE would have finished us off. The USA idk, they were pretty committed in the Pacific as well. Plus the Russians had such contempt, pathological hatred for the Germans, I mean they lost 28 Million people, any confrontation by the Western Allies would have been insane or a catastrophe. (The US and others lost what 3,000 on 9/11 and the world damn near shifted on it's axis as the political winds blew like a hurricane across the planet, so imagine if a significant number of American States were wiped out to a man, the US would never negotiate, only total annihilation would ever be considered and anyone that tried to protect the enemies of the US would be exterminated. The USSR would have done the same to the Western Allies in WW2). I think Europe from Spain to Ukraine would have been Red.

Churchill was the 1st man to coin the Term Iron Curtain in a post war speech in the US. As he was expelled from office and treated like a pariah in Britain (due to the economic devastation of the war), he went to the US and did hundreds of Speeches to places like West Point, and the Ivy league universities, made a fortune and was hailed as a Champion of Liberal Democracy.

Some of our kit was good, Centurions and Pershings etc would have caused the Russians headaches, as would are command of the Air and Sea. But isn't it odd that's almost exactly the same in 1985? They have numbers and we have superior kit and a good Air force.

Battlefront should release 1946 asap!

On Patton, I personally like him. Maximum aggression is always the way forward in war, "restraint in war is imbecility" as the Great Jackie Fisher said. Gruff, straight, could turn the Air blue, big-brass-balled swagger and a truly talented soldier (sooner serve under him, than McArthur). He did have a lunatic streak though, I remember reading that he believed he was a reincarnated roman general? (Cannot find the source) It's sad he died so soon and in such a ridiculous circumstance. I wish he had been buried at Arlington, he was a national hero (He is buried in Luxembourg most Europeans don't know where it is nevermind Americans). I have never liked Montgomery, Patton should have been given the fuel, and Market Garden was ridiculous waste of the British Airborne all because "It'll all be over by Christmas", how often have we heard that? 101st and 82nd did remarkably well, as did XXX corps.

Given the losses the USSR had sustained and its virtually drained manpower reserves (not too mention tank losses) up against the US War Machine that was just coming onto full capacity in 1945... They wouldnt have stood a chance, especially if they had rearmed the Germans as was suggested.

If the Cold War had turned hot, the USSR had one window of opportunity to win, and that was at the end of 1945 before the US could direct large troop numbers over and the Allied troops in the ETO were War-worn.

But of course, they didnt know how many A-bombs there were. So stalemate.

As the line goes...

They bombed Hiroshima to end the War.

They bombed Nagasaki to show the Russians they had more than one...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

mwnciboo wrote:I have never liked Montgomery, Patton should have been given the fuel, and Market Garden was ridiculous waste of the British Airborne all because "It'll all be over by Christmas", how often have we heard that? 101st and 82nd did remarkably well, as did XXX corps.

No why like a man that knew how to destroy the German army... Ask Rommel who kicked him around the Desert.

Patton had no where to go even if he had fuel.

In September 1944 his force was bottled up trying to take Metz and its surrounding forts. They didnt finish that job till late November. Fuel wouldnt have helped... More shells might have though.

As for 82nd and 101... There was things they could have done better to have helped Market-Garden along, but thats war. Errors are made. Same with XXX Corps.


As for Market-Garden, the actual idea was sound. If Arnhem had fallen the door to the German plains would open, and it could have well ended the war far earlier. Its easy to judge with hindsight the action, but that just leads you to the wrong conclusion.

The operation was one of 13 cancelled airborne operations. They were all cancelled as the Germans retreated too fast across Europe in the Ruckmarsch. The Allies simply couldnt keep up.

So they felt the risk was worthwhile as the Germans seemed to be beaten. Sadly the Germans restored the line in Holland, and managed to perform one of the best turn arounds seen in the war on that front,

Once Monty handed over the operational planning to First Allied Airborne Army, it suffered. Brereton refused two drops in one day, despite the fact it could be done. Browning used 36 gliders taking a virtually pointless Army HQ to Holland when those gliders could have gone to Arnhem...

The idea was sound, the planning wasnt. But then they had little time to do it.

But even then it could have worked. Had 1st Airborne followed Frost in a narrow frontage attack into Arnhem instead of a wide attack, they may have got three battalions at the bridge... Of course the problem was the weather that meant the drop zones had to be held for so long...

So close, yet so far.

I wont go on anymore... My MA was on Arnhem...

Big P wrote:The idea was sound, the planning wasnt. But then they had little time to do it.

But even then it could have worked. Had 1st Airborne followed Frost in a narrow frontage attack into Arnhem instead of a wide attack, they may have got three battalions at the bridge... Of course the problem was the weather that meant the drop zones had to be held for so long...

So close, yet so far.

I wont go on anymore... My MA was on Arnhem...

It's worse than bad planning, it's bad planning and bad luck. If the weather hadn't sucked and the Polish brigade had been sent in when they were supposed to or they hadn't turned out to be facing far better German forces than they expected everyone would be calling it a stroke of genius, as opposed to having it swept under the rug for years because it was such a catastrophe.

It was never swept under the rug, what a silly thing to say.

Christ, we made it into a film in 1945!

'Theirs is the Glory' was filmed in Arnhem, using the veterans who had been liberated from POW camps.

The British love a good heroic defeat, and Arnhem gave us that in spades.

Its no wonder two of the most well known British battles of WW2 are defeats - Dunkirk and Arnhem. The British psyche thrives on the Victorian ideal of noble sacrifice against the odds.

It also wasnt a catastrophy either... As Monty said, in his usual acerbic manner, it was an 80% victory and it caused the Germans no end of problems and casualties. Yes it gutted 1st Airborne, but they had been sat around looking for something to kill for months, if it hadnt been Arnhem, it would have been somewhere else... They had an Allied AIrborne Army and they wanted to use it on something. At least Market-Garden stood a chance... The Poles wanted to drop into Warsaw to support the Uprising! MG was based on an earlier plan called Comet that had just 1st Airborne doing the whole job on their own!

If you want to blame someone, blame XXX Corps for trying to go up one road when a pre-war Dutch exercise had proved it was a bad idea...

Facing far better Germans?

Two depleted SS divisions and some training cadres... Yer... Scary. What the Germans had were troops who just happened to have been trained in Anti-Airborne ops and a copy of the operational plans... That always helps. They werent better troops but they managed to get the job done right in containing certain elements of Market-Garden.

Interestingly, the German units also had high volumes of automatic weapons having gathered them up on the retreat. I know of one company of germans that returned no less than 65 MGs among its 80 men...