Are Singaporean conscripts too soft?
-
The softer, less disciplined "western soldiers" eventually won the war from the supposedly "harder" and more "disciplined" German and Japanese troops in WW2.
a lot of them died and i really mean a lot. west won by sheer number. German were technicaly and individually superb soldier. It just that they were spread to thin. Just imagine the number of soldier died from british strategic bomber command only, reached 55000!
or 1 tiger tank destroying 24 tank in one ambush!, alone some more!.
superb hardtrained soldier won battle. But dont make war if you have just a few of them.
train hard fight easy. As SAF soldier trained and live in urban jungle, makes it a huge advantage. (refer previous post) the other way can be said also about Thais, Indonesian or malay.
dont worry about SAF being soft. When the bullet starts flying even the harden soldier flinched. That time you will see if you have what it takes.
Scientist have researched that a human will follow order from a higher authority even if it jeoperdising their life. Its the stupid gen that were embedded in side our DNA. ............ ok i made that up, but only this paragraph LOL
. -
Hi I know this is not the thread for this topics but would like to know why singapore did not send anymore police or SAF to East Timor?
any speculation? -
Dunno leh, I do not think the west won by sheer numbers... granted the Allies had factors of productions that eventually won the war for them, but if you look at them on the individual soldier level, the kill ratios between the supposedly soft children of democracy grunts and the disciplined, tough aryan master race is hardly reflective of this difference in quality.
Let's not even talk about the kill ratios between the tough Japanese soldier and the poorly-disciplined, and supposedly soft and barabric American marine. And the vietcong certainly coped with the jungle and stuff a lot better then the yanks, but suffered a lopsided kill ratio as well.
As it stands, toughness is a nice thing to have, but history has yet to prove that it is the MAIN thing the determines the battle. In the end it boils down to the will to fight, and your tatics and equipment as well. -
As it stands, toughness is a nice thing to have, but history has yet to prove that it is the MAIN thing the determines the battle. In the end it boils down to the will to fight, and your tatics and equipment as well.
i have to defer this. its a really nice thing to have. tough soldier means he can endure more in prolong combat. In WW2 this is what happen and its proven.
Yeah west pruduction line were the most efficient. They spit out Sherman tank faster than the German could kill. The ratio of kill in ww2 were not that credible, and this is true! Winner decide how they are going to be seen by the world. -
Then I must point out that you don't really have any facts to support your assumption... beyond saying that you don't trust the ones that are currently around and choose to make up that of your own, of which you can't even support.
And please don't rely on isloated incidents to make your point. The idea is winning a war, not pick one or two rambos like a Tiger ace with over 100 kills and make that the crux of your argument. I could also draw out this example that a Sherman managed to knock out three Tigers in one engagement to prove my "point". But of course these things lead nowhere. You need to consider the big picture before making any points.
And the point is: the supposed toughness of the German soldiers over the US soldiers didn't seem to reflect in the kill/loss ratios at all. All in all the quality of a fighting force relies not only on individual toughness, but things like tatics and technology as well. Let's not even talk about the "tougher" fanatical Russians vs. the Germans or the Japanese vs. the USMC.
In all of these cases, it seems it was technology and tatics that determined the kill ratio, not vice versa. The Russians and Japanese suffered many losses precisely because they were "tough" enough to launch all kinds of reckless and rather simple-minded tatics (massed infantry attack, banzai charge into automatic weapons).
More so, even the losers of WW2 will disagree with you for the numbers released by them don't support you as well. While they claimed they inflicted more losses on the Allies then the Allies admit, still the ratio is nowhere near what you'd mentioned.
Why would the allies lie about kill ratios in WW2? Just go to any historian on both sides of the battle and you'll realize that while they have different estimates on their losses, no matter how you tally it there is no indicative kill ratio that suggests being "tougher" means you will automatically fight harder and kill more of the enemy then the enemy kills you.
What you mentioned as in the Germans being able to knock out more tanks and stuff is not an indication of individual toughness... but of technological superiority... which is kinda of my point and belief that technological superiority and tatics can make up for a supposed lack of "toughness".
As in the US vs. Japan, the average US Marine was supposedly less mentally strong and less willing to take physical hardship then the Japanese soldier, but their advantage in technology and numbers often led to a very lopsided kill ratio (often 3:1, or 5:1) in their favour.
So I'm sorry to say, beyond saying that you believe in your point of view as a matter of religious faith that you have little to back up, I must say that your point is invalid and the reverse often true instead.
So you have yet to prove it... is there any trend in WW2 or any major conflict to come that indicates toughness on the individual level inherently means a lopsided kill ratio?
As I said, it's not just toughness... things like technology, tatics and the like matter as well. If you are not as tough as your opponent, you can always outsmart and outfight him. Toughness in the end is just a quality and that's it. No matter how tough a person is, if he's sent into a battle on choices made on errors and with the dice stacked against him, all his toughness and discipline will not count for squat. -
War will turn the softest of recruits into the hardest of man.
-
Then I must point out that you don't really have any facts to support your assumption... beyond saying that you don't trust the ones that are currently around and choose to make up that of your own, of which you can't even support.
lol
aiya when i say tough i didnt mean like Lambo ler, or arnold swatshshsgeger( how ever the heck it spell) What i meant is mental toughness, abillity to cope stress and at the same time make a good decision. The ability to overcome shell shock. The ability the shrug of post traumatic stress(especially after baptism of fire) The question here is how many SAF soldier have this toughness.
The german were superior, highest morale and bla bla old story. The fact that Allied using their soldier like number instead of person is a fact. I didnt make that up. Like i say they win , so winner can say anything they want. They can say the kill rtio are the same if they want to. for a long time nobody dispute that. But today, especially after the end of cold war and the fall of soviet a lot of fact, witness and evidence say differently. Sia ww2 topic so big how to discuss?
anyway i just point that toughness is a good thing. Im not saying every SAF personel must have buldging muscle, spit bullet, piss metal and eat baby for breakfast. LOL.
did i say wrong. You are emotional. I didnt accuse you of not being tough ok... -
ok how many sherman needed to knock out a Tiger I. 5 tank. in one engagement the first 3 will die so that the last two could flank the Tiger and shoot it at almost point blank range.
so what American did is building 100 sherman tank per Tiger because you never know if the Tiger have a pair. So that in battle the american always win even if the casualties are enormous. This is call parity. -
Sorry hor, I still donch' get your point hor.
If you point is that mental toughness is something that is good to have then obviously lor... but if you are saying that the Germans are supposedly mentally tougher and it allowed them to fight better then the Allies then I think you are talking from thin air.
And on what basis do you say that the German soldier had to highest morale and blah blah blah? If that was true, then the Axis would have crushed the Allies in battles in which they had numerical superiority at first, not to mention on the attack... such Stalingrad and the battle of Bastogne.
Whatever happened there, it wasn't a clear cut battle of Allies winning by sheer number. Especially in Bastogne, where the cut-off Allies were massively outnumbered but managed to hold off repeated German attacks until they finally gave up and the Battle of the Bulge was over then.But today, especially after the end of cold war and the fall of soviet a lot of fact, witness and evidence say differently. Sia ww2 topic so big how to discuss?
Please state some example then... who, when and where? Just a few will do.
What is clear that at the end of the day when the numbers are tallied, it seems that the kill ratios do not indicate your assumption at all. I am not being emotional, I am simply pointing out that you are dismissing the facts out of hand without even proving that they are unreliable.
Going by your logic, we could deny the holocaust or the rape of Nanking because quite obviously, these issues were brought up by the winners of the war and they could choose to write history in any way they deem fit.
Unfortunately unless you have evidence to show that the offical kill ratios are unreliable, I am afriad your point just holds no water in here. I for one find it quite incredible that you base your entire case on several assumptions, but can't even go about producing some alternative numbers (if you so disregard the offical accounts) to prove your point.
That said, I'm afriad by your logic, we could deny a lot of things. I could deny that your mother is a good person despite all the prove you try to bring up because naturally, you are her child wat so you would defend her character.
No, bring out facts and I'll believe it... either then that, your points of view, while interesting, really stand for nothing in here. -
I think this shows your lack of understanding of American armour tatics, which makes me distrust your entire case on the rest of WW2.Originally posted by tankfanatic:ok how many sherman needed to knock out a Tiger I. 5 tank. in one engagement the first 3 will die so that the last two could flank the Tiger and shoot it at almost point blank range.
so what American did is building 100 sherman tank per Tiger because you never know if the Tiger have a pair. So that in battle the american always win even if the casualties are enormous. This is call parity.
Sherman commanders tried to avoid engaging Tigers if they could, because the main job of the Sherman was to support infantry and act as a fire support platform. The job of tank hunting was left up to their highly mobile TDs with the powerful guns that could knock out the Tigers as and when they could.
Unless they had no choice, Shermans would not engage Tigers. They would call in air support, TDs or what have you not before trying to take on enemy armour.
American armour doctorine did not involve trying to overwhelm Tigers with sheer weight of numbers... what actually happened was that more often then not it turned out that the whole tanks for the infantry, TDs for the tanks idea was flawed to begin with and Sherman crews found themselve having to fight Tigers when TDs could not arrive in time or were not attached.
But you would be pretty wrong if you thought that the main idea of the Sherman was to flood the battlefield with as many tanks as possible as an anti-armour tatic... which you have assumed and are totally wrong. Since Tigers were quite rare, the yanks supposed having TDs around would do the job... but they found that idea hard to implement in the end.
The Yank solution to this was the Pershing tank, which was not only cheaper and easier to produce then the Tiger, but superior in many ways as well! Unfortunately before they could seriously implement this solution the war was over. But in the limited action that the Pershing did see, it proved itself to be a formidible opponent to German armour, and what's better was that it could be produced at far better rates then the best of them.
Let's not even talk about the Super Pershing that the Yanks came up as a field mod with that could outshoot and destroy even the King Tiger! If anything, the Yanks have shown considerable innovation in improving their fighting methods and equipments in facing the Germans.
The chiong in huge numbers of tanks tatic can be attributed to the Soviets, not the Yanks.
It is obvious you don't really know your WW2 history... haiz, and still want to talk so much on it.
And yes, you are certainly quite wrong on your supposed kill ratios. I know it's tempting to try to twist or pick and mix facts to fit your case... but I'm afraid your stuff just isn't flying.
In all of the major battles that the Americans fought with the Germans, there is no trend to indicate they only could win by taking far more losses then they inflicted, and no twisting of numbers will really fit your case. I know you want to push your point, but I'm sorry to say the onus of proof is on you, and saying "victors determine the truth" isn't going to work. -
Not to mention that you make several flawed assumptions to begin with. Firstly the Allies do not have magic men and material to toss into each and every battle. They had their own supply problems as well and had to get men and material across the Atlantic. In the Red Ball express, 5 gallons of fuel is used to deliver 1 gallon up to the front lines to fight. This means that the Yanks (or any side for that matter), could not push all of their numbers into any fight for the simple reason getting them there itself is already a mammoth task.
Hence the actual numbers that made it there were a lot more conservative, and certainly not enough to support your trend of paying blood to overcome the more disciplined, higher morale and blah blah blah Germans.
Your assumption assumes that the Allies won by pitching many more men and material into battle then the Axis, however in this is not true. If you look at the pitched strength in many of the battles you will realize that having overwhelmingly more Allies then Axis was never a common feature of them. So how you can even hold to your point of view (except through some astounding lack of knowledge of history), is really a mystery to me.
Let's see the numbers in terms of losses (note I took the AXIS estimate when I could find it):
Battle of Bulge
Allies: 89,987
Axis: 84,834
Battle of Stalingrad
Allies:740,000
Axis: 750,000
Kursk
Allies: 670,737
Axis: 180,000
Battle of Normady
Allies: 57,200
Axis: 23,019
Battle of Romania
Allies: 13,197
Axis: 200,000
Vistula-Oder Offensive
Allies: 43,476
Axis: 295,000
Battle of Odessa (1941)
Allies: 41,268
Axis: 92,545
Battle of the Crimea (1944)
Allies: 85,000
Axis: 97,000
Operation Bagration
Allies: 60,000
Axis: 260,000
Battle of Moscow
Allies: 650,000
Axis: 248,000
Battle of Velikiye Luki
Allies: 30,000
Axis: 17,000
Battle of Sevastopol
Allies: 95,000
Axis: 100,000
Battle of the Dnieper
Allies: 300,000
Axis: 500,000
Battle of Imphal
Allies: 12,603
Axis: 54,879
Battle of Singapore
Allies: 5,000
Axis: 1,715
Battle of Saipan
Allies:3,426
Axis: 24,000
Battle of Iwo Jima
Allies: 6,000
Axis: 20,703
Battle of Okinawa
Allies: 12,513
Axis: 66,000 -
Also please refer to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualtiesThe total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II, irrespective of political alignment, was roughly 62 million people. The civilian toll was around 37 million, the military toll about 25 million. The Allies lost around 51 million people, and the Axis lost 11 million. (Note that some Axis countries switched sides and reentered the war on the side of the Allies; those nations are included in the Allied count, regardless of when the deaths occurred.) There was a disproportionate loss of life and property; some nations had a higher casualty rate than others, due to a number of factors including military tactics, crimes against humanity, economic preparedness and the level of technology.
The military toll is 42% of the total toll... the allies contributed 27% while the axis contributed 15%. Still no indication of your vastly superior kill ratio in battles. But this included the Western and Eastern parts of the war, so let's focus on the Western one which you are focused on.
So let's break it down even more to the main big powers fighting in the west:
Germany suffered 5.5 million military deaths.
Russia 10.7 million
United States 407,300
UK 382,600
All in all the Germans inflicted a roughly 2:1 kill ratio (5.5mil vs. 11.5mil)
But let's break it down even more... note that the BULK of Allied losses came from the first part of the war, where the German enjoy general sucess in the war.
HOWEVER once the tide changed and the Allies started to make gains and fight on a more even footing, the Allied/Axis loss ratio became more even, and towards the end of the war the Allies often inflicted far more losses on the Axis in many battles.
All things considered, your idea on the Allies winning only because they had superior numbers and taking heavy losses in many battles only to finally manage to overcome a vastly smaller German foe should be chucked right out the window.
They had more numbers for sure, and that sealed their win... but they didn't buy many, if not most of the victories they won simply by piling in as many bodies as possible until the Germans ran out of ammo or were beaten.
A lot of the battles were won due to gross errors on the German part in launching many ambitious but critically flawed plans and also on a great deal of fortunate events and tatical brillance on the Allied part. The Allies certainly didn't go into battle with the idea of swarming the Germans with as much stuff as possible with no regard for tatics or equipment.
And to become more specific to your point... are the Yanks even significantly weaker then the Germans? In terms of firepower the Yanks had superior arty, and their infantry level organic arms had several crucial advantages (semiautomatic Garands, superior pineapple grenades), as well as a superior recovery rate (Many Shermans and other units were recovered and returned to battle after they were knocked out as opposed to the German pratice of abandoning their lost units).
All in all, the Yanks may not have had the discipline and technology of the Jerries (both sides had pretty good morale to fight), but they made up for it not by paying in blood, but by playing on the inherent advantages they started the war with.
So the "soft" children of democracy won over the disciplined soldiers of nazi engineering. -
Phew, my case is by no means complete and there's a lot of facts that I need to make clearer and better...
But all in all I think I've covered most of the important bases, and unless he comes up with something other then "the facts are unreliable because the victors write history", tankfanatic's case, unfortunately, more or less sealed shut. -
Ditto with SGTrex on this too.
The K/D ratio does not necessarily equate to one side having tougher soldiers. Theres terrain, technology and tactics to consider. These are considered "force multipliers."
The Americans lost more shermans to Tigers not because their troops weren't tough enough. It was the sherman that was not tough enough nor well armed. A platoon of 4 shermans would lose 3, to a single ambushing tiger simply cause,
1. The sherman's gun is unable to penetrate the Tiger's armor from the front or sides unless awfully close.
2. The Tiger's 88mm gun easily owns the sherman's thin armor.
The shermans would charge a single tiger, while trying to flank it. By the time one sherman could flank the tiger and hit it from its rear, the tiger would have already knocked out 3 shermans despite its slow turret traverse. The Tiger's toughness was the force multiplier. In this equation, both troops had the nerves to fight to the end.
Also, aerial bombardment as well as artillery often contribute greatly to these "kill/deaths." Again, nothing to do with a soldier's toughness. No amount of mental discipline nor physical training saves a soldier from an exploding artillery shell or bomb. -
Yes, not to mention that the Sherman was placed into a job that it was never intended to do- fighting other tanks. The Sherman was orginally concieved as an infantry support tank and Tank Destroyers were supposed to take the anti-armour role. In any case the concept didn't pan out in pratice as the Yanks wanted and their tankers bled for that.
However, one also needs to realize that when they could they did not engage Tigers with Shermans. They made a lot of use of CAS, since Allied air superiority was already established at that time. Many Tigers were taken out from the air and by other means. The primary counter-Tiger weapon of the Allies was not the Sherman.
Also, considering the American superiority in arty, as well as the parity (and certain advantages) of their small arms more or less meant that they had plenty of level playing fields to fight their battles with.
In fact even if we don't trust the numbers (of which we have little reason to doubt as if the Allies were so boliao to mess around with the numbers), going by all the things we can logically deduce from what we know about what the grunts had there and then... tankfanatic's idea of the Allies winning by simply pouring blood into the battle to overcome the smaller in number, but disciplined and high-morale Germans, I'm afraid... is mostly nonsense.
The only people who really used the blood-pouring method were the Soviets, who stuffed as many conscripts to the front as possible when the Germans were attacking. HOWEVER, after Kursk, when the tempo shifted to the Soviet side, they were able to achieve, all things considered, very reasonable kill ratios on the Germans given the equipment and tatics they had.
So we can conclude two things from all this: that the idea of the Germans having inherent advantages in battle because they were more disiplined and "high morale" is mostly a myth, or that the mental toughness that tankfanatic is so on about is mostly vapour as well.
I do not however, think that the Germans were the most disciplined and tough troops of WW2. I think the Japanese had them beat by a mile in those areas. The idea of surrender was foreign to them, they followed their orders to the letter and bitter end, and fought with all they got. Contrast this with the Germans of whom giving up and surrendering was an option. The Japanese didn't give any quarter in discipline and combat. I would think the Japanese had far more morale then the Germans.
But all that mental toughness and discipline didn't save them either... in fact in many cases this inflexibility and rigid thinking often worked against them as they squandered many men and material doing things the hard way when they should just have fought smart.
Also to bring up an old point:a lot of them died and i really mean a lot. west won by sheer number. German were technicaly and individually superb soldier. It just that they were spread to thin. Just imagine the number of soldier died from british strategic bomber command only, reached 55000!
This is certianly untrue. If you read up on the order of battle of many of the important battles of WW2, you would realize that a lot them were fought on very reasonable terms in numbers.
By common military doctrine, you need at least a 3 to 1 advantage to have a high chance of victory. However this was often not achieved in many battles... even the crucial battle to capture Berlin was acomplished with a 2.5 to 1 ratio... and don't forget the Soviets were supposed to be inferior in troop and technology (though at that point the who situtation for the Germans were dire).
And since the technically and individually superb German soldier is supposed to be a force multiplier, how come despite an over 2 to 1 advantage, plus tatical surprise they were unable to beat the Allies at the Bulge?
Numbers are but one thing in this game. History does not lead us to the conclusion that the Allies won by sheer numbers alone. They had plenty of things going for them that eventually sealed the fate of the Axis forces once important milestones in the war were past.
Put winning by sheer numbers? Please reread your history (if you have done anymore then reading the interesting parts) before trying to dismiss facts.
More importantly, on the grunt level... the Yanks themselves who gave their stories of the battle they fought certainly didn't describe tatics such as being able to overwhem the Germans with sheer force of numbers.
If anything it was a very level fight at times. The Germans were disciplined but in battle the Yanks have often commented that they were utterly inflexible and that worked against them. All in all, WW2 is what you'd expect of a clash of powers on some rather even grounds and not the Persians vs. 300 Spartans thing somebody is trying to push at the expense of established facts. -
The best Sherman, ironically, is the UK version called the Sherman Firefly.
Though the armour is equally weak, the silhouette high and the petrol engine equally flammable, it had the British 17-pdr gun. This gun is the more powerful than the US short 75mm or the long 76mm.
The canon muzzle is distinctive and the hull MG is removed.
If I'm not wrong, this 17-pdr gun was also fitted to the first Centurions.
There is a book called "Sherman Firefly vs Tiger" from this website:
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781846031502
ABOUT THIS BOOK
"The German Tiger heavy tank was a monster of a machine that dominated the battlefields of Europe. One of the most feared weapons of World War II, the Tiger gained an aura of invincibility that was only shattered by the introduction of the Sherman Firefly during the summer of 1944. Specifically designed by the British to combat the Tiger, the Sherman Firefly was based on the standard American M4A4 Sherman medium tank, but was fitted with a powerful 17-pounder gun which made it a deadly opponent for the Tiger.
This book describes the design and development of these two fierce opponents, analyzing their strengths and weaknesses and assessing their tactics, weaponry and training. Innovative gun-sight artwork puts the reader "inside" the tanks during famous real-life battle scenarios, including the infamous Panzer ace Michael Wittman leading four Tigers into battle against eight Fireflies, a clash of steel that was a victory not only for superior Allied numbers, but also for Allied tactics and engineering." -
Let's not forget the Pershing as well, which was just about to come out in numbers when the Germans finally fell.
In the first engagement with the M26 by the 3rd Armored Division, Cooper writes that the M26 managed to catch two Tigers and one Panzer IV tank by surprise from a flanking position. The M26 engaged the tanks from a range of about 1000 yards (1 km), and knocked them out.
And don't forget the Jumbo Shermans as well, which had thicker frontal armour then the Tiger...
Pershing tankTwo M26A1E2 tanks were built during the Second World War. One of these made it to the ETO, assigned to the 3rd Armored Division. This experimental version of the Pershing, sometimes referred to as "Super Pershing" (as are other upgunned Pershing variants), had the 90 mm/70 caliber T15E1 high-velocity gun that threw a projectile at 3,850 ft/s (1,173 m/s). This gun could penetrate 216mm of rolled homogeneous armor at a range of 1000yd/914m against armor angled at 30 degrees [2]. At a range of 100yd/91.4m, it can penetrate 330mm vs RHA angled at 30 degrees[3]. On April 4, 1945 near Dessau, the "Super Pershing" destroyed one King Tiger by striking its underbelly and knocked out another tank, probably a Panther, with a shot to its flank [4]. However, that was its only known combat engagement. Thus, the full capabilities of the T15E1 90 mm main gun were never demonstrated.
I don't think the Allies were that far behind the Axis in armoured technology, just that they relied a lot more on their old stock. -
chill guys,let's not forget most german divisions where chewed up by aerial bombing along the western front as well as very powerful and well aimed arty from the coastal ships.
The Germans just couldnt do jack againest odds like that.Which is what singapore has. More planes and more heavy arty then any potential enemy in the reigon.
If the enemy soldiers are better and tough then ur's, just bomb them back to hell.Aint nothing they can do. -
On 18 April, 1941 the final design characteristics for the new tank were approved at a conference at Aberdeen Proving Grounds attended by representatives of the Armored Force and the Ordnance Department. The stated goal was to produce a fast, dependable medium tank that was capable of defeating any other tank currently in use by the Axis nations.
so whos bs is this? a thought some dino say the tank were designed just to support infantry and not tank vs tank? who ever wrote the above quote must be an axis spy.
US armoured forces ultimately triumphed over their German counterparts because of numerical superiority, a more consistent supply of fuel and ammunition, and the allied air superiority at Normandy, with aircraft being the biggest danger to the lines of supply of German tank units.
lol this quote must be from another german spy. didnt i read some wher in this thread that the US armoured force defeated the german tank because of their technological superiority?
According to Belton Y. Cooper's memoir of his 3rd Armored Division service, the Shermans were "death traps"; the overall combat losses of the division were extremely high. The unit was nominally assigned by table of organization 232 Sherman medium tanks. 648 Sherman tanks were totally destroyed in combat, and a further 1,100 needed repair, of which nearly 700 were as a result of combat. According to Cooper, the 3rd Armored therefore lost 1,348 medium tanks in combat, a loss rate of over 580%, in the space of approximately only ten months.
This Belton guy must be the biggest bs ever? How can the tank which won a war have 580% total loss? lol.
It was not one of the best tanks of the war being inferior to the best of the Soviet and German tanks in armour and firepower at times gaining tit the nickname the 'Tommycooker'.
tommycooker? wonder why they call it that? oh i know .. because it blow up easily. -
pal... like i said you are emotional. arrogance blind you from fact.
where did you get that death toll number? Your mom cook book?( you start it first about my mom)All in all the Germans inflicted a roughly 2:1 kill ratio (5.5mil vs. 11.5mil)
Axis ww2 casualties
Country Military casualties Civilian casualties
Germany 3.250.000 3.810.000
Austria 230.000 80.000
Italy 330.000 85.000
Rumania 200.000 465.000
Hungary 120.000 280.000
Bulgaria 10.000 7.000
Finland 90.000 n/a
Japan 1.700.000 360.000
total : 5,930,000 soldier (lol the german suffered 5.5 million death? are u sure its not 5.5 milligram of garam? from your mommy cook book?)
British Empire and Commonwealth 452.000 60.000
France 250.000 360.000
USA 295.000 ---
Soviet Union 13.600.000 7.700.000
Belgium 10.000 90.000
Holland 10.000 190.000
Norway 10.000 n/a
Poland 120.000 5.300.000
Greece 20.000 80.000
Yugoslavia 300.000 1.300.000
Checoslovaquia 20.000 330.000
China 3.500.000 10.000.000
total : 18,587,000 soldier
Thats like 1:3 ratio. its is unknown how many german kill the american or vice versa. You said the ratio was 1:2? you just wipe out the name of about 6.7 million allied soldier of the map pal? now who is the one which BS here?
count the number of civillian death yourself! -
During World War II, Germany produced 24,630 tanks
Panzer I (3970)
Panzer II (3996)
Panzer III (572
Panzer IV (11900+)
Panzer 35(t)
Panzer 38(t)
Panzer V - Panther (~6000)
Panzer VI - Tiger I (1,355) (i)
Panzer VI - Tiger II (485)
Maus (2 completed, 9 halted in production)
American built a staggering number of 66,600 tank!
M3/M5 Stuart,M24 Chaffee,M3 Lee (~7200)
M4 Sherman (58,000+)
M6,M26 Pershing (1400+)
wu hu...... do you want me to list the rest of allied and axis tank? -
Please state some example then... who, when and where? Just a few will do.
tankfanatic's idea of the Allies winning by simply pouring blood into the battle to overcome the smaller in number, but disciplined and high-morale Germans, I'm afraid... is mostly nonsense
well smartguywhokneweverythingaboutww2 have you heard about the Battle of Hurtgen Forest?
you are so smart ...... your mommy cook book were full of these ww2 thingy. I (from your point of view) were nothing compared to you. I (from your point of view) cant read properly and knew nothing other than BS about ww2. Oh please enlighten us oh so wise man. -
you just had to shoot yourself in the foot right? Are you really serious or were you just joking with your previous few posts? Because I find it hard to believe anybody could make the mistakes you did.
Okay, nevermind, let me enlighten you.
Hello, are you so dense? Why you like to put down numbers to disprove your own point?
Even if we duffed the facts and gave your number itÂ’s credience, is a 3:1 kill ratio your idea of a kill ration indicative of being vastly superior and only overwhelmed by numbers?
Note that in more recent battles where he had the ability to measure what would truly happen if a technologically advanced foe with superior soldiers came up against a foe that relies more on blood and random tactics in battle, we get a clearer idea of the kill ratioÂ… which were more in the range of 10:1 to 50:1.
Also note that a lot of the losses taken by the Allies were lumped into the first part of the war when the Axis were enjoying wide success. HOWEVER when things switched over to the Allies the gross kill ratio dropped correspondingly.
Also, note that the Soviets were contributing a disproportionate amount of casualties, which was expected given they were REALLY the ones who were relying on numbers to win. Oddly enough, if you realize, when the war shifted to their favour even trading losses for victory became less and less a feature of their war.
However since this argument is really on the Yanks versus Jerries, in which case you are trying to argue that the Yanks only won over the Jerries by pouring bloodÂ… it seems to stretch historical credibility. Both sides had their own advantages and disadvantages but they were more or less quite evenly matched with the Yanks having war-winning advantages that the Germans eventually could not match up to.
Note that for a large part of it the Yanks were also on the offensive, against a defensive foe that had prepared extensive defensives in depth. Even accounting for the deficiency in armour, their kill ratio is not what you expect of a kind of engagement where one side relies on numbers and the other on superior quality.
With the Yanks, the supposedly superiority of the Germans in quality did not produce the effects you try to pitch.so whos bs is this? a thought some dino say the tank were designed just to support infantry and not tank vs tank? who ever wrote the above quote must be an axis spy.
IÂ’m afraid itÂ’s only your own bs and inability to take proper quotes into context.
Here are more properly worded quotes that you happily missed out:The Sherman tank was comparatively fast and maneuverable, mechanically reliable, easy to manufacture and service, and produced in many special-purpose variants, whose capabilities differed greatly. It was effective in the infantry support role.
LOL! You only quoted the last part. Nice try!
The Sherman performed well against WWII Japanese tanks, Italian tanks, and the German standard tank of WWII, the Panzer IV medium series. However, the typical Sherman was significantly inferior in both armor and armament to the German Tiger heavy tanks, Panther "medium" (heavy by US standards) and some of the tank destroyers fielded by the Germans in 1944.
When the US encountered German tank units containing large numbers of Panther tanks in 1944 high US losses sometimes resulted. However, Panther and Tiger-equipped units frequently suffered severe defeats. Shermans operated by the US 37th Armored Regiment at Arracourt destroyed 57 Tigers and Panthers while losing only 14 Shermans.
Shermans defeated heavier tanks by use of superior tactics, or by using upgunned Shermans working with tank destroyers such as the M36 Jackson (with a 90 mm anti-tank gun) and the M18 Hellcat (a mobile, fast tracked vehicle with the same 76 mm gun)
The majority of losses of Shermans were not from battle with other tanks, but rather from mines, aircraft, infantry anti-tank weapons and, on occasion, friendly fire. This should not be surprising considering that the entire strategy of blitzkrieg, as practiced first by the Germans and later by the Allies, was to strike the enemy where they were weakest and wreak havoc in their rear areas, rather than attempt brute-force frontal attacks. A noted exception would be Battle of Kursk where frontal attack might have fared better. Thus, although their tanks were less powerful, this turned out to be as irrelevant to the outcome of the final half of World War Two as the French and Russian superiority in tank forces was in the first half. US armoured forces ultimately triumphed over their German counterparts because of numerical superiority, a more consistent supply of fuel and ammunition, and the allied air superiority at Normandy, with aircraft being the biggest danger to the lines of supply of German tank units.
Note that that statement was made IN 1941, and yes at that time the Sherman was capable of beating any other Axis tank at its own game. At that time obviously the Sherman would be good at anti-armour battles. The orginal gun of the Sherman was a compromise between on that would be good for supporting infantry, and a dedicated AT gun. And indeed when the Shermans were first fielded they proved a match for any German armour.
However when the Germans started fielding more advanced armour and the inadequacies of the Sherman became obvious, the Yanks were slow to realize this and relied on TD doctrine to make up for the gap.
So is this an indication of the YankÂ’s lack of technological prowess, or a strategic mistake on their part due to PattonÂ’s inability to realize that they needed a better tank which they had in the Pershing but didnÂ’t push to the troops?
Your quote is hardly the full story, why? Scared to show the whole picture?When the Sherman first saw combat in 1942, its 75 mm M3 Gun could penetrate the armor of the German tanks it faced in North Africa at normal combat ranges. However, immediately following the invasion of Normandy, it was discovered that the 75 mm M3 Gun was completely ineffective against the front of the German Panther and Tiger I tanks at typical combat ranges. The 75mm M3 Gun was thereby rendered obsolete, and the European Theater of Operations quickly demanded deliveries of the Sherman armed with the 76mm M1 Gun, as well as tanks and tank destroyers
And was the Hurtgen Forest due to inferior Allied troops? Or poor Allied strategic and tactical decisions? Sorry, your point on the (Yank) Allies winning by numbers still does not fly.
66,000 Shermans? Did they really manage to cram 66,000 Shermans into the ETO? Are you forgetting the Pacific, Africa, and even Korea?
It is obvious the Yanks enjoyed numerical superiority with their armour- they better given they were in an inferior tank. BUT they certainly did not fight their wars intending to trade numbers for victory. They did the best with what they had, which ironically was due to poor decisions from their uppers regarding their armour doctrine and procurement, and made a good accounting for themselves despite their inferiority in quality.
LOL, now whoÂ’s misreading facts? -
Sorry ah, but I must say you obviously cheated a lot in presenting your numbers of WW2 deaths. Fortunately there are sources out there to disprove you.
HereÂ’s the real figure of what the war actually took out of the population- as in people who never got home.
Germany
Total pop: 69,623,000
Military Deaths: 5,500,000
Civve Deaths: 1,840,000
Holocaust Deaths: 160,000
Total: 7,500, 000.
3 mil German civilian deaths? Are you sure a lot of them werenÂ’t Hitler Youth? LOL!
Also the losses of the other major players like the UK and the US were drastically less then the Soviets. Do your own calculations on the UK and US versus German ETO losses and it becomes clear that your impression of the Yanks or Tommies pouring blood to win the Germans seems to be taken from limited examples such as not having adequate armour.
And the Soviets only having 7 mil civvie deaths? LOL, that's a good one. -
More on Yank TD doctrine and why it ultimately failed leaving Sherman crews having to face German armour.
US Army tank destroyer doctrine
U.S. Army and derivative British designs were very different in conception. U.S. doctrine was based on the perceived need to defeat German blitzkrieg tactics, and U.S. units expected to be faced with large numbers of German tanks attacking on relatively narrow fronts. In actual practice, such attacks rarely happened.
The U.S. tank destroyer designs were intended to be very mobile and heavily armed. Most retained a turret, but left it open on top both to save weight and to accommodate a larger gun. The earliest expedient design was an M3 Half-track mounting an M1897 75 mm gun in a limited-traverse mount, and called the 75-mm GMC M3.
Another, and considerably less successful early design mounted a 37-mm antitank gun in the bed of a Dodge 3/4-ton truck -- the 37-mm GMC M6. The larger guns required a counterweight at rear of the turret, which can be seen on designs like the 3-inch gun 3in Gun Motor Carriage M10 and the 90mm Gun Motor Carriage M36. The 76mm Gun Motor Carriage M18 came closer to the U.S. ideal; the vehicle was very fast, small, and mounted a 76 mm gun in a turret. Of these, only the 90 mm gun of the M36 proved to be effective against the Germans' larger armored vehicles.
The open top made these Tank Destroyers particularly vulnerable to anything from ordnance such as an artillery shell or a hand grenade to even the elements, which reduced fighting crew capability. To compensate this they had a collapsable roofkit. Further, the light armor of Tank Destroyers proved to make them the far more vulnerable targets in encounters with their intended prey.
By 1943, the very idea of independent anti-tank groups was deemed to be unworkable and no further US Tank Destroyer battalions were created. For the rest of the war, existing TD units found use as self-propelled artillery and assault platforms against "soft" targets. The M36 Jackson (apart from the M26 Pershing, which was only available in small numbers) was the only American vehicle capable of knocking out the German heavy tanks at a distance.
