 |
|
Stabilizers - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Steel Panthers Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=14) +--- Thread: Stabilizers (/showthread.php?tid=55674) Pages:
1
2
|
RE: Stabilizers - Imp - 05-17-2010 Come on now boys play nice propoganda is a part of any good war machine the West are more than happy to use it to including on their own people. Any data is open to interpritation & massage if you do not look at the full picture ask a scientist. Without checking Tanks mentioned switch was probably more political than anything. Yom Kipper War, Middle East is a very bad place to draw conclusions, Will of Allah & all that who needs training. Reflected in the game probably by a experince diffrence of 15 or so. Same with Iraq ask the Czech or Yugo (forget) guys that retrained them how bad most Iraqi tankers were. They cheered when someone hit a target & jeered at their trainers who had never seen combat. Shut up & listened when the trainers climbed in to their tanks & took down all the targets. It would have made little diffrence how good their tanks were most crews were no more capable than taking a guy off the street & giving him an hour or 2 in the tank. This lesson was learnt in WW2 Germany did not have better equipment when it went to war but it did know how to use them & look what happened. RE: Stabilizers - Walrus - 05-17-2010 I know I am not really in a position to say this any more, except as a fellow member of the ladder... but this thread is well out of order. We are here to wargame, not have discussions on politics and history..at least not in the manner that has been going on. Take it outside guys.... RE: Stabilizers - low_bidder - 05-18-2010 Walrus, out of respect, what tripped your trigger? This seems like a low key, perfectly rational discussion to me. A sharing of different points of view, some of which I disagree with, some I don't. I agree with your point of view that this might not be the best venue for this discussion. On the other hand, it is polite and NOT any sort of flame war. War gaming is ABOUT politics and History. You cannot separate the 3. Nobody has mentioned anyone's mother, dog or pick-up. Which makes it civilized discourse by Internet standards. Plus nobody is reading or writing here that doesn't want to. So WHAT is the harm? What exactly did you read that you took umbrage with?. I can quit this at any time when requested to do so. All I will lose is the amusement as my debate opponents avoid putting forth any evidence to support their unsupportable claims. So, as far as Sherman vs T-34, Both tanks had the features and benefits their respective high command wanted. That doesn't make one better then the other. It does make them different. The overriding concern of the Soviet High Command ( Stalin) was cheap. The Soviets were in a pickle and couldn't afford anything costly. The second requirement of Stalin was off road maneuverability. The Soviet Union had no road net in 1941. They barely have one in 2010. Not anything surpassing a 3rd world nation. So off road ability was important, almost as important as cost. The USA had a different problem. The War was 10,000 Km's away and our Allies in the Soviet Union needed help (a second front) As Soon As Possible. So our tanks were designed to be transportable by ship. It is no accident a Liberty ship would hold 54 Sherman tanks, which was a Tank Battalion in the Early war TO&E. Western Europe in the 40's had one of the best road nets in the world. Germany itself had the best. So off road ability wasn't an issue for US Tanks. Reliability was. You don't build a tank and ship it across the ocean to have it break down on some French road... So you can compare guns ( basically the same, with the US ammo being more reliable), Armor ( slight edge to the T-34 in the open field, advantage to the Sherman in terrain where it could use it's height advantage to get hull down position). Out on the grass lands of Eastern Europe, the T-34 was a 'better' tank. In the villages and small towns of Western Europe the Sherman was the 'better' tank. When the two meet in combat, MOST engagements were won by the Sherman. The Soviets claim that it was because of the crews. They claim that having a New Soviet Man as crew would have made all the difference. The root of this propaganda is true. Like all propaganda, there is a kernel of truth there. It IS men and not machines that do battle. Machines are just the tools. The lie in this propaganda is claiming that he New Soviet Man is genetically superior to any other 3rd worlder. People are people. Claiming that a Syrian isn't as capable of being trained as his 4th cousin from across the Volga is pure BS. No, I don't buy that theory at all. Since nobody has every produced any evidence to support that theory, I feel justified in calling it bogus. Training stories are a dime a dozen. They PROVE nothing. Except perhaps the incompetence of the trainer. BTW, the Russian just moved some of their newest SAM's into the Moscow area. Best guess is they are there to protect the high altitude SAM's that the Soviets count as part of their ABM system. Only the new SAM's are the same type that didn't stop Israel from taking out that Syrian reactor. One wonders just what is going on? If you have weapons that don't work, by all means get more of them. Nothing like having big stacks of weapons that don't work laying around. Maybe Pootie needs to fire some more Generals? Find some Colonel that is smart enough to understand that a weapon that doesn't work isn't a weapon and the money should be spent somewhere else. Then promote him. RE: Stabilizers - Walrus - 05-18-2010 Low Bidder. You say.. This seems like a low key, perfectly rational discussion to me. To me it seems like an unsubstantiated rant, full of opinions being passed off as fact and showing no respect for anyone else's opinions. Re-read you posts...waving the flag (of your particular nation) and yelling louder than the next guy does not make you correct...just annoying. You say.. ...as my debate opponents avoid putting forth any evidence to support their unsupportable claims. Ha! That's hilarious. Re-read your posts. You post one link, and that is to prove that you were wrong! OK, I found some pictures of the inside of a turret on a T-55, with a stabilizer. So my information was wrong. http://www.scribd.com/doc/4008399/Inside...reat-Tanks Brahmin posted some links and so actually put forward some evidence in support of his claims...unlike yourself. You make comments like... No, I don't buy that theory at all. Since nobody has every produced any evidence to support that theory, I feel justified in calling it bogus. ...while producing zero evidence of anything. Classic. and... How ever, the Soviets were absolutly first rate at telling lies. They were so good they started believing their own lies, which is why the Soviet Union collapsed. ...as if that makes any sense at all. Pure speculation and generalization. Hardly evidence in support of your theory. Then my favorite so far.. It is a matter of historic fact that Soviet weapons were badly designed and poorly built. hahahah...nice one. Statements like that just make your all arguments seem unsupportable. Who's historic fact? That's just a pointless statement...and then this post, which is just complete rant. Historical evidence. Or at least what the rest of the world would consider historical evidence. What would you consider evidence? Would kill ratios be good enough? How about E. German tankers who thought they had died and gone to heaven when they traded their old Soviet tanks in for even older German ones? Or would you consider them biased also? Iraqi Tankers that traded in T-72's for M-60's. Egyptian tankers that traded in T-62's for M1A1's? Just what would you consider evidence? I need to know so I don't waste time looking up stuff that you will claim is not evidence. That is an old Propaganda game and I won't play it. Tell me what you need and I will find it. If I can't , then you are correct. the Soviet Union was the greatest thing since sliced bread and you can then explain why it collapsed like a house of cards, folded like a cheap suit. BTW, how about a rough estimate on how many millions of people were murdered by Communists before the USSR (CCCP) fell into the compost heap of history? 60? 100? 140? Add to that the story about getting your helmet polished in a M-48 and this thread ends up being almost nothing to do with wargaming at all, let alone the title of the thread. It is completely obvious that.. War gaming is ABOUT politics and History. You cannot separate the 3. ...but my point is that this forum is filled with quite different people, some of whom hold very different view points compered to your 'truths' and a discussion that veers too far off track just ends up going nowhere...as this one has. So, generally, at least back when I had something to do with monitoring behavior here, conversations of the kind that this thread has sunk to, are frowned upon. If you want to PM and email anyone about anything, that's cool...but here, stating your opinion is OK...but ranting until everyone gives up (if that's your tactic) is not Good Form.. You say... Nobody has mentioned anyone's mother, dog or pick-up. Which makes it civilized discourse by Internet standards. ...which is true enough...but I have always been happy to find that this place is well above 'internet standards' of discourse, which is often 12 yr old kids learning that they can swear and be bigoted, xenophobic, racist and sexist arse-holes without getting punched in the face for it. Not something I think is a positive thing for general communication. So WHAT is the harm? What exactly did you read that you took umbrage with?. Is that a concise enough answer? Look bro, I respect your right to believe what you want. Plenty of your historical and technical knowledge will no doubt be the accepted 'truth' of most players here, but some of your unsubstantiated claims are pure cant and rant and really...I shall say it again, by quoting you.. (I agree with your point of view) that this might not be the best venue for this discussion. Cheers RE: Stabilizers - Vesku - 05-18-2010 https://www.theblitz.club/rules_of_engagement/Message-Boards/rid=20 RE: Stabilizers - wigam - 05-18-2010 Ok, gone from a completely relevant discussion on tanks to an off track discussion with in my opinion no relevant points of issue at all. Closed. To ALL involved in this discussion Please take this time to think about some of our points at issue here and REFRAIN in future from derogatory statements about persons from other races and countries however relevant you may think it is and personal attacks. |
){kind=link}