Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Panther built earlier along with Pak 40

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Panther built earlier along with Pak 40

    In large numbers. What effect on battle for Moscow? A. Nuthin, weather decides the matter. B. something else.

  • #2

    Too vague mate, be more specific!
    "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
    Ernest Hemingway.

    "We're all going to die, all of us; what a circus! That alone should make us love each other, but it doesn't. We are terrorised and flattened by trivialities."
    Bukowski

    Comment


    • #3
      Hmm, I did specifically state these 2 weapons are available in large numbers for battle of Moscow, & what effect they would've had. Seemed pretty specific to me.

      Comment


      • #4
        You just changed some parameters with your other thread tonight... give this one a go!!!




        But if you want any answer at all to satisfy your question, logistics, or lack off, led to zero chance in my opinion. Regardless of what ever weapon available at the Germans disposal.
        "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
        Ernest Hemingway.

        "We're all going to die, all of us; what a circus! That alone should make us love each other, but it doesn't. We are terrorised and flattened by trivialities."
        Bukowski

        Comment


        • #5
          Um no. Didn't change any parameters, but thanks for response on this one. Have a nice evening.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Purple fang View Post
            In large numbers. What effect on battle for Moscow? A. Nuthin, weather decides the matter. B. something else.
            If in the field in large numbers (1000+) anytime before sept. '41, the Germans are in Moscow drinking Stalin's vodka and smoking Stalin's pipe tobacco with his pipes.
            After that...........Nothing but a hell of a large loss rate of excellent equipment for no gain what so ever.

            Comment


            • #7
              What I think is key to the Battle of Moscow, is a decision to take it early. That is, make Moscow the prime objective of Barbarossa. Most of what I read on Barbarossa indicates that Moscow could have been taken if the German forces had it as their prime objective. Otherwise, I am not convinced that having the Pak 40 and/or Panthers would have made any, or much difference in that severe cold present when the Germans tried to take Moscow.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tom D View Post
                What I think is key to the Battle of Moscow, is a decision to take it early. That is, make Moscow the prime objective of Barbarossa. Most of what I read on Barbarossa indicates that Moscow could have been taken if the German forces had it as their prime objective. Otherwise, I am not convinced that having the Pak 40 and/or Panthers would have made any, or much difference in that severe cold present when the Germans tried to take Moscow.
                I'd Co-sign with you Tom, unless of course like suggested before 1000's were available, but of course we are heading to the Time Tunnel big time here.
                Eternal War(gaming) Armoured Struggle Car Bob

                History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis.
                Lazarus Long

                Draw the blinds on yesterday and it's all so much scarier....
                David Bowie

                Comment


                • #9
                  They could have had Abrams M1s in front of Moscow in December 1941, wouldn't have made a difference. How? Not an armor battle at all.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tom D View Post
                    What I think is key to the Battle of Moscow, is a decision to take it early. That is, make Moscow the prime objective of Barbarossa. Most of what I read on Barbarossa indicates that Moscow could have been taken if the German forces had it as their prime objective...
                    Unfortunately an earlier attack on Moscow was logistically impossible within Barbarossa as it was planned. The means to move the supplies forward in the tonnage needed simply was not there, so Panthers or no Panthers, there is no capture of Moscow.

                    A major re-write of the plan is also no guarantee of success,...if the Germans do things radically different so to would the Red Army. The argument then bogs down in a morass of unprovable counter-factuals.
                    The Purist

                    Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                      Unfortunately an earlier attack on Moscow was logistically impossible within Barbarossa as it was planned. The means to move the supplies forward in the tonnage needed simply was not there, so Panthers or no Panthers, there is no capture of Moscow.

                      A major re-write of the plan is also no guarantee of success,...if the Germans do things radically different so to would the Red Army. The argument then bogs down in a morass of unprovable counter-factuals.


                      Would that be so!? Mr Purist, I do believe many would disagree you, especially anybody who has gamed out Barbarossa. There are so many variables in campaign this size, and one change and you have a Butterfly Effect so to speak, Anyway, I'll not hijack Fang's thread and I hope we can discuss this later in the right forum.
                      Eternal War(gaming) Armoured Struggle Car Bob

                      History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis.
                      Lazarus Long

                      Draw the blinds on yesterday and it's all so much scarier....
                      David Bowie

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PzKfwBob
                        Would that be so!?....
                        It is so,...all one need do is research the threads right here on out forums. Here are two:

                        http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ad.php?t=37048

                        http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ht=Moscow+Kiev

                        Mr Purist, I do believe many would disagree you, especially anybody who has gamed out Barbarossa.
                        Please don't talk to me about wargames,....they prove nothing. I've gone as far as Gorki in 1941,....wargames are nonsense and badly skewed by repetitive play and rule manipulation to form the perfect attacks.

                        Wargames are useless in historical debates.
                        Last edited by The Purist; 10 Aug 07, 19:57.
                        The Purist

                        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                          It is so,...all one need do is research the threads right here on out forums. Here are two:

                          http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ad.php?t=37048

                          http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ht=Moscow+Kiev



                          Please don't talk to me about wargames,....they prove nothing. I've gone as far as Gorki in 1941,....wargames are nonsense and badly skewed by repetitive play and rule manipulation to form the perfect attacks.

                          Wargames are useless in historical debates.
                          Thanks for the links and I will read though them over the next week there is a lot to plow though and get back to you.

                          As far as your opinion of war gaming, that is your opinion and I don't share it. Especially when you come to what if scenarios, it provides a medium in which you see what happens if certain changes are made to battles and campaigns. Discussions on what if this or that had occurred are already operating on the knowledge what happened in reality and a curiosity to wonder if this happened what would possibly be the outcome. Just look at the links you gave me or the massive one on Sealion. Generals also use games for the same reasons to answer what if I did this. So discounting war games is like missing a piece of the puzzle, when discussing what if questions. Bottom line it is all opinion, and in forum such as this it should be just for interest sake, it's not like any of us are going to jump in our Way Back Machines and whisper in Monty's or Guderian's ear and change History.
                          Eternal War(gaming) Armoured Struggle Car Bob

                          History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis.
                          Lazarus Long

                          Draw the blinds on yesterday and it's all so much scarier....
                          David Bowie

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Apologies for hijacking the thread PF,....I'll be quick.

                            Originally posted by PzKfwBob
                            ...As far as your opinion of war gaming, that is your opinion and I don't share it. Especially when you come to what if scenarios, it provides a medium in which you see what happens if certain changes are made to battles and campaigns.... <snip>
                            Third Reich, Europa, Pz Grp Guderian, OCS, WWII:ETO, Gettysburg, Waterloo, Seige of Jerusalem, etc., etc., etc. are all "fun" but of next to no value in gauging the accuracy of 'what ifs' because they all,...everyone of them,...have a rule book that betrays the subjective nature of the design and all the compromises that go with it. By closely examining the rules one learns the game mechanics and by understanding the mechanics of the game flow one can then manipulate the assigned values of the playing pieces.

                            These playing pieces are then used to calculate attacker/defender odds that are also based on biased assignment of those same combat values. By manipulating the stacking or other means of grouping "combat factors" (numerical values) one caqn maximize the mathematical odds on the combat results table and come up with *perfect* game play that is used to capture Moscow, London, Washington, ...Romulus or Vulcan.

                            Believe me, I've being doing it since 1974 in everything from ASL to Rome Total War, from Gettysburg to Jerusalem, Berlin to Rorke's Drift...on table top and on the computer. They are all, each and every one of them, deeply flawed as historical tools. They are "games", good entertainment but of no real value in even a basic 'what if' discussion of real events.

                            No wargame adequately covers the logistics of Barbarossa (for example) because most players don't know and could care less about how much fuel, food and ammunition it takes to move a battalion. They want to take their game pieces representing corps, divisions and brigades and make "breakthrough and exploitation" attacks and move the pieces about the map.

                            Logistics is ignored mainly because it would take hours of accounting before being able to move the first piece and because it would show that the Germans did not have the means to get where they needed to go to achieve victory. Tracing a continuos line of hexagons back to a supply base in Germany or to a rail line that leads to Germany does not prove the Germans could supply a drive on Moscow in August 1941.

                            However, studying the tonnage delivered by trains to the railheads and then how much of that could be delivered to units via horse-drawn wagon and truck does prove that the Germans could not make it to Moscow with the plan they used.
                            Last edited by The Purist; 10 Aug 07, 22:30.
                            The Purist

                            Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                              Believe me, I've being doing it since 1974 in everything from ASL to Rome Total War, from Gettysburg to Jerusalem, Berlin to Rorke's Drift...on table top and on the computer. They are all, each and every one of them, deeply flawed as historical tools. They are "games", good entertainment but of no real value in even a basic 'what if' discussion of real events.
                              The Greeks and Romans used sand tables to recreate battles to judge where tactical improvements could be made and defences strengthened.
                              It was no game to them, and they started doing it Oh around something something B.C.
                              ACG QUOTE OF THE WEEK:
                              ¿Cualquier persona fija en el nude? Slug

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X