Wonderwaagh, i dont know about the original Sgt York... i only know about the disasterous ZSU23/4 copy that was made in the 80s and was very good at taking out field toilets (same rpm on the vent fans as a target 'hind' drone ).

I did read about Audie Murphy once though he's a real legend.

I've re-enacted axis, brit and soviet in the past, collected miniature armies for all of those two but i've only recently started collecting US kit (WWII, i've had nam stuff for some time) so my knowledge on US military folklore heros is sketchy im afraid.

I wouldnt be able to tell you anything that wiki couldnt.

RE the KV2 story, it might be in an Osprey but i think i read it in some book on the russian front years ago when i was painting up a unit of 1/72 scale KV1s and KV2s when i was about 13. I dont think i could afford Osprey books then!

They were about £10 in the UK and i could get three tank kits for that, i got most of my reference books from the library back then

The actual concepts that made 'blitzkrieg' (term first used by an american journalist i believe) sucessful....

i.e a mechanised self suporting battle group that could move fast with its own armoured logisitics and own intergral artillery support was actually British.

In the 1930s we had an experimental fully armoured all arms battlegroup we trialed on exercises but it was sabotaged by politics from senior infantry and cavalry generals who were either obsessed with WWII being a re-run of WWI (ie positiional trench warfare) or didnt want to accept horses were soon going to go.

The Elephant/Ferdinand were major hack jobs! Porshe and Henschel were competing for the contact for the next heavy tank. Porsche was so confident they would win they began producing hulls. When Henschel won with their Tiger I design Porsche found themselves with a lot of unsellable hulls. The Heer eventually accepted them as tank destroyers.

Porsche didnt learn and made the same mistake with the Tiger II. That is why the first batch used the Porsche turret and the rest the bettwr Henschel design.

Any discussion of WW2 inevitably brings out the genitalia waving nationalist in people. Here's my opinions on some of the topics discussed in this thread.

Germany did not have the best equipment of world war 2 all around, but they did make some very nice stuff. Both the FW 190 and the BF 109 were great fighter craft. When the FW 190 made its combat debut in 1941 the RAF had to suspend fighter operations over France for a time until they could get the Mk IX spitfire into service. The late war german "cats" were not bad tanks. The Panther was an excellent tank on the defense but a poor offensive tank, and by the time the germans had sufficient numbers of them they had lost most of the good crews.

Yes, it was mechanically unreliable but so was almost any tank you can name, including the T 34 and Sherman.

Here's a telling quote from a soviet combat vet

From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were almost perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse.

That's obviously an early war assessment when the T 34 was facing Panzer IIIs and short barreled IVs but it proves a simple truth. Tanks break down, a lot, its not a special trait of the panther or tiger or any other tank.

Historiography (talking about talking about history) follows three stages, Bunk, Debunk and Rebunk. After the second world war we learned a lot of the myths about german military superiority and after the cold war we entered into a new phase where we attempt to debunk all of those myths. These days its very vogue to portray the germans as hopelessly outmatched by the superior allied and soviet forces, and one wonders how the german military managed to achieve anything during the war when their tanks all broke down as soon as they were started and every allied plane was far superior to anything the germans could produce.

No the truth lies somewhere in between. The germans built an effective military machine and managed to achieve some impressive feats but were ultimately doomed to fail. I don't want to detract from the sacrifices of the Soviet people because they fought extremely well and bravely and deserve all the credit that they get for the victory in world war two but in reality Germany's lack of access to oil crippled them right from the start. The Soviet Union just needed to stay the course and hold out until the lack of resources crippled the german war machine, which they did admirably.

Personally I feel Britain does not get enough credit for defeating the germans (as the online arguments generally devolve into a US-Soviet **** waving contest). Britain won two of the most critical battles of the war, the Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of Britain. The Battle of the Atlantic secured the sea lanes to allow the allied powers to use their naval and maritime superiority effectively, and allowed the Allies to keep the soviets fighting through lend lease. (remember its not about the number of tanks and planes, its all about the trucks, food, and other logistical equipment, equipment that allowed the red army to keep fighting), the Battle of Britain was the first major defeat the Germans suffered, dispelled myths about their invincibility and killed a lot of the luftwaffe veterans that were so hard to replace. It allowed the Allies to eventually wage their own air offensive against Germany that tied up the luftwaffe protecting german cities instead of massacring the red army and the soviet air force like they were doing in 41 early 42.

Sorry for the wall of text. Basically my opinion is that the germans were better than the soviet fanboys think but not as good as the german fanboys think they were and Britain did way more than people give them credit for.

Germans had a habit of setting their design requirements and then building something way beyond them. Often leaving in the original engine. This is why their final drives would often break. They were literally meant for smaller tanks.

The one myth that drives me craziest is the year the war started. The war began in 1937, when Japan invaded China.

The one myth that drives me craziest is the year the war started. The war began in 1937, when Japan invaded China.

You could also argue that it began in 1936 with the beginning of the Spanish civil war, or in 1935 with the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, or even in 1931 with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.

In truth the Second World War wasn't really one big war, it was many smaller (relatively speaking) conflicts that followed several general themes. I follow the generally accepted date of September 3rd 1939 as the start of World War 2, as that's when general conflict between Germany, France and the British Empire (thus adding the "World" to World War) broke out.

The one myth that drives me craziest is the year the war started. The war began in 1937, when Japan invaded China.

You could also argue that it began in 1936 with the beginning of the Spanish civil war, or in 1935 with the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, or even in 1931 with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.

In truth the Second World War wasn't really one big war, it was many smaller (relatively speaking) conflicts that followed several general themes. I follow the generally accepted date of September 3rd 1939 as the start of World War 2, as that's when general conflict between Germany, France and the British Empire (thus adding the "World" to World War) broke out.

One of my favorite lines from a documentary was "Some would later say: "On the day the (Washington Naval) Conference ended, World War II began."

I track the start of World War II as the 19 September, 1931, invasion of Manchuria, because it was the first part of what would become WWII. There's also an argument floating about that World War I never really ended, and 1919-1930s was just a prolonged cease-fire.

Britain won two of the most critical battles of the war, the Battle of the Atlantic

Didn't win the Atlantic on her own, but did a darn good job of holding her ground solo for two and a half years. I completely agree that the British don't get anywhere near the credit they deserve, though, especially in the Pacific. Usually the last you hear of them is the destruction of Force Z on 10 December, and the fall of Singapore in February. They kept pressure up on the Japanese in Burma throughout, and the RN was active in the Indian Ocean, harassing the IJN. Then in '43-44, the RN began making raids into the Pacific, even attacking Truk once or twice. They were also instrumental in the invasion of Okinawa, attacking staging airfields in Formosa to prevent Kamikazes reaching the invasion zone from there. Plus their carriers participated in the raids on Japan in June-July of '45.

Any discussion of WW2 inevitably brings out the genitalia waving nationalist in people. Here's my opinions on some of the topics discussed in this thread.

Germany did not have the best equipment of world war 2 all around, but they did make some very nice stuff. Both the FW 190 and the BF 109 were great fighter craft. When the FW 190 made its combat debut in 1941 the RAF had to suspend fighter operations over France for a time until they could get the Mk IX spitfire into service. The late war german "cats" were not bad tanks. The Panther was an excellent tank on the defense but a poor offensive tank, and by the time the germans had sufficient numbers of them they had lost most of the good crews.

Yes, it was mechanically unreliable but so was almost any tank you can name, including the T 34 and Sherman.

Here's a telling quote from a soviet combat vet

From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were almost perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse.

That's obviously an early war assessment when the T 34 was facing Panzer IIIs and short barreled IVs but it proves a simple truth. Tanks break down, a lot, its not a special trait of the panther or tiger or any other tank.

Historiography (talking about talking about history) follows three stages, Bunk, Debunk and Rebunk. After the second world war we learned a lot of the myths about german military superiority and after the cold war we entered into a new phase where we attempt to debunk all of those myths. These days its very vogue to portray the germans as hopelessly outmatched by the superior allied and soviet forces, and one wonders how the german military managed to achieve anything during the war when their tanks all broke down as soon as they were started and every allied plane was far superior to anything the germans could produce.

No the truth lies somewhere in between. The germans built an effective military machine and managed to achieve some impressive feats but were ultimately doomed to fail. I don't want to detract from the sacrifices of the Soviet people because they fought extremely well and bravely and deserve all the credit that they get for the victory in world war two but in reality Germany's lack of access to oil crippled them right from the start. The Soviet Union just needed to stay the course and hold out until the lack of resources crippled the german war machine, which they did admirably.

Personally I feel Britain does not get enough credit for defeating the germans (as the online arguments generally devolve into a US-Soviet **** waving contest). Britain won two of the most critical battles of the war, the Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of Britain. The Battle of the Atlantic secured the sea lanes to allow the allied powers to use their naval and maritime superiority effectively, and allowed the Allies to keep the soviets fighting through lend lease. (remember its not about the number of tanks and planes, its all about the trucks, food, and other logistical equipment, equipment that allowed the red army to keep fighting), the Battle of Britain was the first major defeat the Germans suffered, dispelled myths about their invincibility and killed a lot of the luftwaffe veterans that were so hard to replace. It allowed the Allies to eventually wage their own air offensive against Germany that tied up the luftwaffe protecting german cities instead of massacring the red army and the soviet air force like they were doing in 41 early 42.

Sorry for the wall of text. Basically my opinion is that the germans were better than the soviet fanboys think but not as good as the german fanboys think they were and Britain did way more than people give them credit for.

They also revolutionized infantry fighting tactics. The riflemen supporting the squad automatic weapon or light machine gun instead of the opposite is pretty much what every modern army uses today. They also had the MG42, which is definitely the best LMG ever fielded.

September 1st 1939 was the official start date of WW2, as that's when Hitler invaded Poland, kicking off the European conflict. And the fact that it's my birthday has absolutely nothing to do with my steadfast loyalty to this date.

Any discussion of WW2 inevitably brings out the genitalia waving nationalist in people. Here's my opinions on some of the topics discussed in this thread.

Germany did not have the best equipment of world war 2 all around, but they did make some very nice stuff. Both the FW 190 and the BF 109 were great fighter craft. When the FW 190 made its combat debut in 1941 the RAF had to suspend fighter operations over France for a time until they could get the Mk IX spitfire into service. The late war german "cats" were not bad tanks. The Panther was an excellent tank on the defense but a poor offensive tank, and by the time the germans had sufficient numbers of them they had lost most of the good crews.

Yes, it was mechanically unreliable but so was almost any tank you can name, including the T 34 and Sherman.

Here's a telling quote from a soviet combat vet

From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were almost perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse.

That's obviously an early war assessment when the T 34 was facing Panzer IIIs and short barreled IVs but it proves a simple truth. Tanks break down, a lot, its not a special trait of the panther or tiger or any other tank.

Historiography (talking about talking about history) follows three stages, Bunk, Debunk and Rebunk. After the second world war we learned a lot of the myths about german military superiority and after the cold war we entered into a new phase where we attempt to debunk all of those myths. These days its very vogue to portray the germans as hopelessly outmatched by the superior allied and soviet forces, and one wonders how the german military managed to achieve anything during the war when their tanks all broke down as soon as they were started and every allied plane was far superior to anything the germans could produce.

No the truth lies somewhere in between. The germans built an effective military machine and managed to achieve some impressive feats but were ultimately doomed to fail. I don't want to detract from the sacrifices of the Soviet people because they fought extremely well and bravely and deserve all the credit that they get for the victory in world war two but in reality Germany's lack of access to oil crippled them right from the start. The Soviet Union just needed to stay the course and hold out until the lack of resources crippled the german war machine, which they did admirably.

Personally I feel Britain does not get enough credit for defeating the germans (as the online arguments generally devolve into a US-Soviet **** waving contest). Britain won two of the most critical battles of the war, the Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of Britain. The Battle of the Atlantic secured the sea lanes to allow the allied powers to use their naval and maritime superiority effectively, and allowed the Allies to keep the soviets fighting through lend lease. (remember its not about the number of tanks and planes, its all about the trucks, food, and other logistical equipment, equipment that allowed the red army to keep fighting), the Battle of Britain was the first major defeat the Germans suffered, dispelled myths about their invincibility and killed a lot of the luftwaffe veterans that were so hard to replace. It allowed the Allies to eventually wage their own air offensive against Germany that tied up the luftwaffe protecting german cities instead of massacring the red army and the soviet air force like they were doing in 41 early 42.

Sorry for the wall of text. Basically my opinion is that the germans were better than the soviet fanboys think but not as good as the german fanboys think they were and Britain did way more than people give them credit for.

They also revolutionized infantry fighting tactics. The riflemen supporting the squad automatic weapon or light machine gun instead of the opposite is pretty much what every modern army uses today. They also had the MG42, which is definitely the best LMG ever fielded.

Actually the LMG being supported by the rifle section was pretty much a common policy by the mid 30s. The Bren (a remake of the czech ZB26 used by the germans) was in service in the British Army from the mid 30s and the british rifle section was a 3 man LMG group as a base of fire supported by a seven man rifle group. Each one of the ten men carried two big utility pouches on their webbing... these were for magazines for the bren as the whole section was supposed to keep it firing. Your own ammo was carried in 50 round cotton bandoliers.

The Bren was so central to section manouvre that the British even invented a light APC purely for moving it around , the universal carrier or 'bren carrier'.

The MG42 was actually a bit too fast to be the best LMG ever, its cyclical rate of fire is ridiculous.

An LMG needs to create a 'beaten zone' of fire that is hazardous for the enemy to stick their heads up in, you need to be able to sustain that 'beaten zone' for as long as possible and it needs to be well dispersed, while you're putting that down the rifle group moves through cover to put in an assault on the position pinned down by the MG.

With over 1000 rounds per minute cyclical rate the MG42 is going to burn through the five cans of the ammo the section normally carried in less than two minutes unless you've got a well trained machine gunner able to control his bursts... you're also going to wear the barrel out really quickly and you only carry two or three spares of those*

A lot of modern LMGs/MMGs based on the 42 (and a lot are) deliberately retard the ROF for this reason. But i'll grant you its very good, its still in service in the form of the MG3 today with a fair few countries.

Not a lot of people know this but the MG42 actually had a device fitted to the tripod to make it *less* accurate , it jiggles the weapon up and down as you traverse it to broaden the beaten zone** as if you just traverse and fire its pretty **** accurate with a new barrel which means all your shots land in too tight a group.

Another nifty feature on the 42s tripod is a small periscope that allows you to fire it while under cover. At a WWII battle weekend using 'airsoft' a mate of mine and I held a section of beach for ages by firing from behind a sand dune in a fire pit using the tripod!

* British bren crews deliberately carried worn out barrels as the bren was actually far too accurate for its role. if you bolt a bren in place and fire it with a new barrel the grouping is *far* too close together

** again, not many people know this but you dont actually need line of sight to create a beaten zone with tripod mounted MMGs, you can do it by map section and fire indirectly and 'rain' shot down on an area.

(i used to be a section light machine gunner in the *real* infantry for a few years)

Here's a pic of me mucking about in a foxhole with the periscope and 'jiggley' thing MG42 at the Dday event.

(the tripod is actually post war yugoslavian)

And spotting for an SS team using the Mg in a 'light role'

And this is me when i used to be the bren gunner in my group.

I am pleased to see that this thread hasnt got all jingoistic and 'my country is better than yours' an has been quite sensible.

its also nice to see people outside of the UK recongnise the achievements of the Commonwealth.

Like i mean if the brits and poles had not have stolen and cracked Enigma D-day probably would have been years longer in coming!

Was your group re-enacting Chindits?

Yep, one of my groups.

I run a group called 'poor bloody infantry' We represent the Staffordshire Regiment in all its guises (line infantry as 59th division, Airborne as the 2nd battalion 1st Airborne and the 1st Battalion as chindits).

In that pic though i was part of a group called 'the far setting sun' we represent the 'essex regiment' on the 2nd chindit expedtion.

We also do the 'Hallamshire Battalion', this was a 'territorial army' (uk reservists) unit , mainly made up of guys in their 30s and 40s (so we look more accurate portraying them) who were a second wave assault unit at normandy.

About 25 of us here and while the uniforms are partly original and repro, pretty much everything else we're using, carrying and wearing is war dated. Not a lot of places you can see a full platoon of 1945 British Infantry.

I arranged a shoot a few months back for a US infantry group (GI44'55) in the UK and we got a full platoon of guys dressed as US infantry to do an assault river crossing in a Higgins boat... i dont think anyones done a river crossing exercise in a wartime higgins boat since the 1950s other than in 'saving private ryan', that was an experience.

View from the side of the boat

and the 'landing', i was represnting a 'warco' here but by the time i got off the boat..so had most the other guys!

We did have another snapper on the boat though who was not in kit... this is embarkation

and 'safely ashore in 'germany '

So many what ifs about WW2 that just staggers the mind...

If Goering had concentrated bombing runs on Airfields and then Radar instalations...

V2s to obliterate large army concentrations...

The piece de resistance was launching a mini nuke...

When The Axis lost air supremacy ; it was only a matter of time for defeat...

Arrogant prisoners of war commanders bragging about new secret super wpns , the breaking of the enigma code , fooling the german high command with false invasion plans ; were the 3 significant methods of achievement for the Allied command...

Makes sense why when Operation Market garden plans were found in a crashed HQ glider were at 1st thought of as another british ruse...

Hitlers SS had infiltrated the military intelligence of almost all of the countries he invaded ; except the Soviet Union...The United States helped them keep a medium military force ; which allowed Stalin to build huge facories underground...

Hitlers propoganda and military warmachine turned into simply a propaganda machine to his own forces...

I always think it was phenomenal that the British secret service knew what the german generals orders were before they did as we'd almsot totally 'turned' or infiltrated the abwher and the germans own spy network.

The crowning glory is that the department for running counter inteliigence and 'turned' agents was 'department twenty'

Because in roman numerals they had a 'double cross' on the office door.

Total schoolboy humour

Im still not convinced Canaris was deliberately helping us but i know that the Germans struggled to have genuine agents in the UK for the duration.

Im also always amazed that while the UK did commando raids on Europes coastline on an incredibly regualr basis the germans never, to my knowledge, raided the UK coast to do the things we did (capture scientists, sabotage instalations, gain intelligence etc etc)

42nd Regiment of Foot is the best regiment the UK ever fielded :lol:

but seriously, does anybody think that if Woodrow Wilson hadn't disbanded the Austrian Empire, WW-2 might have been a lot less bloody or not even happen?

To get a backseat view of WW2 deep inteligence...Movie The Immitation Game...

To get a backseat view of WW2 deep inteligence...Movie The Immitation Game...

You're submitting this as a myth, of course?

Feel free to add them in:

1. The Germans had better tanks - they had better guns and armour but they were constantly breaking down, never had the spares and by the end of the war lacked the copper for the electrical systems.

3. The germans invented the Jet fighter - they didnt they just got the first operational one and that was supposed to be used as a bomber!

1: I thought the big edge of the German tanks early in the war was that they all had radios while only allied command tanks had them early. on. That and the Germans carried gas cans rather then having to call tanker trucks when they ran out of fuel, or were those myths too?

3: Who did invent the Jet fighter then?

The British and the Germans were pretty much on paralell development over jet fighters, im pretty sure the British got them first but the germans got the first operational ones on combat missions.

German tanks main advantage was that they ran on petrol so when they over extended their supply lines they could refuel from commercial garages and petrol stations. All tanks carried spare fuel (T34s have huge spare fuel tanks), what you might be thinking about is that the germans had a very very good fuel can design (what we now call a 'jerry can' in the UK) that was robust and could easily be strapped to the outside of the vehicle or manhandled. UK tanks initially had fuel supplies external to the vehicle stored in cannisters known as 'flimseys' (as they broke really easily... THOUSANDS of gallons of fuel were lost in transport as they ruptured very easily). Late war we'd copied the german jerry can design, we still use it today.

British tanks and american tanks could send and recieve and tanks had several radios to be on both company and battalion nets at the same time (the No19 set in british tanks) from memory.

Soviet tanks could only recieve signals and not transmit unless they were hq tanks which hampered them a lot.

But early german tanks used signal flags as well as radio i seem to recall, im not even sure panzer I had a radio (again i'd have to check)

edit: just checked, no radio on the standard panzer I. there was a command tank version with a boxy hull, i think that may have had one.

What about French tanks? I'm pretty sure the book I was talking about was referring to German tanks facing French vehicles.

French tanks were the best in the world in some ways at the start of WWII.

The Char B1s was virtually indestructable, the somua's and renaults were good too.

The problem was that the French like the British tactical doctrine was to use the tank in support of infantry and to use a crude example... if they had 100 tanks they would assign one tank for every 100 men every 1000 metres.

The germans while using pretty terrible tanks (panzer I and II) for the majority of their armour would group all 100 tanks together and have them hit that 1000 metres held by 1 tank and 1000 men as a 'schwerpunkt' (point of main force) and grossly overrun and overwhelm the better tanks. The germans at the time also didnt have to wait for their artillary to slowly move up to support the infantry as they used stukas to do this role, they didnt have to wait for fuel trucks as they refueled from french and belgian petrol stations and the supporting infantry intergral to the battle group *was* motorised and able to keep up with the tanks (most of it though arrived later and was horsedrawn).

Essentially it was high speed manouvre warfre with an 'all arms' battlegroup... we still train to fight that way today.

The British had invented this concept in the 1930s but all the high command were either infantry or horse cavalry offficers and they hated the idea of 'upstart' tank/mechanised officers having and important role and insisted that the next war would be like the last and prepared for WWII to be like the great war.

In the 1930s Britain had formed an experimental armoured , all tracked and armoured battlegroup with self propelled artillary, lorried and APC infantry, ... everything we do today but it had been scrapped by the late 30s.

The germans had picked up on this and realised it was the way forwards. Guedarian and other german generals (post war) claim the theories of men like Liddel-Hart on tank warfare shaped his own that he extols in 'acthtung panzer' his guide to armoured warfare.

To sort of *prove* this was british thinking you only have to look at the british '1937 pattern' webbing set for infantry, designed in the early 30s and issued in 1937 it is constructed so that nothing hangs below the belt to allow soldiers to easily sit and transport in lorries and APCs. In reality it couldnt carry everything that was needed by 41 so you see stuff hanging off belts anyway but in *theory* things like the water bottle was supposed to go in the haversack on your back!

But yeah , french tanks were not bad, just badly used.

Consider the Germans were using Char Bs at Arnhem in 1944 as flamethrower tanks and the Israelis were using WWII somuas to good effect in the 1950s!

To add.

In the early war stages the real menace to French and British 'infantry tanks' (tanks designed to be slow and heavily armoured and to move no faster than the supporting infantry on foot) was german 88mm anti aircraft guns that were pressed into service to be fired directly as an anti tank gun (the 88 round is such high valocity it has an almost flat trajectory).

German tank armourment at the time struggled to defeat stuff like the Char B, the Matilda II etc at the time as the panzer I had machine guns, the panzer II had 20mm autocannon, the panzer III initially had a 37mm gun (as did captureed czech tanks) and the biggest gun they had the short barrel 75mm on the panzer IV (very few panzer IVs about as well) was actually desinge to fire an anti infantry shell, not an armour piercing one primarily so was very low velocity so shells could be 'arced' onto positions.

The problem these allied heavy tanks had was that they were very slow and had ridiculously weak guns, so while they shrugged off incoming fire some tanks only had 2pdr guns or even worse machine guns... so they were quickly outflanked and hit in their weaker armour in the rear.

After being captured one British tank officer spoke to his german (but english speaking) opposing commander who had captured him and said

"I think its damned unsporting you're using FLAK guns against our tanks"

The german in polite and perfectly accented English replied

"Well i think its damned unsporting you chaps use tanks we have to use FLAK against!"

My grandfather was an infantryman in Europe, and he hated the 88s. (He also boycotted Shell gasoline after he found a station in Germany...)

Late war there was a tendency for allied soldiers to call all field guns '88s' and all pnazers 'tigers' as they didnt really teach enemy kit recogntion to the level they do now.

Its why you hear about tigers and 88s in a dispropotionate amount of eye witness accounts.