Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front

[AbhMkh]

Adolf Hitler was psycho maniac who did not know what he wanted , his ideologies which were derived from emotion inspired weren't practical at all , he was neither a brilliant strategist nor a prudent leader , he and his third reich with men like

hans von groebel

the geinham statpolize or the gestapo cheif(i dont remember his name)

and the SS generals were all mad fanaticists


Their own imprudence led them to the path of devastation , especially on the easter front

Millitary ambitions are allright , but what abt the jews , I dont have to repeat history but this clearly proved that he was a madman with no sense of military strategy , thats why , the third reich were not liberators they were lunatics , and i don't know why the german people believed in him


Ny ways to sum up

1. No sense of military strategy
2. T-34

3 . Underestimation of the soviet climate

as somebody said afore the same mistake was made by napolean in his conquest of russia but hitler didnt realize that he was too proud of "German Engineering"

[maxi1991]

2. T-34

T-34 is overestimated. IT'S JUST A GOOD SOLID TANK but not more.

[Werwolf]

hans von groebel

the geinham statpolize or the gestapo cheif(i dont remember his name)

and the SS generals were all mad fanaticists

Just a few corrections:

- Hans von Gröbel is a fictional character from Codename: Panzers. 
- as for the Gestapo Chief(s), you're either referring to SS-Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Polizei Heinrich Müller, or his immediate superior Reinhard Heydrich, Stellvertretender Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia (who was, ironically, a Jew).
- fanaticists >> fanatics.
- geinham statpolize cheif >> Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) Chief.

Cheers, mate

[Seeme]

What do you mean? Hans von Grobel was really and he PWN.

Hes, like, the bets person in the world! He killed 2000 tounsand men!!! Who are you to think hes not real?
 
Lol JK

[AbhMkh]

I'm sorry abt the spellings, i was feeling a bit sleepy when i wrote this.....

I was actually referring to the German propaganda minister(he was something Hans Von...)

You seem to be German werewolf , otherwise no one makes such fine corrections to the "German spellings"

and yeah its fanatics , lool, happens to many of us , getting even the most simplest spellings wrong


As to the T-34 it is one of the major reasons of the Germans loosing the war , it made a super power out of Russia later on....

[Tico_1990]

You are talking about Joseph Goebbels. Also, one doesn't necessarily need to be German to be able to speak it, just saying
As for the T-34, it is indeed overrated. It was crude, it was cramped, half of the gunners lost their arm apparently (I realise it's probably less, but I was just trying to prove a point).
If you want a reason why the T-34 performed so well against German tanks, well, here's one for you: German tanks didn't work in general because the oil in their motors froze.
I'm not trying to say that the T-34 was a rust bucket, but just as not each German is a Jew killing insane nazi, and just as not each Russian is a alcoholic communist, the T-34 wasn't the "z0mg uber god pwwnage tank" (sorry, I suck at slang). Did it outgun the German tanks, yes, to a large degree, it most likely did. Was the T-34 better on the Eastern front than the German tanks, yes, most likely. But here's something to take into consideration. The T-34 for a very large part of the war, fought on own ground. It fought on terrain, that was taken into account when it was designed. Of course it performed well. Also, they were produced in larger numbers (I think) than the German tanks.
What I want to see is a fair test to be done with both tanks. Also, 'historical' arguments like: "but Russia won the war and Germany had no tanks left so the T-34 must have been better" are complete and utter BS.

Sorry if the post is a bit fiery/enthusiastic, I'm a history student and I'm not particularly fond of it when in my opinion, History is being raped.

Cheers

[AbhMkh]

Yes u told me that you were a history grad so i respect your opinions but you see Tico , the t-34 was a simple robust and easy to maintain tank , Its armor design was revolutionary and it could be easily produced in large numbers

I'd actually seen an interview of an old panther tank commander(he had practically lost all of his teeth )

He himself confessed that the t-34 was a formidable and excellent tank(his actual words were " i had never had seen a tank like this before , the shell we fired just slipped of the front armor , it was the best tank that we had ever faced")

The t-34 used a old design V-12 from a world war 1 plane and was robust and easy to mantain, whereas the german panther had sophisticated and complicated engineering built into it hence it was prone to breakdowns.

as to my comments on jew killing nazis , i didnt say every german was a jew killing nazi , all i had said that Hitlers ideologies were followed by his men , the german millitary or the wehrmacht were soldiers they simply followed orders to believe or not to believe was not their concern

And as to werewolf i read abt his post on the German army patches, no one knows abt the ranks and patches so much unless he has seen it with his eyes


Cheers!!

[Tico_1990]

Indeed, it was robust, easy to maintain and easy to mass produce, but does that instantly mean that it's a good tank?
I will of course agree with you that the T-34 had a revolutionary design, still though, fire at it in the right place and you can still crack it wide open (the place where the turret connects to the hull for example). Also, please note that your tank commander says: "the best tank we ever faced". This does not by definition mean that it's a good tank.

As for using a V12 engine from a World war I plane, I find that hard to believe, mostly because of the fact that mechanised flight was still a new thing and that to the best of my knowledge, planes were equiped with rotary engines, definately nog V12's.

Also, I didn't mean to say that you said that all Germans are jew killing nazi's. I just used it as a way of saying that people in general generalise stuff and that this, in my opinion, is also done with the T-34

Cheers

[AbhMkh]

"Whatever" , as to the engine thing i saw it on TV , thts why i tell you and now tht you say i remember i saw it on discovery too , if u ever get a chance to see tht particular show again , just confirm it

[GodlikeDennis]

I just have to ask, AbhMkh; Why do you always comment on somone's nationality?

[AbhMkh]

Hey no offense dude , i'm just a bit inquisitive , thats it nothing more

[Seeme]

How is everyone here a history gratuate or expert etc.?

[AbhMkh]

lol seeme , no tico had mentioned in a post afore tht he had studied history in college

[Crezth]

I'd actually seen an interview of an old panther tank commander(he had practically lost all of his teeth )

He himself confessed that the t-34 was a formidable and excellent tank(his actual words were " i had never had seen a tank like this before , the shell we fired just slipped of the front armor , it was the best tank that we had ever faced")

The t-34 used a old design V-12 from a world war 1 plane and was robust and easy to mantain, whereas the german panther had sophisticated and complicated engineering built into it hence it was prone to breakdowns.

I find this all hard to believe. Not only is the Panther commander story far-fetched (Panthers outperformed T-34s in every conceivable way) but the specs are wrong: it was the V-2 engine, not the V-12, and the V-2 was not used in any WW1 planes.

Tico's absolutely right, the T-34 had a lot of very good ideas (sloped armor among them) but it was not the be-all end-all tank, and certainly not the one reason the Soviets reigned supreme at the end of the war.

[Werwolf]

I'd actually seen an interview of an old panther tank commander(he had practically lost all of his teeth )

He himself confessed that the t-34 was a formidable and excellent tank(his actual words were " i had never had seen a tank like this before , the shell we fired just slipped of the front armor , it was the best tank that we had ever faced")

The t-34 used a old design V-12 from a world war 1 plane and was robust and easy to mantain, whereas the german panther had sophisticated and complicated engineering built into it hence it was prone to breakdowns.

I find this all hard to believe. Not only is the Panther commander story far-fetched (Panthers outperformed T-34s in every conceivable way) but the specs are wrong: it was the V-2 engine, not the V-12, and the V-2 was not used in any WW1 planes.

Tico's absolutely right, the T-34 had a lot of very good ideas (sloped armor among them) but it was not the be-all end-all tank, and certainly not the one reason the Soviets reigned supreme at the end of the war.

+1

(Off topic: BTW AbhMkh, I replied to your earlier post re: the patches on the other thread. Cheers )