Because its your handle, you are a Peter aren't you? Its also the way I write. I usually address people by their name when I am corresponding with them.
And that was my point Peter, YOU THINK! That is subjective. The question is, were the Russian Generals patting each other on the back in the spring of 1942 with sentiments that would agree with what you think? Because that is not the understanding I get from reading about the history. In the spring of 1942, Russia was still very much in the middle of a war in which it was desperately trying to expel an invading force. Can you provide references that represents history the way you are explaining it?Peter89 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2023 10:01I think in early 1942 the Soviets knew that the Germans screwed up their best chance, probably their only chance to beat them. They wanted to exploit their winter victories, but the Germans could stabilize, then during the summer, Soviet overextension, minor Axis help and German reinforcements gave them another possibility to try to go on the offensive. The Soviets couldn't be 100% sure in the spring, how much power the Germans had left, but they knew that Germany was engaged in a hopeless war against the British and declared war on the Americans; thus they knew if they could stall the last German attempt to win the war in the East in 1942, then they won. The only reason why the German invasion of 1942 looks so dramatic on maps was that logically, the Germans had to hit something critical, and the Soviets assumed that the Germans are going for Moscow, as Moscow was only 250 km from Rhzev. Baku was something like 1750 km from Kharkov. The Soviets knew that distance - even with limited resistance - will blunt the edge of the German forces. They'll burn fuel, their supplies will dwindle, their limited forces will be spread and the Soviets will have time to generate enough forces to counterattack.
Is that a little bit like Yeah, no? So the type of weapon system an army makes isn't part of its organization. So then what your saying is that they could have invaded Russia with just bicycles and broomsticks and it wouldn't have mattered, because they were still organized as the German army? Come on Peter,... really?
Ehm, well, I think there was a long barreled gun on every Pz III starting with the second series of the "J" model. Is that demonstration enough? Seriously Peter, after one good post, how many of these should I expect?Peter89 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2023 10:01Ehm, well, for this to happen, you'll have to demonstrate that enough "long barreled" guns could be made in time, and that German industry had the capacity to produce StuGs instead of Pz IIIs. Also, you have to make a case for the better effectiveness of StuGs in all combat situations where Pz III L/Ms were concerned.
I might consider doing all that work if you can demonstrate how production hours and resource quotas add to this WI. Germany was making an ineffective weapon system called a Pz III when they could have made a much more effective weapon system with essentially the same resources. Can you tell me the production hours it took to make a Pz III, and what difference that makes? They made Pz III's at the rater they could. The WI is not claiming that they could make more Pz III chassis by switching to a 7.5 cm gun. So what difference does it make Peter?
And this is supposed to mean what? So if I told you that 67% of all T34's knocked out by Panther tanks were penetrated frontally at distances greater than 500 m, what does that add? The relevant point here Peter is that it wouldn't matter what angle a T34 comes into view if your gun is capable of penetrating it from all sides.
If you were in a Pz III L/60, you couldn't. If you were in a long barreled StuG you were not only harder to hit because of a lower profile, but you could engage the enemy from a greater distance. This was safer for the crew, burned less fuel, and on average used less ammunition to knock a T34 out.
Well there's the short answer, and I certainly won't blame you for being concise! I guess I will just have to take you word for it.
Yes, have you read mine? In case you didn't get the memo Peter, the war ended partly because Germany couldn't get rid of all those T34's.
Fundamental issues like how many hours it took to make a Pz III, and how this compares to the number of hours it took to make a StuG? Yeah your right Peter, its fundamental, fundamentally flawed.Peter89 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2023 10:01If you want to make a case that long barreled StuGs... 1. were possible, 2. could have stabilized the Eastern Front in 1942, then please do address the most fundamental issues with this concept. Let's move on from the part where you explain it over and over again that a better gun penetrates more armor and leads to more disabled enemy tanks.