7 ms·

Fussell references the belief among GIs that the Germans had better kit. It's one thing to objectively assess this after the fact, it's quite another to get hit

Fussell references the belief among GIs that the Germans had better kit. It's one thing to objectively assess this after the fact, it's quite another to get hit by an 88mm in Normandy and not see the Hurricane obliterate it. The Wehrmacht fought tenaciously in Western Europe using second-rate troops compared to the Eastern front where the real struggle was. Defending is easier than attacking, and the defenders were inching closer and closer to their homeland. This counts for a lot in warfare.

hef19898 4y ago
I missed the believe part being explicitly mentioned, thabks for pointing it out. So I agree with Fussel then.
yamtaddle 4y ago
You can see the effect of this perception today—the MG42, the 88 gun, and a couple of prominent Nazi tank models are still top-of-mind when one thinks of what the real terrors, the real killers on the ground were, the things you'd have been horrified to encounter, if one has absorbed a decent amount of pop- and actual-history of the war. I don't know of any allied equivalent in the Anglosphere short of The Bomb (which the author of the piece calls out for the same reason!), which makes sense even if our stuff was actually better, as "our boys" weren't facing our own weapons.
Nomentatus 4y ago
Right. The big panzers were terrible to encounter if they ever managed to get to the front line, but they rarely did, and there they broke down quickly and were often abandoned. They were also more vulnerable than they looked. On the Russian front the tankers learned to pop the turrets off by radio-controlling their fire and hitting the turret at roughly the same time with 3 or four smaller tanks or guns. The sheer vibration would pop the turret off since the Germans had never designed for that much vibration. The Russians never did tell the Americans or Brits about this technique, however; interestingly.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  Re that vibration: steel is the most elastic substance we know of. The Germans were relying on gravity to keep the heavy turrets on the tank, and that works if they're hit by only one shell at a time.

hef19898 4y ago

I missed the believe part being explicitly mentioned, thabks for pointing it out. So I agree with Fussel then.

yamtaddle 4y ago

You can see the effect of this perception today—the MG42, the 88 gun, and a couple of prominent Nazi tank models are still top-of-mind when one thinks of what the real terrors, the real killers on the ground were, the things you'd have been horrified to encounter, if one has absorbed a decent amount of pop- and actual-history of the war. I don't know of any allied equivalent in the Anglosphere short of The Bomb (which the author of the piece calls out for the same reason!), which makes sense even if our stuff was actually better, as "our boys" weren't facing our own weapons.

Nomentatus 4y ago

Right. The big panzers were terrible to encounter if they ever managed to get to the front line, but they rarely did, and there they broke down quickly and were often abandoned. They were also more vulnerable than they looked. On the Russian front the tankers learned to pop the turrets off by radio-controlling their fire and hitting the turret at roughly the same time with 3 or four smaller tanks or guns. The sheer vibration would pop the turret off since the Germans had never designed for that much vibration. The Russians never did tell the Americans or Brits about this technique, however; interestingly.

Nomentatus 4y ago
Re that vibration: steel is the most elastic substance we know of. The Germans were relying on gravity to keep the heavy turrets on the tank, and that works if they're hit by only one shell at a time.