Profile of AvNY

If you want to justify use of a weapons system based on Lend Lease, that should not be hard at all. There will be a lot more Lend lease items of any kind that was shipped than there were of most of the German weapons systems that are today considered by COH1 and 2 aseveryday items used by the Germans.

Only a few 10,000s Thompsans in use by the Soviets? No problem. Only 7200 FG42s of all variants were produced by the Germans, and many of those had flaws.

Want to justify any armored vehicle? Only 40 Ostwinds were ever made. The Bergtiger is non-doc in PE/COH1, but only 1 of something that MIGHT be considered a Bergtiger was ever found, and that one might have been unable to do much. There were a few Bergpanthers, but only a few.

Want to justify a light vehicle? Only 200 20mm Pumas were ever made and only 100 of the upgunned versions. Too bad. had the Germans realized how well they performed in COH1 and 2 maybe they could have made 1000s and won the war.

Howdy!

I

1. Argument: USF riflemen struggle against multiple MGs. Counter: Smoke and flank L2P.

2. Argument: Wehr T4 is not very viable in 1v1. Counter: playercard plz --> rank 5000 player so argument invalid

3. Argument: Artillery cover is overperforming. Counter: you should have won the game before that.

4. Argument: Jackon is slightly overperforming. Counter: You're an axis fanboy so you want to nerf every Allied unit to the ground.

Don't you realize how much progress this implies!!

Once upon a time the answers, instead of being game related, were simulation related. Only one of two answers were ever provided, either the unit and ability was the way it was because of historical simulation or because of game play value. (Mind you the beauty of this is you get to pick whichever one of the answers suits your already predisposed outcome.)

An example: Why is the Tiger such an overpowered unit? (for arguments sake)
Possible counter argument: Because that would be historical.
Counter: Then how come it doesn't randomly break down or run out of fuel?
response: Because that would make for a lousy game balance.

Once you heard one of the two answers (historical vs gameplay) for every balance argument in the game.

...Finally, the US, UK, and the USSR did not promote the idea of tank aces due to doctrinal differences, and did not formally recognize or award tank aces for their achievement (at least not for being an ace specifically; awards were given for heroism and other accomplishments) unlike Germany, whom actively promoted the idea of becoming an ace. This likely also skewed how enthusiastic crews were for claiming kills for themselves rather than to their supporting arms.

This will also explain why there are more "dramatic" and martial pictures in the "post pictures" thread of the German units. The Germans needed propaganda to survive. Bad news is not allowed in totalitarian regime where a lot more of it can be tolerated in a democracy that has chosen to fight.

To be sure there were some things that were hidden on the allied side (the one that comes to mind is the attack on amphibious exercises that killed a few hundered US troops prior to D-Day). But for the most part the press was still free, setbacks were still reported, and the troops were portrayed as heroic albeit everymen. The most popular cartoons at the time included the "Sad Sack" strip.

As opposed to that it was important for the Germans to always portray their troops as supermen, their kit as wondrous technology, and all their battles were victories. Of course the public still followed the real progress by noting the "victories" seemed to be closer to the fatherland each time.

Crew quality after you took out the exceptional veterans who had learned how to survive was quite poor. For good troops you have to train. The more, the harder, the better, almost regardless of the starting qualities. Without oil or ammunition to spare that can't be done.

All of you didn't mention one thing while comparing the Sherman to Panthers/Tigers and other German tanks.
Those tanks had different roles. At the beginning, the first Shermans were supposed to support infantry. It wasn't called a tank. It was called "Infantry Support Vehicle". It is easy to understand why it couldn't challenge the enemy's armor.
On the production rate, as i have read, Americans were producing 4 Shermans for each Tiger tank the Germans made.

The production discrepancy was far far greater than that:

German production:
8300 Pz IVs (plus another 5,000 Stug IVs, jagdPz IVs, etc.)
6500 Pz V's (Panthers + Jagdpanzers),
1370 Tigers
550 King Tigers.

Compared to that the US Produced 50,000 Sherman variants, (not including TDs, Stuarts, Chaffees, Pershings, etc.) and the Russians 84,000 T-34 variants (also not including KV's, IS's, SUs, etc.). The Germans also built a myriad of other AFVs, using pretty much anything they could get their hands on, creating the Marder, Hetzer, StuG III, etc, etc, etc with various types of guns, creating a parts, and logistical nightmare.

An even bigger production discrepancy was in non-fighting vehicle transport. The Germans produced less than 10% of the tonnage (cargo) and vehicles as the Allies.

But producing more would have only exacerbated their fuel shortage problems. They didn't even have enough fuel to run the tanks and transport they had, let alone train personnel in their proper use.

Sherman's armor was probably its speed (like the M10 and the Jackson). All these tanks (although different roles in battle) had sacrificed their protection for speed.

The Sherman wasn't particularly fast and had lesser rough terrain performance than the Panther. A lot of that was due to the way it ran its drive wheels. This also lead to its taller profile, a shortcoming that was never fixed because the current design was so robust. However it was decently armored. By late war the Sherman was arguably equivalent to late model Pz IV in armor and gun, superior in maneuverability and maintenance, and better trained rookie crews.

A small source about the Tiger, regarding the battle of Villers-Bocage :

Επί αρκετές ημέρες μετά τη μάχη, ακόμη και η θέα γερμανικού άρματος προκαλούσε πανικό στους Βρετανούς, οι οποίοι κατέληξαν σε έναν γενικό, εμπειρικό κανόνα: "Εάν υπάρχει αναφορά για την παρουσία ενός Tiger, πρέπει να στείλεις πέντε Sherman, υπολογίζοντας να χάσεις τα τέσσερα."

Translation (since it's in Greek) : Many days after this battle, even seeing this german tank, British were panicked. This made them create a general, empirical rule : "If there is a report for a Tiger nearby, you need to send 5 Shermans, and expect losing 4 of them"

This is just one of those myths that won't die. Like the danger of the m1 Garand "ping" and many other myths, it started somewhere with someones statitics and gets larger with each retelling.

I am beginning to think less a Wehraboo and more that he is Russian. I get that they have issues with the partisan outlooks of other participants, particularly the US and Britain. But there are also some major confidence issues under the surface, methinks.