Welcome to Gaia! ::

Suicidesoldier#1
severedDEATHelemental
Suicidesoldier#1
severedDEATHelemental
Suicidesoldier#1
severedDEATHelemental

That's propaganda. You don't get to be King of Nazis if you're stupid.


Being a moron is exactly why you become King of the Nazis.

That doesn't make any sense.


Nazis are stupid.

Nazis like stupid people.


It is stupid people that tend to be the higher up nazis.

The Nazis will not like a higher up person who is not stupid- ergo in order to be "King of the Nazis", you have to be stupid.

No, a lot of them were actually pretty clever.


Not really no.

I dunno, the Iron Blitz was a pretty smart tactic. They just didn't know where to stop.
Nila Nycto
severedDEATHelemental
Nila Nycto
severedDEATHelemental
Nila Nycto
Seriously... What's the use of intelligence?
Sure, it gives you an advantage in school but how come some or if not, most of our smart people can't deal with certain situations?
Some of them feel so high already that once you answer incorrectly- they berate and belittle the average ones?
I thought it was our moral obligation to enlighten others?

What're you on about, certain situations? I mainly use my intelligence to see through bullshit.


Situations that are repeated but people always come up with the same old solution instead of a new one.

Like what?


Well, in my country the poverty problem persists.
Say, the government plans to relocate the illegal settlers to a more suitable place because they plan to beautify or improve the place they settled on. For me, there are a lot of ways to solve it but why can't it be accepted by others?

Your government probably cares more about how the community looks to its wealthiest members than about the true needs of the people residing within its borders.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Exoth XIII
Suicidesoldier#1
For instance, while his panzer tanks were strong, this mostly responsible for german engineers, his own personal design saw a very expensive and crappy type of armor. While it could deflect a sherman round, it had no virtually side armor, and it had no turret, I.E. you could not aim your weapon without moving the entire vehicle. In that way if you wanted to hit someone say, straight in front of you, it was fine, but sense it had no maneuverability it might take a minute to get on target for a target that is just say, 15 degrees to the left. Rather than being able to aim your weapon, you had to move your entire vehicle to get on target- then, they had no side armor.

I can actually see, a bit, where they were going with this. This tank is built for the blitzkrieg strategy; all of the weapons and armor are concentrated at the front. At the beginning of the battle, side armor and pivoting doesn't matter, the enemy is in front of the tank. After a tank punches through, as per blitzkrieg tactics, it simply proceeds to the next objective. It doesn't attack the flanking enemy, because according to blitzkrieg tactics, they're irrelevant. It also doesn't worry about the enemy attacking them from the side, because they'll be too busy engaging the main force, which hasn't yet penetrated.

I'm not saying it's the best strategy, but it is a legitimate one.
Quote:

Bolt action rifles? Oh man, it was possible to move around or do anything with them. You might as well only had one shot. In Close quarters combat, city fighting, you are going to issue 44 inch long weapons that are extremely hard to reload? They might as well have been using muskets. We could fire off multiple shots and they only had one, so they went bang and we went bang bang.

A bolt action rifle forces a person to spend more time aiming, and making each shot count. While it may not be an ideal firefight weapon, it'd work perfectly well for guerilla warfare, which is certainly effective in cities.
Quote:

This is what he personally decided sense he thought it was best. The world's first assault rifle, invented at the time, now the type of weapon used by all modern milatiries, was rejected by Hitler sense he didn't see the value-

To be honest, an assault rifle is most valuable in a large scale infantry battle. I don't see the value myself, in a modern military setting.
Quote:
ironically, we had already been establishing similar weapons for years. The only good weapons coming out he ignored. Talk about "lightning war" and then using bolt actions, which are super slow to reload and fire. rolleyes

Actually, the penetration action of blitzkrieg tactics involved tanks and motorized infantry, supported by artillery fire. There wasn't a whole lot of bolt action use during a blitzkrieg.
Quote:

His strategy was hit hard and fast- duh! So is anyone's. That's not really a strategy.

No, see, that's what the word "blitzkrieg" means. That describes the strategy on the whole, but the means of achieving it, schwerpunkt, is what makes it unique.
I don't think you've actually studied up on WWII tactics.
Quote:
A strategy would be that at 6 o clock zulu time 15 minutes after our initial raid we'll have our second commando unit come around the back and wipe out anyone trying to run away, box them in when they are perfectly unprepared.

Yes, that's a strategy, albeit a very old one. (You're describing a pincer tactic, which was invented by the romans.)
Quote:

Hitler's strategy was to attack his enemy head on, rather than sneak around, use ambushes, or flank them.

No, Hitler's strategy was to engage the enemy head on across a wide front, thus forcing the enemy to distribute their forces. Unbeknownst to them, he would concentrate vehicles at one strategic point, so once his concentrated artillery fire cleared a path, they could break through and secure the objective, while the rest of his forces kept the enemy busy.
Quote:

Then we talk about the oversight. He used his supposedly best troops, SS, to kill civilians rather than fight his enemies. He fought a two front war stupidly declaring war on Russia who thought that Hitler would never attack him.

THAT was dumb. He should've let Russia wait.
Quote:
He decided that atom bombs were stupid so he only had 9 scientists working on how to figure them out.

To be fair, now that we've invented them, most people think atomic bombs are stupid, although for different reasons.
For Hitler, bombing the crap out of a country makes it cost more to conquer it, because stuff has to get rebuilt, and it costs assets, rather than providing them.
Quote:
He believed that Germans were of ATLANTEAN descendence and that of a pure breed they would have magical powers for God's sakes- I mean, what supper powers even, just "super powers", not super strength or flight, just "super powers", a baseless mindless accusation.

That's not stupid, that's crazy.
Quote:

Then, he killed like 11 million Jewish people- why? They walked into a death camp for him so why not use them a soldiers, cannon fodder at the least? Lots of people throughout history have used captured enemy soldiers or prisoners as bait, to bait an enemy into an ambush.

If you'd scapegoated someone for years, to fuel your rise to power, thus giving them the ire of the nation, would you REALLY want to hand them guns?

Hitler was just as smart as the next guy. (Not too bright, in my book, but still not dumb enough to call him 'stupid.') He was just crazy.


No, Hitler was stupid. He also handed out steroids to his troops which ultimately made them weaker. I mean when you look at all his crap, he was just bad. He wanted an army of psychopathic soldiers, monsters who'd kill for no reason- but then, you have people who'd kill each other at a moment's notice for no reason, who don't understand the value of what they're fighting for, who will be cowards, not caring for their "brothers" ultimately leading to failure.

It's a guy who really didn't understand anything or think anything through.


Plus he could have redeemed the Jews and been like "If the Jews are good, perhaps they prove themselves..."

Plus the Jews walked into the compound without fighting, they surely would have fought in the war.


As well, even from a full on blitzkreig strategy you can still be attacked at say, a 30 degree angle from a guy who isn't straight out in front of you- that means being attacked in your flank. Without any side armor our Bazookas could tear right through- infantry, with light weapons, could eat through tanks.

Also, plenty of people have made the assertion that Infantry have no place on a modern battlefield, and been proven wrong. Ultimately we are fighting people. Ultimately there will be a situation where we are forced to fight another soldier, with a gun, head on. The fact of the matter is, there are a lot more people than tanks, and guns are cheap, yet that's all it takes to kill somebody. Somebody gets out of a tank, out of a plane, steps aside, is just a mechanic, a cook, an engineer, easily killed by guys with guns.


Not only that, but we don't want to kill civilians, blow up everyone, and guerrilla warfare requires dexterity and maneuverability. A car can not do a 180, a car cannot spin it's head around, a car cannot move like a human. I mean we don't even have powered suits for god's sake. Or mechs. The complexity of human and animal muscle is as such that it's micro engineered- a billion little batteries, little processing machines (albeit better than your home computer as it calculates actual chemicals, the only smaller computer being atoms), all put into some homogenous flexible material that's self activating- it contracts, well it has a billion little motors, a billion little super computers, it's got cellulose, I mean organic stuff is so complex where to start is insane- muscle is the longest word in the English dictionary, having over 186,000 letters to describe the single protein chain. It is insanely, crazily complex. We're talking about something that is completely self sustaining and contacts and expands. There is nothing like it. The closest thing is some Electroactive polymers but that's only in terms of replication.

We simply do not have flexibility, maneuverability, internal organized power and power inside some homogenous structure. Replicating humans is near impossible. On rescue missions we still require humans- dogs, becuase humans can't smell very well and neither can machines. Our mission was never just to destroy everything but beat our enemies. When that's the case you have to send in humans, the only thing that can get the job done, make intelligent enough decisions, and maneuver around what other humans can maneuver around. The sad reality is dog fighting will never be dead, which is why every plane still has machine guns on them- even in Iraq the first battles were air battles, in Vietnam it was the same. There will always be someone waiting to ambush you with guns, and if you don't have them, you lose. Personal defense will always remain a priority in war. To give someone a poor weapon is just silly, and it's exactly what Hitler did.


Look at the terrorists- guerrilla warfare, no big tanks or nothing. But yet they wreak havoc- why?

They are humans. There is a lot humans can do, and guns don't make it any easier. Infantry will be necessary as long as there are people around and we don't want to just kill everyone- that being said, robots to replace humans may be a good idea. As of now however, we still need the brain and organic form of human beings.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Suicidesoldier#1
he could have redeemed the Jews and been like "If the Jews are good, perhaps they prove themselves..."

The totalitarian ruler cannot go back on his word. His authority hinges on that there is a certain finality to his statements, and that he heads down a straight and narrow path, rather kicking down even the smallest obstacle than avoiding it in any way. It is a matter of strength, discipline, and abuse. To rule by fear is not simple.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Heimdalr
Suicidesoldier#1
he could have redeemed the Jews and been like "If the Jews are good, perhaps they prove themselves..."

The totalitarian ruler cannot go back on his word. His authority hinges on that there is a certain finality to his statements, and that he heads down a straight and narrow path, rather kicking down even the smallest obstacle than avoiding it in any way. It is a matter of strength, discipline, and abuse. To rule by fear is not simple.


To send the Jews out to war as cannon fodder would have killed two birds with one stone.

I mean it's a really simple way of doing things.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Suicidesoldier#1
Heimdalr
Suicidesoldier#1
he could have redeemed the Jews and been like "If the Jews are good, perhaps they prove themselves..."

The totalitarian ruler cannot go back on his word. His authority hinges on that there is a certain finality to his statements, and that he heads down a straight and narrow path, rather kicking down even the smallest obstacle than avoiding it in any way. It is a matter of strength, discipline, and abuse. To rule by fear is not simple.


To send the Jews out to war as cannon fodder would have killed two birds with one stone.

I mean it's a really simple way of doing things.
You cannot spend a decade demonizing a group only to have them fight alongside your troops later. That's ruinous to morale and could have unpredictable effects.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Heimdalr
Suicidesoldier#1
Heimdalr
Suicidesoldier#1
he could have redeemed the Jews and been like "If the Jews are good, perhaps they prove themselves..."

The totalitarian ruler cannot go back on his word. His authority hinges on that there is a certain finality to his statements, and that he heads down a straight and narrow path, rather kicking down even the smallest obstacle than avoiding it in any way. It is a matter of strength, discipline, and abuse. To rule by fear is not simple.


To send the Jews out to war as cannon fodder would have killed two birds with one stone.

I mean it's a really simple way of doing things.
You cannot spend a decade demonizing a group only to have them fight alongside your troops later. That's ruinous to morale and could have unpredictable effects.


A lot of the soldiers were already Jewish.

And there he is, stupid for saying the Jews were so bad- this whole time he should have been campaigning as them as the best soldiers.


And he could have used them as bait, not necessarily along side soldiers- there were a lot of battles where if he could have ambushed the enemies, it may have gone his way, seeing as how the Allies won BUT the battles were hard.

And the Jewish people, millions of them, walked into the camps thinking they would be laborers for "the war effort"


They were willing to serve Germany- many of these Jews, millions of them actually, had fought in WWII and were skilled soldiers (Hitler passed out bolt action rifles and things anyways so it wouldn't really matter).

Cannon fodder, or "Jewish regiments" at the least, which he already segregated them.


But see, the real reason is he thought the Jews would be bad soldiers; any moron, even a psychopath, can at least see the value of a human life, what they're capable of, what they can do, their potential, even if you despise them, but Hitler let his stupidity get the best of him.

Even if you thought they'd be bad soldiers, perfect right? Let your enemy waste his bullets on them. Send them out as bait, entire Jewish regiments, who are "honorable and amazing" until they just get gunned down, then you what do you know, surrounded the enemy and draw them into defensive fortifications built into the hills with machine guns, essentially setting yourself up another D-Day, and slaughtering tons of soldiers with very little casualties.


The beach they invaded was the least protected and least expecting of an attack yet they slaughtered 10's of thousands.

Imagine setting yourself up the perfect shooting gallery. You could wipe out hundreds of thousands of enemy troops and take very few casualties yourself, it would be like forcing your enemies to charge a machine gun nest in WWI, but imagine if you were prepared for such an attack- nay, you purposely MADE the attack. It would be a fantastic set up. But no, Hitler was a ******** moron who didn't even understand the concept, yet he saw people as beans on a map to be used this way anyways! Right before tanks could have killed 200,000 British soldiers, he decided to stop the attack to test out his new planes. In the event, the British managed to escape in the dead of night when they were given the most crucial resource- time- and escaped with very few casualties. It's blundering decisions like these that made Hitler lose the war, and made him a moron.
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

6,350 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
Suicidesoldier#1

No, Hitler was stupid. He also handed out steroids to his troops which ultimately made them weaker.

Looking online, all I can find supporting this is rumor, which practically guarantees that, even if it was experimented with, use was not widespread.
Quote:

It's a guy who really didn't understand anything or think anything through.

He was a sociopath. They tend to think things through, they just don't take ethics into account. (Like I said, his biggest stupid move was engaging Russia.)
Quote:

Plus he could have redeemed the Jews and been like "If the Jews are good, perhaps they prove themselves..."

No. His power base relied on the assumption that the Germanic people needed to be united and purified, which meant eliminating Jews from the gene pool. Think about it this way; it'd be like Glenn Beck saying "maybe atheists aren't so bad." While it would be much more ethical than his present position, if he said it, every one of his dumbshit fans would leave him.
Quote:

Plus the Jews walked into the compound without fighting, they surely would have fought in the war.

They didn't go out of patriotism.
Quote:

As well, even from a full on blitzkreig strategy you can still be attacked at say, a 30 degree angle from a guy who isn't straight out in front of you- that means being attacked in your flank.

Because the allied forces were spread so thin, (albeit thicker than the German forces, across the line,) they weren't able to bring much flanking power to bear at the penetration zone, where german tanks were concentrated.
Quote:
Without any side armor our Bazookas could tear right through- infantry, with light weapons, could eat through tanks.

Yeah, only, they didn't, because they were too busy hiding from the concentrated artillery, and too busy fighting the germans in front of them, to engage the flanks of the penetrating force, which is why blitzkrieg strategies were so effective early in the war.

The Blitzkrieg strategy really didn't see many defeats, until the allies learned to position loads of anti-tank units near critical targets behind the battle lines.
Hell, they lost more tanks to lack of fuel than they did to flanking attacks.
Quote:
Also, plenty of people have made the assertion that Infantry have no place on a modern battlefield, and been proven wrong.

Naturally. That's very wrong.
Without infantry, the Germans would've been unable to set up a deceptively long battle screen. Their tanks are the crux of the strategy, but the soldiers were a prerequisite.
Quote:

Look at the terrorists- guerrilla warfare, no big tanks or nothing. But yet they wreak havoc- why?

They are humans. There is a lot humans can do, and guns don't make it any easier.

That's actually what I was trying to get across. Guerillas don't need the fanciest guns. They need good tactics, and money.
Quote:
robots to replace humans may be a good idea.

Nowhere near cost effective.
What we need is for someone to use our resources sensibly.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Exoth XIII
Suicidesoldier#1

No, Hitler was stupid. He also handed out steroids to his troops which ultimately made them weaker.

Looking online, all I can find supporting this is rumor, which practically guarantees that, even if it was experimented with, use was not widespread.
Quote:

It's a guy who really didn't understand anything or think anything through.

He was a sociopath. They tend to think things through, they just don't take ethics into account. (Like I said, his biggest stupid move was engaging Russia.)
Quote:

Plus he could have redeemed the Jews and been like "If the Jews are good, perhaps they prove themselves..."

No. His power base relied on the assumption that the Germanic people needed to be united and purified, which meant eliminating Jews from the gene pool. Think about it this way; it'd be like Glenn Beck saying "maybe atheists aren't so bad." While it would be much more ethical than his present position, if he said it, every one of his dumbshit fans would leave him.
Quote:

Plus the Jews walked into the compound without fighting, they surely would have fought in the war.

They didn't go out of patriotism.
Quote:

As well, even from a full on blitzkreig strategy you can still be attacked at say, a 30 degree angle from a guy who isn't straight out in front of you- that means being attacked in your flank.

Because the allied forces were spread so thin, (albeit thicker than the German forces, across the line,) they weren't able to bring much flanking power to bear at the penetration zone, where german tanks were concentrated.
Quote:
Without any side armor our Bazookas could tear right through- infantry, with light weapons, could eat through tanks.

Yeah, only, they didn't, because they were too busy hiding from the concentrated artillery, and too busy fighting the germans in front of them, to engage the flanks of the penetrating force, which is why blitzkrieg strategies were so effective early in the war.

The Blitzkrieg strategy really didn't see many defeats, until the allies learned to position loads of anti-tank units near critical targets behind the battle lines.
Hell, they lost more tanks to lack of fuel than they did to flanking attacks.
Quote:
Also, plenty of people have made the assertion that Infantry have no place on a modern battlefield, and been proven wrong.

Naturally. That's very wrong.
Without infantry, the Germans would've been unable to set up a deceptively long battle screen. Their tanks are the crux of the strategy, but the soldiers were a prerequisite.
Quote:

Look at the terrorists- guerrilla warfare, no big tanks or nothing. But yet they wreak havoc- why?

They are humans. There is a lot humans can do, and guns don't make it any easier.

That's actually what I was trying to get across. Guerillas don't need the fanciest guns. They need good tactics, and money.
Quote:
robots to replace humans may be a good idea.

Nowhere near cost effective.
What we need is for someone to use our resources sensibly.


You assume robots will be expensive but with no real basis.

They would be cheaper than humans for sure- instantly trained, probably tougher, probably stronger, they make calculations so they'd be more accurate, etc. so that may end up with them being cheaper- plus a human life invaluable.


An invincible non-sleeping no food necessary relentless nigh unstoppable robot, even if we only have one, would be all that would be needed, practically like dropping an atom bomb.

Also price has no bearing on victory- once you win and take over the world who cares? O_o


And bliztking is the key point of almost any strategy except for attrition warfare, hitting them "hard and fast" is always the idea, it's just a matter of actually being able to do it. You might as well say "shoot them with guns". ******** fantastic, great strategy, I love this strategy, I'm all for it, question though- how do you plan on doing that, and with what gun? I mean it's just silly for that to be your only strategy.

The only way not having armor on the sides would work though is if all the tanks were side by side. Let me draw you a picture!

User Image


As you can see, even at a 15 degree angle from your target a panzer tank was ******** useless.

The fact of the matter is range, separation, and the fact that Shermans had a turret I.E. there gun wasn't just pointing out straight forward, meant that the Panzers had to move their entire tank in order to hit a target that wasn't right in front of them. What degree of sideways they had idk, but I'm pretty sure it was none. Howitzers, for instance, do this- they can afford to have bigger cannons, with longer ranges if they are stationary. But then you lose mobility. To send out a mobile tank that can't turn sideways? You might as well not be able to move at all, it's like being a sitting duck. Your enemy comes head first at you, you just flank them. They don't even have the ability to turn sideways- seriously. So they're just ********. I mean it takes them over a minute. So our tanks would be there, in coordinated efforts, and open fire- down they went. Holy hell, just being the second man down the line I.E. attacking the next one step over allowed you to hit the basically completely unprotected side. You didn't even need to flank them. Just by getting an angle on him from "the front" you could hit him.


Think about it this way- what's the advantage of ONE WALL? It needs to protect all sides or it's useless. A castle with one wall might as well have none. Great, a giant wall- oh I know, why don't I go around? I mean literally just a 30 degree angle on it and blam, you've gotten around it if you shoot bombs over it- even with a bow and arrow you basically see most people behind the wall. It's a no brainier. And then you can shoot over it, under it, around it, etc.

Plus the treads weren't protected at all, so you could stop a tank from getting somewhere and doing damage, you might as well destroyed it. They were just giant piles of crap. It's the stupidest strategy a person can have. Even if you are fighting your enemy from in front you can see how just a 30 degree angle gets you where you need to take such a tank down, and these tanks DID NOT have turrets so if you were spread out right, you wouldn't even get hit by them. It's ludicrous to have a tank like a panzer. All you need is a properly staggered group and a panzer is dead. ._.
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

6,350 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
Suicidesoldier#1

You assume robots will be expensive but with no real basis.

A robot capable of taking on the tasks of a soldier? You're shitting me.
Here's my basis; I'm an engineering major. I know what it costs to design and build things. Making a robot to do one task over and over again, that costs a lot, but less than what the human equivalent would be payed over the robot's lifetime.
A soldier bot, though...
Quote:
plus a human life invaluable.

That's a fine ideal until you start shelling out trillions of dollars, which hurts those back home. (Which is everyone, since you no longer have soldiers out there.)
Quote:

An invincible non-sleeping no food necessary relentless nigh unstoppable robot, even if we only have one, would be all that would be needed, practically like dropping an atom bomb.

Nigh unstoppable?
You're not familiar with robotics, are you?
Quote:

And bliztking is the key point of almost any strategy except for attrition warfare, hitting them "hard and fast" is always the idea, it's just a matter of actually being able to do it.

I know I explained to you that there was more to it than "hard and fast." I know I did.
Look up "schwerpunkt."
Quote:

User Image


As you can see, even at a 15 degree angle from your target a panzer tank was ******** useless.

Which is why they're designed for penetration, not long term engagements.
Seriously, I know I've explained it to you before.

Artillery and bombers would punch a hole at a critical point in the allied line, where all of the german tanks were concentrated. The allied flanking forces would frequently NOT NOTICE the penetrating forces, because they were entangled with the rest of the front.
Once the penetrating force secured or destroyed their objective, they would turn around, and hit the allied forces from the rear, surrounding and obliterating them.
As I said, the allies beat this strategy by placing anti-tank units close to critical structures, because that's the only time in the battle where they would even know where the penetrating force will hit them.
Quote:


The fact of the matter is range, separation, and the fact that Shermans had a turret I.E. there gun wasn't just pointing out straight forward, meant that the Panzers had to move their entire tank in order to hit a target that wasn't right in front of them.

You're still not getting it.
In the blitzkrieg strategy, the panzers NEVER face an enemy that isn't directly in front of them, so the ability to turn is irrelevant.
Quote:
Your enemy comes head first at you, you just flank them.

The allied forces at the penetration point were too busy facing the concentrated force of their entire attack to figure out to flank them.
Hypothetically, even if they DID try these tactics, because the german mobile forces were concentrated at one point, they'd have the numbers to get through anyway. They'd take losses, sure, but nowhere near as much as the allies would take when they turn around and hit them with the kettle pot.
Quote:
coordinated efforts,

Stop right there.
They didn't have satellite, they only had radio reports. They wouldn't know where the penetration point would be until it was too late. It was impossible to bring a concentrated effort against the german penetration, which was the entire point.
Quote:
Holy hell, just being the second man down the line I.E. attacking the next one step over allowed you to hit the basically completely unprotected side. You didn't even need to flank them. Just by getting an angle on him from "the front" you could hit him.

Except that the "second man" was too busy getting exploded by the heavy artillery fire, and the shots from the many tanks backing that "front guy" up.
See, the point of the schwerpunkt was, at that one point in the battle line, you GREATLY outnumber your enemy. Think of it as "heavily focused shock and awe tactics."

Quote:
A castle with one wall might as well have none.

Castles don't move.
They're also a single target.
Quote:
Plus the treads weren't protected at all, so you could stop a tank from getting somewhere and doing damage, you might as well destroyed it.

Which is why, before the allies started hedgehogging, the only time the blitzkrieg ever lost, was when some dumbass general tried running tanks through mud.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Exoth XIII
Suicidesoldier#1

You assume robots will be expensive but with no real basis.

A robot capable of taking on the tasks of a soldier? You're shitting me.
Here's my basis; I'm an engineering major. I know what it costs to design and build things. Making a robot to do one task over and over again, that costs a lot, but less than what the human equivalent would be payed over the robot's lifetime.
A soldier bot, though...
Quote:
plus a human life invaluable.

That's a fine ideal until you start shelling out trillions of dollars, which hurts those back home. (Which is everyone, since you no longer have soldiers out there.)
Quote:

An invincible non-sleeping no food necessary relentless nigh unstoppable robot, even if we only have one, would be all that would be needed, practically like dropping an atom bomb.

Nigh unstoppable?
You're not familiar with robotics, are you?
Quote:

And bliztking is the key point of almost any strategy except for attrition warfare, hitting them "hard and fast" is always the idea, it's just a matter of actually being able to do it.

I know I explained to you that there was more to it than "hard and fast." I know I did.
Look up "schwerpunkt."
Quote:

User Image


As you can see, even at a 15 degree angle from your target a panzer tank was ******** useless.

Which is why they're designed for penetration, not long term engagements.
Seriously, I know I've explained it to you before.

Artillery and bombers would punch a hole at a critical point in the allied line, where all of the german tanks were concentrated. The allied flanking forces would frequently NOT NOTICE the penetrating forces, because they were entangled with the rest of the front.
Once the penetrating force secured or destroyed their objective, they would turn around, and hit the allied forces from the rear, surrounding and obliterating them.
As I said, the allies beat this strategy by placing anti-tank units close to critical structures, because that's the only time in the battle where they would even know where the penetrating force will hit them.
Quote:


The fact of the matter is range, separation, and the fact that Shermans had a turret I.E. there gun wasn't just pointing out straight forward, meant that the Panzers had to move their entire tank in order to hit a target that wasn't right in front of them.

You're still not getting it.
In the blitzkrieg strategy, the panzers NEVER face an enemy that isn't directly in front of them, so the ability to turn is irrelevant.
Quote:
Your enemy comes head first at you, you just flank them.

The allied forces at the penetration point were too busy facing the concentrated force of their entire attack to figure out to flank them.
Hypothetically, even if they DID try these tactics, because the german mobile forces were concentrated at one point, they'd have the numbers to get through anyway. They'd take losses, sure, but nowhere near as much as the allies would take when they turn around and hit them with the kettle pot.
Quote:
coordinated efforts,

Stop right there.
They didn't have satellite, they only had radio reports. They wouldn't know where the penetration point would be until it was too late. It was impossible to bring a concentrated effort against the german penetration, which was the entire point.
Quote:
Holy hell, just being the second man down the line I.E. attacking the next one step over allowed you to hit the basically completely unprotected side. You didn't even need to flank them. Just by getting an angle on him from "the front" you could hit him.

Except that the "second man" was too busy getting exploded by the heavy artillery fire, and the shots from the many tanks backing that "front guy" up.
See, the point of the schwerpunkt was, at that one point in the battle line, you GREATLY outnumber your enemy. Think of it as "heavily focused shock and awe tactics."

Quote:
A castle with one wall might as well have none.

Castles don't move.
They're also a single target.
Quote:
Plus the treads weren't protected at all, so you could stop a tank from getting somewhere and doing damage, you might as well destroyed it.

Which is why, before the allies started hedgehogging, the only time the blitzkrieg ever lost, was when some dumbass general tried running tanks through mud.


Actually patton did rigorous drills to make sure everyone was perfectly coordinated. Even if it meant death you were expected to stay in your position as a part of your strategy.

The worst thing ever to most soldiers was when the first tank in a line of 300 got hit- they were ordered to move forwards and ignore him sense it would take too much time to help him. Eventually they fired upon the other tank and a rescue team was sent after the downed tank but they said the worst thing in the world was driving past their fellow man, in a burning tank, and not doing anything to help them.


That's how rigorous his plans were. Mass coordinated efforts with radio and tons of discipline, a lot of times predicting what his enemy would do.

But it's obvious to see how a staggered column of tanks would have a group of panzers beat. AGAIN, even if you are attacking an enemy "from the front" a 30 degree angle would give you off.


I mean I even drew a picture.

Staggered columns = dead enemy german tanks. I mean fo realsz. Even if they attack you "from the front" they will still be a little off. The best way to think of it is unless a panzer faced an enemy tank at a perfect 90 degree angle they'd lose, which means like every time.


And planning only for a single event?

That's incredibly stupid. Your super expensive mega hard to make tank that could be easily flanked is somehow going to beat 5 times as many Shermans that can be made 3 times as fast despite the fact it has no flanking ability? I mean it might as well been a glass cannon. What's the point of putting all that defense into a tank that can't even face the enemy unless it's at a perfect 90 degree angle?


It's ludicrous.

Even if only facing the enemy WAS necessary why not make a tank that could be good in every situation- it's really quite stupid, and it in large part cost them the war.


As far as robots go, let's say we made a 10 million dollar super robot that had like, idk, body armor on it and stuff- 2000 pounds worth of A grade vanadium steel. Apache helicopters are like twice that and we have thousands.

If it didn't need tons of maintenance and could go into places humans can hide that planes and tanks usually have trouble with what would be the problem? I mean there wouldn't be anything but like, tanks that could stop it. Practically invincible to small arms fire. Plus a person could be controlling it from far away eliminating that whole issue of human like robit brains.
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

6,350 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
Suicidesoldier#1

Actually patton did rigorous drills to make sure everyone was perfectly coordinated. Even if it meant death you were expected to stay in your position as a part of your strategy.

That's cool. He wasn't in Europe for the blitzkrieg.
Quote:

But it's obvious to see how a staggered column of tanks would have a group of panzers beat.
I mean I even drew a picture.

It occurs to me that you might need a visual presentation of how a blitzkrieg actually works; your pictures seemed to reflect a 1:1 tank ratio at the penetration point, with no support. Here's a simplified version of the blitzkrieg strategy:

User Image
Germans red, allies blue.

The germans would use infantry to draw out a lengthy battle line. The allies would distribute their forces along this line, to avoid giving the germans an opening. As you can see, though, the germans have concetrated their tanks and artillery at a single point. This makes them weak along the battle line, but very strong at that one point.

User Image
Before their tanks engage, they would weaken the allies at that one point, using concentrated artillery fire, and close air support, with the result...

User Image

That the tanks steamroll right over them. The flanks are too preoccupied with the concentrated artillery bombardment to counterattack. This is the "shock and awe" part of the attack.

User Image

While the allied forces are busy fighting along the battle line, (usually doing well, since the german battle lines are weakened from donating so much power to the penetration,) the german tanks are securing their objective.

User Image
Once the mission is accomplished, the germans would sweep the penetration forces into a pincer attack, doing heavy damage.

User Image
Once the allied line is broken, they would surround and eliminate, in what they called a "kettle pot." This is where the allies took the heaviest losses.

And that's how blitzkrieg works.
Now, if you have a clever general, who can figure out the mission objective, he can station antitank units there. He can't stop the germans from penetrating, but he can eliminate their penetrating forces, like so:
User Image
This strategy was known as "hedgehogging," and was the most effective counter to the blitzkrieg.
Quote:

And planning only for a single event?

The tank is designed for a single strategy, that generals implemented over and over. It was good at what it did.
Quote:
What's the point of putting all that defense into a tank that can't even face the enemy unless it's at a perfect 90 degree angle?

Penetration. The tank is only supposed to engage enemies right in front of it.
Quote:
Even if only facing the enemy WAS necessary why not make a tank that could be good in every situation

Cost. That was, by and large, why the germans lost; lack of resources.
Quote:

As far as robots go, let's say we made a 10 million dollar super robot that had like, idk, body armor on it and stuff- 2000 pounds worth of A grade vanadium steel. Apache helicopters are like twice that and we have thousands.

Apache helecopters provide tons of useful intel, and can make precise anti-infantry strikes while they're at it. Each apache is more useful than 100 units of robotic infantry.
Quote:

If it didn't need tons of maintenance

Ha.
Quote:
and could go into places humans can hide that planes and tanks usually have trouble with what would be the problem?

Soldiers are more adaptable, cost a whole lot less, and can still go all those places.
Quote:
I mean there wouldn't be anything but like, tanks that could stop it.

Except armor piercing IEDs, possibly electromagnetic pulses, anti-tank weapons, quicksand, pits, traps involving large weights... I can think of a million ways to take down your ten million dollar robot that would cost under $100.
Quote:
Practically invincible to small arms fire. Plus a person could be controlling it from far away eliminating that whole issue of human like robit brains.

Remote controls have lag time. Don't put 'em too far away.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Oh God.

Classic failure. First of all, penetration is only good if your enemy has a line to penetrate. Second of all, you can just surround enemy even if so. Surrounding your enemy will produce an effect where they do not have their flanks covered- bloom, target destroyed. Secondly if the enemy runs straight through, say only destroying one tank in a line, then the two tanks beside it will just fire upon those, and then those tanks will be fired upon, and then those, etc. until they are forced to spread out. Reason why is that if the flanks aren't covered so they're basically defenseless and will be attacked by other tanks- so it's a stupid idea.

Reason why it's classic doh is becuase Hannibal used the same tactic in the battle of Cannae, which ultimately resulted in the complete annihilation of the enemy unit while taking very few casualties. The Roman soldiers were strong from the front with their shields but if taken from the sides or backs they were defenseless. Issue is that panzers can't really provide side protection even as well as a Roman soldier could. Granted Hannibal had elephants that strode on through the sides but he also had light cavalry- the Roman forces were decimated. Boxing them in makes them virtually defenseless sense they can't move and are only protected from one direction. Picturesz! The biggest irony of all is that Hitler planned to take on a line of enemy tanks with a virtual wall of shields- ironic indeed.


500 tanks swarming a single point wouldn't really matter if they even had front armor or not. Actually it probs would have been smarter if they didn't. You wouldn't take much fire and it would just slow you down in the end. Course Hitler made a useless tank that even if hit AT A 30 DEGREE ANGLE would go down.

I mean what's the point?


The armor was useless all together.


Plus again, it's assuming there is a line, when there really isn't, it's just a conglomeration of units- and even if you attacked them, they could just swing around and flank the side like they were trained to do, like any good soldier is trained to do. Flanking is combat fighting 101. All Hitler's ideas amount is ideas on the age old useless style of fighting of "standing in a big line and shooting at your enemy" even if he assumed his enemy would do that.

And again, you're only assuming that robits would be expensive. I mean you could blow up an Apache in theory with an RPG. But they don't do it very often. I mean with a super fast robitsz why would it matter?
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

6,350 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
Suicidesoldier#1
Oh God.

Classic failure. First of all, penetration is only good if your enemy has a line to penetrate.

If they concentrate their forces at one point, the germans might achieve their objective without ever encountering the allies.
If they evenly distributed their forces throughout the area, they'd be weak at all points.
What I gave you was a simplified version; there would be choke points, obstacles, and all sorts of complications IRL.
Quote:
Second of all, you can just surround enemy even if so. Surrounding your enemy will produce an effect where they do not have their flanks covered- bloom, target destroyed.

I could've sworn I'd drawn for you how the only forces capable of retaliating against the penetrating force were too busy being pummeled by artillery...
Quote:
Secondly if the enemy runs straight through, say only destroying one tank in a line, then the two tanks beside it will just fire upon those, and then those tanks will be fired upon, and then those, etc. until they are forced to spread out.

Unless that line is heavily weakened at that one point by air strikes and artillery fire, and is therefore incapable of holding off the penetration. (Seriously, did you LOOK at my pictures?)
Quote:

Reason why it's classic doh is becuase Hannibal used the same tactic in the battle of Cannae, which ultimately resulted in the complete annihilation of the enemy unit while taking very few casualties. The Roman soldiers were strong from the front with their shields but if taken from the sides or backs they were defenseless.

1. Hannibal knew where the penetration would occur, if it occurred; dead center. The blitzkrieg has a much longer battle line, with many possible penetration locations.
2. The romans put their cavalry on the outside. This is literally the opposite of blitzkrieg.
3. The penetration had no long range support.

To modify the roman strategy, making it more like the blitzkrieg, the cavalry would be located at the center of the battle formation, and soldiers at the vanguard, distributed over a long line. As the armies clash, archers concentrate fire at the very center of the enemy line, so the cavalry can charge right through, with their flanks guarded by more archer fire.

Because of the new soldier distribution, hannibal's cavalry would have to take a circuitous route to get to the rear of the enemy line, whereas the romans would simply rush up the center.
Thus, it would be Hannibal's troops caught in a pincer, not the romans.
Quote:

And again, you're only assuming that robits would be expensive.

It's a pretty safe assumption, considering what you're asking of these robots.
Quote:
I mean you could blow up an Apache in theory with an RPG. But they don't do it very often. I mean with a super fast robitsz why would it matter?

Oh, are the robots super fast soldiers now?
Yeah, that's at least twice what an apache would cost.
Robots would be easier to take out than a chopper, they provide less intel, they have a much shorter range of engagement, can't transport people, can't transport themselves over long distances, are more susceptible to maintainance problems...
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Exoth XIII
Suicidesoldier#1
Oh God.

Classic failure. First of all, penetration is only good if your enemy has a line to penetrate.

If they concentrate their forces at one point, the germans might achieve their objective without ever encountering the allies.
If they evenly distributed their forces throughout the area, they'd be weak at all points.
What I gave you was a simplified version; there would be choke points, obstacles, and all sorts of complications IRL.
Quote:
Second of all, you can just surround enemy even if so. Surrounding your enemy will produce an effect where they do not have their flanks covered- bloom, target destroyed.

I could've sworn I'd drawn for you how the only forces capable of retaliating against the penetrating force were too busy being pummeled by artillery...
Quote:
Secondly if the enemy runs straight through, say only destroying one tank in a line, then the two tanks beside it will just fire upon those, and then those tanks will be fired upon, and then those, etc. until they are forced to spread out.

Unless that line is heavily weakened at that one point by air strikes and artillery fire, and is therefore incapable of holding off the penetration. (Seriously, did you LOOK at my pictures?)
Quote:

Reason why it's classic doh is becuase Hannibal used the same tactic in the battle of Cannae, which ultimately resulted in the complete annihilation of the enemy unit while taking very few casualties. The Roman soldiers were strong from the front with their shields but if taken from the sides or backs they were defenseless.

1. Hannibal knew where the penetration would occur, if it occurred; dead center. The blitzkrieg has a much longer battle line, with many possible penetration locations.
2. The romans put their cavalry on the outside. This is literally the opposite of blitzkrieg.
3. The penetration had no long range support.

To modify the roman strategy, making it more like the blitzkrieg, the cavalry would be located at the center of the battle formation, and soldiers at the vanguard, distributed over a long line. As the armies clash, archers concentrate fire at the very center of the enemy line, so the cavalry can charge right through, with their flanks guarded by more archer fire.

Because of the new soldier distribution, hannibal's cavalry would have to take a circuitous route to get to the rear of the enemy line, whereas the romans would simply rush up the center.
Thus, it would be Hannibal's troops caught in a pincer, not the romans.
Quote:

And again, you're only assuming that robits would be expensive.

It's a pretty safe assumption, considering what you're asking of these robots.
Quote:
I mean you could blow up an Apache in theory with an RPG. But they don't do it very often. I mean with a super fast robitsz why would it matter?

Oh, are the robots super fast soldiers now?
Yeah, that's at least twice what an apache would cost.
Robots would be easier to take out than a chopper, they provide less intel, they have a much shorter range of engagement, can't transport people, can't transport themselves over long distances, are more susceptible to maintainance problems...


Except you have no objective to achieve against an offensive army except defense. When you have capital to defend it's the worst thing evah. Thing is, the only way to maintain a continued presence in a region is to have food, water, gasoline, supplies, etc. and eventually you will be the target of an offensive maneuver, that's all defense really is.

You will eventually be forced to defend these supply lines at some point, which will be easy to take down, even if panzer tanks are used to protect them, as you go further in you will be more spread out.


The theory is to "make it to your objective" but you can't just take over a region by going to one place. Even so it's not like you won't have time to respond. If you can hold the Germans off long enough (which is possible to do) then you can get reinforcements, surrounding them, annihilating them etc.

And why have front armored tanks? You'd be better off with no armor sense it would be cheaper and faster. That or at least with side armor. And no turret? These guys literally couldn't aim unless they moved the entire tank. So they were inherently slowed down. They HAD to remain stationary in order to attack their target and move their entire tank to do so. It's bad all the way around for lightning war.


Anyways we don't have human like robits right now.

So any perception of them at the moment is artificial.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games