Hosted by Jacques Duquette
Beuty in the eye of the beholder
neil
Joined: April 09, 2003
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 4 posts
Posted: Friday, December 11, 2009 - 09:33 AM UTC
Is it just me, that soviet stuff is so much better looking than all that german stuff that looked good but were so difficult to look after and move about. All these tigers, panthers etc etc. I will take function over form anyday. THERE i had to vent that
endrju007
Joined: December 05, 2007
KitMaker: 2,435 posts
Armorama: 1,256 posts
Posted: Friday, December 11, 2009 - 10:10 AM UTC
I disagree. Panther rulez! Not because of look - it was perfect tank at that times.
Greatest reason for Russian armor to win was their number and not the technical advantage.
A.
Greatest reason for Russian armor to win was their number and not the technical advantage.
A.
dsfraser
Joined: October 01, 2007
KitMaker: 172 posts
Armorama: 168 posts
Posted: Friday, December 11, 2009 - 11:08 AM UTC
You are absolutely correct. German engineering was wonderful, but they kept creating tanks they could not build.
The 1940 T-34 was also a complex and expensive machine. By 1942, the Soviets had figured out how to build it quickly, easily, and cheaply. The Germans were never able to do that, and it cost them dearly.
"WE HAVE THE BEST TANK IN THE WORLD!
AND WE HAVE TWO OF THEM!"
Yeah, right.
Stalin said "quantity has a quality all of its own". The Soviets were able to build T-34s by the thousand using semi-skilled labour and relatively crude production facilities. The Nazis never figured this out — Supermen deserved Superweapons, except that they couldn't build them.
The Panther was a pathetic response to the T-34. They would have been better using T-34 clones. What they ended up with was a tank that cost far too much to produce, was too complex and spohisticated, requiring too much time and money to manufature, and requiring strategic materials that were no longer available except under duress. In peacetime, in an affluent society with unlimited defense budget, it could have been the M1 Abrams, but it a wartime situation it was a disaster.
The Panther was a better weapon, okay, but surrounded by twenty T-34-85s? Who goes home?
Scott Fraser
The 1940 T-34 was also a complex and expensive machine. By 1942, the Soviets had figured out how to build it quickly, easily, and cheaply. The Germans were never able to do that, and it cost them dearly.
"WE HAVE THE BEST TANK IN THE WORLD!
AND WE HAVE TWO OF THEM!"
Yeah, right.
Stalin said "quantity has a quality all of its own". The Soviets were able to build T-34s by the thousand using semi-skilled labour and relatively crude production facilities. The Nazis never figured this out — Supermen deserved Superweapons, except that they couldn't build them.
The Panther was a pathetic response to the T-34. They would have been better using T-34 clones. What they ended up with was a tank that cost far too much to produce, was too complex and spohisticated, requiring too much time and money to manufature, and requiring strategic materials that were no longer available except under duress. In peacetime, in an affluent society with unlimited defense budget, it could have been the M1 Abrams, but it a wartime situation it was a disaster.
The Panther was a better weapon, okay, but surrounded by twenty T-34-85s? Who goes home?
Scott Fraser
Removed by original poster on 12/11/09 - 23:11:11 (GMT).
endrju007
Joined: December 05, 2007
KitMaker: 2,435 posts
Armorama: 1,256 posts
Posted: Friday, December 11, 2009 - 07:58 PM UTC
Scott, I believe that original discussion was function over form. You've added another point of view: function over number... Is M1 better than T-34? Sure it is. Is it better looking? It's a matter of personal taste. But put M1 against 60 T-34... Who goes home? M1 simply runs out of ammo after 55th hit... Same philosophy...
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 12, 2009 - 10:19 AM UTC
How often will these discussions happen? So long as there are two people who care about tanks.
A better way I heard it was that Russian tanks were like hammers: a block on a stick. German tanks were knives: sharpened metal. One does not necessarily compare to the other. The Germans and Russians had different goals, philosophies, and cultures.
And most account only account for the technical details...yes, the panther was a superior, one-on-one weapon. But that sort of match up only exists in theory. Numbers of supporting tanks matter. Resupply of ammo, fuel, and food matter. Other support matters. Training matters. Experience matters. And the will and reason to fight matters.
Essentially (for this discussion purpose), a high-tech nation of 50 million with limited resources took on a low-tech nation of 250 million with nearly unlimited resources. The results of that contest are written in the history books.
A better way I heard it was that Russian tanks were like hammers: a block on a stick. German tanks were knives: sharpened metal. One does not necessarily compare to the other. The Germans and Russians had different goals, philosophies, and cultures.
And most account only account for the technical details...yes, the panther was a superior, one-on-one weapon. But that sort of match up only exists in theory. Numbers of supporting tanks matter. Resupply of ammo, fuel, and food matter. Other support matters. Training matters. Experience matters. And the will and reason to fight matters.
Essentially (for this discussion purpose), a high-tech nation of 50 million with limited resources took on a low-tech nation of 250 million with nearly unlimited resources. The results of that contest are written in the history books.
metooshelah
#011
Joined: February 06, 2009
KitMaker: 1,507 posts
Armorama: 1,304 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 12, 2009 - 11:21 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Scott, I believe that original discussion was function over form. You've added another point of view: function over number... Is M1 better than T-34? Sure it is. Is it better looking? It's a matter of personal taste. But put M1 against 60 T-34... Who goes home? M1 simply runs out of ammo after 55th hit... Same philosophy...
aye, but will the t34 penetrate the M1? I'm not sure.
also, don't forget that one of the t-34 advantages was speed, and the German heavy tanks were great in long ranges, but you know, tanks have the annoying capability of advancing through the battlefield
add to that the troublesome running gear and you get a tank which is great in terms of firepower, but lacks other. in the bottom line, "tank" is a sum of an equation:tank = firepower, traversablity and survivability. and you need ti balance them all, or you're stuck with a very big cannon you can't move
TANKER-NEIL
Joined: March 09, 2009
KitMaker: 13 posts
Armorama: 7 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009 - 09:32 AM UTC
i totally agree with you its just the germans never learnt any lessons untill it was to late, the idea of the tiger1 was a breakthrough tank to dominate the battlefield which it did, but after the blitzkrieg failed and it became a battle of attrition the germans would allways lose. So why did they continue to build tanks over complicated and in such low volumes, they would have been better building a simpler tank and more of them,There tanks had transmission troubles which were never properly solved they would have been better just building panthers, instead of luxuryies like tiger2 and jagtiger which were a waste of time and resources which were badly needed elsewhere. Its just the russian tanks were built simple and just for there job not overcomplicated engineering wonders and thats where there beuty lies i love the look and aura of there tanks. designed and built under the most brutal of conditions. Nice to talk with you Neil 
Finch
Joined: August 03, 2005
KitMaker: 411 posts
Armorama: 273 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009 - 09:52 AM UTC
Quoted Text
How often will these discussions happen? So long as there are two people who care about tanks.
Well said....but it is fun isn't it ?
Quoted Text
Essentially (for this discussion purpose), a high-tech nation of 50 million with limited resources took on a low-tech nation of 250 million with nearly unlimited resources. The results of that contest are written in the history books.
Contrary to popular belief the economy of the USSR was smaller than the german economy. Looking at key indicators such as steel production, the germans had a *larger* industrial base, especially after occupying much of western Europe. They just managed what they had very, very badly.
The USSR had a smaller industrial base, had lost 40% - 50% of some of their key resources (coal, steelmaking capacity among others) in 1941, yet managed their economic effort so ruthlessly that they managed to out-produce the Germans.
metooshelah
#011
Joined: February 06, 2009
KitMaker: 1,507 posts
Armorama: 1,304 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009 - 09:57 AM UTC
plus, you must give the Russians credit for sloped armor. you don't see and tiger-like running gear, but almost every modern tank uses sloped armor, and thats a major point in favor of Russian engineers.
oh, and i agree: these discussion may have no end, but they are fun to read
oh, and i agree: these discussion may have no end, but they are fun to read
Jacques
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,630 posts
Armorama: 4,498 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009 - 12:18 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextEssentially (for this discussion purpose), a high-tech nation of 50 million with limited resources took on a low-tech nation of 250 million with nearly unlimited resources. The results of that contest are written in the history books.
Contrary to popular belief the economy of the USSR was smaller than the german economy. Looking at key indicators such as steel production, the germans had a *larger* industrial base, especially after occupying much of western Europe. They just managed what they had very, very badly.
The USSR had a smaller industrial base, had lost 40% - 50% of some of their key resources (coal, steelmaking capacity among others) in 1941, yet managed their economic effort so ruthlessly that they managed to out-produce the Germans.
I was aiming more for the idea that the Germans had pretty much maxed out what they had available...especially for natural resources. Also, their manpower was maxed out, for their society. Slave labor, while cheap, is not as nearly as efficient as a motivated, skilled workforce. Both the Soviets and us Americans had that ability to both field large armies, absorb losses, AND gear up massive industrial bases. True, America did send a LOT of material goods to the USSR, but then again, we did not have to face 3/4 of the German army on our front doorstep. We could manufacture in paranoid peace.
Now, one other point against the Panther was its post WWII record. It seems to me the panther was a accumulation of really great pieces that never quite fit together properly.
And don't get me started on those horribly wastefull ideas of the Jagdpanther/Tiger and Maus. If the German's had been smart (thankfully they were not) they would have copied/improved the T-34, built a lot of Stug's as anti-tank platforms, and built a LOT more resupply trucks. But then they would not have been the Nazi Germans...
What if, what if...
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.