Post your

[Sledgehammer427]

Favorite tank
Multiple era's are allowed so you don't have to decide between X tank from 1942 and Y tank from 1977. :DL

Me
WWII - Jagdpanther, The best tank hunter of the war, sloped armor and a low-slung fighting compartment gave this tank a menacing look that I just adore.

Cold War - The M60 Patton
Not a very great tank. But theres one near where I live and it is possibly the coolest-looking thing I ever got to climb in. Standing in the commanders cupola, it just felt right :yep:

Modern Day
Russian Black Eagle
One threatening-looking SOB. Its a beauty. even though it was cancelled.

[frinik]

Sledge by Black Eagle are you referring to the T95 ????

My own choices:

WWII Panther ausf. G favourite tank and the Jagdpanther is my favourite TD/Jagdpanther( like you I believe the best combo for a TD). Favourite SPGs equally Stug III G and SU100.

Post WWII, Leopard 1A5, Merkava 4 and Leopard A26. APCs M113, BMP60, Marder.

[Task Force]

Hmm, for me (from WW2 at least) Hmm... The later panthers or the King Tiger.

(Or the T 34 on some days)

Not a real fan of modern/post war tanks TBH.

[Skybird]

Sledge by Black Eagle are you referring to the T95 ????


http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t12_black_eagle.htm



Tank=MBT, not IFV, APC!?

My Choice:

WWII: Panther, later versions.

Cold War: Leopard 1A5, T-72

Modern era: Leopard 2A4-A6, Merkava-IV

Why not the T34? It won by numbers, not by technical superiority.

Why not the M60? Too damn slow, lacking agility.

Why the T72? It is underestimated. It's value must be seen in comparison to the era when it appeared - and there it was a beast: fast, small, hard punch, tough armour compared to the weapons of that time. It is the reason why the development of the Leo-2 was speeded up. The Leo-1 dominated all tanks before the T-72, Western and Eastern designs alike.

[Dowly]

StuG III G :rock:

[Raptor1]

Why not the T34? It won by numbers, not by technical superiority.


One could argue that the T-34 did have a technical superiority against pretty much anything in its weight class, certainly early in the war when it was introduced.

Anyway, my favourite WWII tank would probably be the IS-2, while my favourite Cold War tank is probably the T-72 or T-80. My favourite tank overall is, of course, the glorious Mark V tank.

[Oberon]

WWI - Mark I and Mark V tanks
WWII - Panther, Matilda, Cromwell, Firefly, Panzer IV Ausf H, T-34/85
Cold War - Centurion, T-72, M60, M551, M1A1
Modern - Leopard II, Challenger II, M1A2

[frinik]

Hey Skybird it seems we see eye to eye when it comes to our favourites tanks whether WWII or post war:up:

I agree with you the T34s were overrated they had terrible reliability problems and were very crude mechanically.I remember reading a book by a Soviet tanker in which he said that with the T34s the Soviet drivers always carried a wood mallet because the transmission was so hard to shift especially in cold weather that they had to hammer at it to make it shift...

Likewise the JS/IS2 was solid and produced in big numbers but very slow reload, limited ammo only 8 AP shells and its armour was of uneven quality and prone to crack and brittleness...Sov post war tanks were better.

Their SU 85 and 100 on the other hand were not bad....

Some post war US tanks are not bad either both the M48 and M60 ...
The British produced the chietain and centurions which were not half bad.The French AMX 10 and 30 were not in tfirst league at all....

[Raptor1]

I agree with you the T34s were overrated they had terrible reliability problems and were very crude mechanically.I remember reading a book by a Soviet tanker in which he said that with the T34s the Soviet drivers always carried a wood mallet because the transmission was so hard to shift especially in cold weather that they had to hammer at it to make it shift...

Oh? Everything I heard about the T-34 is that it was highly reliable after the early 1941 models.

Either way, that's certainly better than the German tanks which had to be heated for hours before even functioning in cold weather, or the notoriously unreliable late-war German tanks...


Likewise the JS/IS2 was solid and produced in big numbers but very slow reload, limited ammo only 8 AP shells and its armour was of uneven quality and prone to crack and brittleness...Sov post war tanks were better.

Their SU 85 and 100 on the other hand were not bad....


Much of that is because it was designed as a breakthrough and infantry support tank. In fact a 100mm gun with better penetration and a higher rate of fire was considered for the IS-2 but was rejected in favour of the 122mm gun because that one had a much larger HE charge.

[Skybird]

The T.34 did well what it did, but it had no real innovations to offer, despite sloped armour. The optics were inferior, the gun was good, but had no really decisive punch, transmissions remained to be a critical item, of the earlier models of the T-34 more tanks got lost than were lost to German fire. The commander had to serve as gunner as well, which led to inferior battle awareness. When the Panzer-IV appeared, the initial superiority of the T-34 started to falter, and the Panther and Tiger simply were superior designs. But when they started to enter the battlefield, the T-34 had been started by the Soviets to be used in big numbers, and no longer as individual lead vehicles. Shooting ranges of German versus Soviet tanks showed the German tanks being superior in most comparsions, due to better optics (precision) and reach of the gun.

The biggest advantage of the T-34 was its armour which initially was a tough bug for the Germans' PAKs, and its good mobility and small silhouette.

The T-34 is one of the leading historic actors in WWII, no doubt. But it was not that innovative that I would rate it as a decisive benchmark of tank building in that era. And after the Tigers and Panthers and 5.xx calibre PAKs appeared, it more and more depended on being operated in huge numbers - like the Americans had orders that their small light tanks, the Shermans, should not engage German Tigers if they had not at least a 7:1 numerical superiority.

Darauf ein Zeiss! :DL

[ZeeWolf]

My choice is more based on the toughest combat conditions in history and
overwhelming odds::yep:

1.) Of course
http://www.tanksimzw.com/images/A_Tiger_01.jpg

and 2.)
http://www.tanksimzw.com/images/ZW_Panther_A_1.jpg

ZeeWolf :salute:

[Oberon]

Hmmm...probably want to add the KT to my WWII list too...I mean, I know it wasn't the most reliable thing on the road, and the build quality by that time (since the factories were under attack or scattered) suffered (spalling) but damn, it is a fine beast and it looks lovely.

Prefer the Panther over it though, deadly thing in the right hands. :yep:

[frinik]

I agree with Skybird, the T34 rocked the Germans because they had been too conservative , too Western Europeans in their approach to tank warfare.The Soviets faced with a poor infrastructure( few good roads and raliway lines) and their manpowrer was often illetrate( the litteracy rate in the SU of the 30s and 40s was less than 40%, a legacy of the Tsarist and post WWI civil war era and they needed a tough, unsophisiticated and easy to operate tank.The T34 was perfect for the job as it addressed the bad roads and poorly educated peasants who were the Soviets' cannon fodder..TBut the Communist system being what it was andd still is the emphasis was on filling the 5 year plan, producing mass numbers,pleasing the master of the hour in the Kremlin and the hell with quality.Even as late as the 80s the Soviet people preferred to buy anything from their Eastern European sattemlites over their own products so shoddy was the made in USSR stuff.

Even then to Soviets consistently lost more tanks than they could produce except in 1945 and it was the tanks provided by the Anglo-Americans during the landlease that saved their skins and allowed them to be able to replenish their terrible losses.

The T 34/85 is a fine tank.It was easy to make and reliable and that's why it remained popular for so long but it was not equal to western design which is why it was defeated one-on-one by the Panther in 1944-45 and by the M36 in during the Korean war.

Sorry to say so Oberon but I think the koenigstiger was a terrible tank to make for a resource poor country, with shortages of fuel, fighting against an enemy with mastery of the air( less so in the East), overwhelming numerical superiority and facing round the clock bombings of industrial and transportation facilities.It would have been formidable for the Germany of 1942 . Even the Panther was too heavy and ti would have been the perfect tank had it been 10 tons lighter.... I know ZeeWolfe loves the Tiger but I think had the Germans dropped it and focussed on producing more Panzer IV G or H and more Panthers they would have ben better off Sorry Zee!

[Sledgehammer427]

Oberon, if I had to choose a real tank (not a spg, like the Jagdpanther)
I'd second you on the Kingtiger.
It's a wonderful piece of work, problems aside.

and although I prefer the Porsche-turreted versions
http://www.wartoyz.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/fv80054-king-tiger-porsche-450.jpg

I'd have to choose the Henschel versions, for battlefield survivability.
http://www.aaamodels.co.uk/List_Pics/TRUMPETER/TRUMP_72001_KING_TIGER_H.JPG

The Porsche version is sleek, but the Henschel version looks brutish. I'd probably need a change of pants if one of those showed up in my binoculars.

Also, lets not forget the Maus!
That thing is my favorite fantasy tank.
one day Hitler was looking at pillboxes and he pointed at one and said
"Can vee get one of zose....vith TREADS?! Imagine the look on the alliez' faces!"

[frinik]

Just as a matter of correction( don´t want to sound pedantic:D) but the so-called Porsche turret was in fact manufactured by Krupp.Porsche participated in designing but it was made by Krupp thus it should be referred to as the Krupp turret. The KT with the weight of the pànther would have been perfect .In fact the Panther II with the schmallturm and the KwK43 would have made a perfect KT.

BTW TIger lovers there was a plan to build a Klein(small) Tiger with sloped armour weighing 33 tons and equipped with either the kwK43 or a 105 mm.It was designed by Krupp and presented to the Waffenamt( weapons procurement office of the German army) in December 1944.However at that stage of the war the project was not feasible and only remained only on paper.There are blueprints somewhere of that Tiger Cub.I ll try to find them.

[Raptor1]

Even then to Soviets consistently lost more tanks than they could produce except in 1945 and it was the tanks provided by the Anglo-Americans during the landlease that saved their skins and allowed them to be able to replenish their terrible losses.

Lend-Lease tanks saved the Soviets? I don't have the numbers right now, but IIRC the total amount of Lend-Lease tanks that arrived in the Soviet Union amounted to less than 7,000 tanks. Compared to the tens of thousands of T-34s and other Soviet tanks produced during the war, this could not possibly have been the factor that "saved their skins". Lend-Lease trucks and similar items were much more important to the Soviet war effort.

I think the Panther and Tiger comparison is somewhat flawed, not only because both were designed and introduced much later (In the case of the Panther, as a direct result of the T-34's early superiority), but also because they were significantly heavier. The Panther was nearly 50% heavier than the T-34/85 (Despite being a medium tank by design, it weighed almost exactly as much as the IS-2, a heavy tank by all means), while the Tiger was almost twice as heavy. For example, you could equally take a Panzer IV and compare it to an IS-2 (Well, almost equally, since, as I said, the IS-2 was designed as an infantry-support tank), which would easily win, but that does not make the IS-2 an inherently superior design.

The T-34 was tactically superior to anything the Germans had early in the war. It was, after initial problems, much more reliable than the later German tanks, was much easier to produce and maintain, and was still effective by the end of the war, especially against other tanks of comparable weight and purpose.

[ZeeWolf]

I understand frinik, of course you and skybird make a good point. There was definitely two philosophies in manufacturing that must be understood if one is
to get a grasp of the more complex notions that opens a better, accurate understanding of the times and the decisions made. I believe once you profile
with a simple contrast of the German and Russian philosophies you will not only see the short comings but the strengths as well. Like for instance the Soviets had no real quality organizational capacity the would nurture the intricate details involved with what is required in quality Mfg. The Germans on the other hand had a homogeneous well educated and very capable, competent population that had generations of the best teaching and training skills of any nation in Europe. The Soviets however a multicultural multi-ethnic society that was held together by brutality and force. This is not the case with the Germans. Germany as a cohesive nation that had a deep rooted Christian heritage gave the Germans the edge above all the nations of Europe. The pride of one's nation the pride of one's work and the pride of one's people and a system based on merit and built on a real strong Nationalist foundation. The Soviet attempt to unify and organize their nation was a disaster. The 1930s in Russia were the most horrific time for the Ukrainians and the Soviet Officer corp and especially for the average Russian who suffered the rule by terror that lasted until 1989. Of course I am leaving out many details about war time Germany but that is still filled to the brim with war time propaganda that I do not want to get in to in this thread.

[frinik]

I can t remember where I read it may be in one of Thomas Jentz " s books but it said that in 1942 and 1943 the Soviets lost more tanks than they produced and the difference was made up by the land lease tanks which allowed them to compsensate for these losses.Only in 1945 did their production get ahead of losses.Naturally not all the losses were combat related quite a number of tanks had accidents dues ot the carelessness and runkenness of the crews and mechanical breakdown resulting in fires or accidents.

The Panther ausf. Dweighed 43 tons thus only 8 tons more or 20% than the JS2 odel 1944 not 50 %.The G weighed 2 tons more The TIger II weighed 68 tons thus twice as heavy as the JS and the TIger I 56 tons.However those tanks carried far more shells and were designed with difference purposes in mind than the JS which was not designed to be a tank-to -tank fighting machine and simply ended up fighting them on variosu occasions more by chance that by design.

I agree with Zee Germany had a very sophisticated society whereas the SU inherited the Tsairst mess of an uneducated and repressed population and added some of their own horrors.

The Germans however had their own flaw which was to overwork and overengineer their machines to the point of forgetting practicality and simplicity.The Soviets had not choice but to make cruder but simpler machines so their largely unsophisiticated crews could operate them with a minimum of training.It worked but only because Hitler made the fatal mistake of declaring war on the US and overextending Germany's limited resources in manpower and indsutrial capacity.

[Raptor1]

I can t remember where I read it may be in one of Thomas Jentz " s books but it said that in 1942 and 1943 the Soviets lost more tanks than they produced and the difference was made up by the land lease tanks which allowed them to compsensate for these losses.Only in 1945 did their production get ahead of losses.Naturally not all the losses were combat related quite a number of tanks had accidents dues ot the carelessness and runkenness of the crews and mechanical breakdown resulting in fires or accidents.

If they lost more tanks than they were producing throughout the war, then the much fewer and generally inferior lend-lease tanks could not have done much difference, much less accounted for the increase in size of the Soviet tank force. You also have to make the distinction between tanks lost which could be repaired and put into service and tanks which are total write-offs; they could very well have knocked out all their tanks, but if they could repair them in a couple of weeks and put them back into service, then it doesn't have much long-term effect.


The Panther ausf. Dweighed 43 tons thus only 8 tons more or 20% than the JS2 odel 1944 not 50 %.The G weighed 2 tons more The TIger II weighed 68 tons thus twice as heavy as the JS and the TIger I 56 tons.However those tanks carried far more shells and were designed with difference purposes in mind than the JS which was not designed to be a tank-to -tank fighting machine and simply ended up fighting them on variosu occasions more by chance that by design.

I was referring to comparing the Panther and Tiger to the T-34, not the IS-2. The Panther Ausf. G's combat weight was about 45 tonnes, the Tiger I weighed 57 tonnes, while the T-34/85 was 32 tonnes. This means the Panther was approximately 40% heavier and the Tiger was 78% heavier than the T-34/85; the difference was even larger compared to earlier models. True, it's not quite 50% and double, but very close. The IS-2, for comparison, weighed 46 tonnes, only very slightly more than the Panther.

EDIT: BTW, this is going a bit way off topic, so perhaps this should be split off into a separate thread?

[ZeeWolf]

Just some visuals guys
http://www.tanksimzw.com/images/ZW_TankChart_1.jpg

ZeeWolf :salute:

[eddie]

For WWII- The King Tiger
Cold War- M60
Modern-Merkava

[takeda10]

While somewhat underpowered and again somewhat slow in cross country.

The Tiger is my choice because of the ability to take tremendous punishment and the ability to instill urine soaked clothing on other countries tankers.

[TLAM Strike]

WWII: Sherman. Sure not the best but is was plentiful and versatile.
Cold War: M551 Sheridan. Poorly executed but on paper it was awesome. It could be air dropped, it was amphibious and it was armed with ATGMs. Just amazing flexibility. We need something like this again, but done right.
Modern: Merkava. A tank that has extra space for an infantry fire team is the perfect combination for the modern battlefield.

[Sledgehammer427]

if I was forced to choose an existing tank, I'd definitely go for the Merkava, the MkIII version.

[Tobruk]

WW11 Panzer IV F2, only just pips the Tiger 1 though .

Coldwar and I'm surprised no one else likes it the Chieftan, cool looking beast, first to have composite armour I think too.

Modern hmmmm, has to be Leopard.

[Kapt. Q]

WWII - Got to be the Tiger 1, not the best lines (Panther) nor the most practical (T-34/85) or reliable (late Sherman) but for it's psycholgical effect and the first use of a serious calibre gun with real velocity in a MBT. Although it's 88mm had less muzzle velocity than the Panthers 75mm it's HE shells were more effective, giving it an edge in infantry support; something the russians realized and took on board in there post T-34/76 designs. It had reliability problems, but it was pushing technological limits with it's twin ratio steering box using a steering wheel, pre-selector gearbox, torsion bar suspension, 21/23 liter 60 degree V12 with aligned cylinder banks, (the 21 litre had an Aluminium block!) and the first series was completely submersible, so teething troubles were to be expected especially if you consider how quickly it was designed and the fact that more armour was demanded part way through that. It was quite manouvrable and capable of 42/38kph (on a good surface with a following wind!), it had lower ground pressure than a sherman or T-34. Yes, it's interleaved road wheels caused problems in russian winters and late fall / early spring, but they also saved lives through the extra protection they afforded the hull. and the late steel wheel arrangement solved the problem finally anyway. All that and they figured out a pioneering way to ship it by train as well!
Definitely the father of the modern MBT.

Post WWII - Challanger 2, well I am British and did you see it on Top Gear???

[Freiwillige]

Hmmm tough choices. Tiger or Panther WWII. The panther hits harder due to its higher muzzle velocity but what people don't often know is that is only out to 1,200 meters beyond that the weight of shell put's the 88 above the panther in armored piercing capability.

Ah never mind I choose the Stug IIIG!:salute:

Modern MBT is Abrams or leopard II.

And yes lend lease did save the soviets.

[frinik]

Really???I had not idea that the superior weight of the Tiger's 88 mm would offset the higher muzzle velocity( 930m/s vs 795m/s(Tiger) fo the Panther's KwK42! That's very useful information Freiwillige:up:

However it seems that most WWII tank battles were fought at a range of 700 metres according to a report that I read on the Axis history Forum.

Glad you agree with me on the land-lease issue.Too often these days you hear that the Soviets won the war single handedly with its fans not mentioning the crucialo Land Lease assistance which saved Stalin's bacon, the crucial American strategic bombings of German industry, logisitic and the all-important synthetic fuel plants which really nailed Germany's defeat in the late spring 1944 ( the production of fuel fell by 80% which preventted the Luftwaffe to remain an eefctive airforce, and reduced the training of air and panzer crews and German armour offensive capacityin the East) to the point that and the Allies victory in the Atlantic which allowed them to defeat Germany in North Africa and decisevely open a second front in Italy and later Normandy without which Germany would have been able to bleed the Soviets at will in 1943-1944.

The Allies could not have won the war without the Soviets keeping the majority of Germany's resources stuck in the East but conversely the Soviets could nto have won the war single-handedly without the Allies air, sea and land contribution.

[Freiwillige]

Yea often lend lease is under represented when it comes to Russia. I read an article somewhere that summed it up like this. It wasn't the tanks and planes that made the largest contribution although they helped, It was the little things that people tend to forget such as Radio sets for the soviet tanks, fuel, rubber, metal alloys and probably the largest factor was trucks. We sent them so many trucks that they virtually mechanized their entire army over night!

Operation begration would not and could not have happened if it wasn't for the trucks.

[ZeeWolf]

The ballistics comparison of the 88 and 75 is understood best with the basic
understanding in physics. The energy required to propel an object of a
given mass to a given velocity will increase with the mass of the bullet.
However, the energy required to stop it cold becomes enormous .
Even to deflect the heavier bullet of course requires more energy.

As for what saved Stalin's beacon - frinik I love ya bro but I disagree with
you. What saved Stalin's hide was the deliberate and determined effort that
the corrupt hypocrites in London and Washington D.C. made in regards to the
mass murders going on in Russia during the 1930s. This gave Stalin more
then a green light. By being silent they (Stalin's wonderful allies) became
complicit. This knowledge [Russian mass murders] was very well known by Germans
and it was fuel to the fire of communist paranoia that was the foundation
of the German support in the war against Soviet Russia.
As for the mass bombing of German cities by the US air force. I believe that
it was all theater and totally unnecessary for winning the war with the despised
Germany. Although it did help with the desired population reduction that was
planned by a Soviet victory.
As for London's hand in the war on the women and children of Germany. I wonder
is there anything the friends of "Old Joe" would have done in the dance to win
approval from Moscow. Please don't think I want to argue any point here, this
is just one man's humble opinion here and just find me guilty of not buying the
mandatory narritive.

ZeeWolf

[frinik]

Sorry to disagree brother Zee but it's the British who were mostly responsible for the indiscriminate bombing of German cities with their imprecise night bombings and use of incendiary and phosphorus bombs.The Americans with their day raids focussed on precision bombings and were interetsted in destroying Germany's war production, logisitics and fuels supplies not out of love for German civilians simply because they were pragmatic.They did a very good job especially in 1944 bringing German industry to its knees.....

As for the reduction in Germany's population I think Hitler and the National Socialists did a pretty good job on their own.

As for the Allies well they had their own skeletons in the clmoset so to spek, I mean the UK was the greatest colonialist of the dayt maintaining 100 of millions of people subjugated and indentured in their own countries, likewise the French and as for the Americans afte rimprisoning their fellow Japanese-Americans, they had a virtual Apartheid system against their black citizens and anti-semitic policies and quotas as well.Their alliance with Stalin was a pact with the Devil.So the when I hear WWII being callled the Crusade for Freedom and Democracy I try not to laugh too loud:D

That being said, no matter how horrendous and awful stalinist-communist crimes were one can not gloss over the horrible crimes committed by the Nazis in Germany's name pursuing ridiculous and idiotic racial policies nor the brutalities inflicted against the Slavic people of Eastern Europe in the name of Racial superirority.This is disregarding the fact that the German people itself is made up of various strains, Germanic, Celtic, Slavic etc and Hitler was probably the gretaest mongrel of all:). Being of German( Prussian) stock myself I firmly believe all Europeans are brothers and are so inter mixed anyway as to make racial theories preached by the NS as ridiculous as those propopagated in the Red paradise.

[ZeeWolf]

I think you missed my point about the US bombing of Germany. However the
bombing of Dresden is where the lies come bursting through concerning the
non-military nature of the senseless mass murder of women and children are
made so glaring. And on top of that, the whole "collective guilt" conspiracy
that was to be implemented on all Germans during the occupation
was authored by some sick minds to say the least. Of course we can't forget
about the "six million" in which all this slaughter of the German population
is used as justification now can we. Now, it must be said, that if you don't
get the numbers right or you have to many questions about certain aspects
of the official account can get yourself thrown in prison (for up to five years)
in the tolerant and enlighten EU. :o So I got to be careful!

ZW

[Raptor1]

Yea often lend lease is under represented when it comes to Russia. I read an article somewhere that summed it up like this. It wasn't the tanks and planes that made the largest contribution although they helped, It was the little things that people tend to forget such as Radio sets for the soviet tanks, fuel, rubber, metal alloys and probably the largest factor was trucks. We sent them so many trucks that they virtually mechanized their entire army over night!

Operation begration would not and could not have happened if it wasn't for the trucks.

I'm not going to argue about the whole Lend-Lease thing because people who have already made up their mind that lend-lease singlehandedly saved the incompetent Russians aren't going to be convinced by my internet ramblings. However, I will say the one thing which the numbers can prove, and this is that (As I said before) the amount of trucks received by the Soviets in Lend-Lease constituted a far smaller percentage than the amount of trucks that were produced by the Soviets themselves or received through other means. Therefore it couldn't possibly have been "We sent them so many trucks that they virtually mechanized their entire army over night!", since if anything they mechanized (Motorized, technically) themselves and Lend-Lease merely constituted a sizable help.

As for Operation Bagration, it could easily have happened. There were massive offensives conducted concurrently with Bagration in Karelia, Poland and Romania; a diversion of resources from any of these could have given Bagration the same amount of trucks as it had historically without Lend-Lease. While the destruction of the Germans on the Eastern Front would have certainly taken longer, it would still have been achieved.

EDIT: Also, apparently the majority of these trucks also arrived after 1944, with nearly half arriving after Bagration was already underway.

[Freiwillige]

Raptor, your quite wrong as my mind is easily changeable with the facts.:yeah:

And this argument has gone on long enough that I shall do some research backed up with facts and draw a factual conclusion either for or against the argument. As most of what I am saying is based on what was read years ago, The thing with world war 2 is that things often written and parroted get debunked all the time so in fairness I will look deeply into this issue over the next few days and return with an unbiased conclusion backed up with sources.

That's the gentlemen's way or one could say "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!":D

[ZeeWolf]

Raptor, your quite wrong as my mind is easily changeable with the facts.:yeah:

And this argument has gone on long enough that I shall do some research backed up with facts and draw a factual conclusion either for or against the argument. As most of what I am saying is based on what was read years ago, The thing with world war 2 is that things often written and parroted get debunked all the time so in fairness I will look deeply into this issue over the next few days and return with an unbiased conclusion backed up with sources.

That's the gentlemen's way or one could say "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!":D

Freiwillige that is the mark of a noble character! :salute: Looking forward to
result of your research.

ZW

[frinik]

Raptor , I never said the Soviets were incompetent nor did I say that the land-lease single-handedly saved them from defeat.Their victory on the east front was sealed by blood and huge material losses. I was just quoting an article whcih showed comapring Soviet war production with their losses that the material supplied by the Allies during 1942-1943 allowed them to be able to conduct effective defence and offensive action against the Germans.Without this they would have been unable to prusue any offensive action in mid to late 1943 .The land-lease gave them a puff of oxygen that compensated for the catastrophic loss of industrial production due to the occupaiton of the Ukraine and parts of Russia where heavy industry was located and the additional loss of production caused by the relocation of the armement industry to the Urals and beyond.

However there has been for ideological reasons tied to Cold War politics to minimise the impact of the Allies assitance to the Soviet Union and its victory in the east.Likewise in the US,particularly,there has been an exaggeration of the US contribution to the victory in Europe to the point that the British and Soviet contributions are almost side-shows. The victory was not the result of the Soviet superman or Hollywood superhero as depicted by the propaganda of both sides.German errors often the result of of a National Socialist leadership who believed their own propaganda and disbelieved reality.

The outcome of WWII in Europe was a combination of many contributions( British decoding of enigma is one important and their mastery of the seas) , the Soviets massive human and material contribution and he Americans immensive logistical and material contribution to the British and Soviet war efforts.Remove any of the 3 and the outcome have been different or not so conclusive.

Interesting debate:up:

[MaddogK]

WW2- Tiger 1
Cold War- Russian T-55
Modern- As much as I want to say T-90 and like the looks of the Chinese Type 99, I think the Abrams is unbeatable in this category.

[Raptor1]

Raptor, your quite wrong as my mind is easily changeable with the facts.:yeah:

And this argument has gone on long enough that I shall do some research backed up with facts and draw a factual conclusion either for or against the argument. As most of what I am saying is based on what was read years ago, The thing with world war 2 is that things often written and parroted get debunked all the time so in fairness I will look deeply into this issue over the next few days and return with an unbiased conclusion backed up with sources.

That's the gentlemen's way or one could say "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!":D

Somebody convinced on the internets? Ha, that'll be the day. :O:

Very well, I'll be quite interested to see any information which contradicts my conclusions.

Raptor , I never said the Soviets were incompetent nor did I say that the land-lease single-handedly saved them from defeat.

Sorry, I deduced that from all the talk about Lend-Lease saving the Soviet's skins, but perhaps I misunderstood.

[Freiwillige]

So this is what I initially dug up on the topic.

Lend-Lease as a Function of the Soviet War Economy (http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/SovLendLease.html)

Lend Lease (http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm)

[Raptor1]

So this is what I initially dug up on the topic.

Lend-Lease as a Function of the Soviet War Economy (http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/SovLendLease.html)

Lend Lease (http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm)

The data on materials in the first link is just what I was missing, thanks!

Now, both sources seem to have fairly reliable numbers, but they are still somewhat problematic:

The second link clearly uses numbers sent, rather than numbers received, so it fails to account for units which were lost on the way or otherwise diverted. So it for example lists around 400,000 trucks and jeeps sent, but the number which actually arrived seem to be around 300,000.

About the first link, I don't know if it uses numbers sent or numbers received, so I'll have to assume that it is the latter. However, it clearly doesn't account for production before the German invasion, which is stated, and also doesn't account for stockpiles which existed from before the war. This is a very large difference in some cases; for example, the link shows that Allied locomotives account for some 81% of Soviet wartime-acquired locomotives, but when combined with the amount they had from before the war Lend-Lease locomotives only amount to some 6%. Of course this number is also lower than the effective contribution of the Lend-Lease locomotives since most of Soviet rail losses would have happened early in the war, before Lend-Lease, but it is still nowhere near 81%.

[ZeeWolf]

Great link Freiwillige but I think Raptor's point is well taken. In manufacturing
the soviets system was highly centralized and therefore under tight control from
Moscow. The amount of imports were factored in months before arriving and processed
for use in the war effort. This would have enabled preplanned diversion away from
what was promised. And if it became necessary, (due to non-delivery) the Soviet's
could have taken up the slack to keep supplies adequate at the front lines.
Although any help would have been appreciated the lack of material for a
sustained fight was not the only major problem facing Moscow.

ZeeWolf

[eddie]

You know Raptor, I imagine loading and shipping a locomotive must have been a real hoot, as heavy as they are!

[Freiwillige]

Now most lend lease losses were actually English to Russia in the north sea, American lend lease was through Iran mostly (Something new to me) And our losses were at around 7%

Now in furthering my research I contend that (IF) Lend lease saved Russia it was in the 41' 42' time frame. But I am finding that there are so many variables that even experts cant agree.

In that period the Russians were still rebuilding their factory's that they uprooted and shipped east beyond the Germans rapid advance.

More research continues!:salute:

And Eddie, I would assume that those loco's were sent in pieces and assembled at destination.

[Raptor1]

Now most lend lease losses were actually English to Russia in the north sea, American lend lease was through Iran mostly (Something new to me) And our losses were at around 7%

Now in furthering my research I contend that (IF) Lend lease saved Russia it was in the 41' 42' time frame. But I am finding that there are so many variables that even experts cant agree.

In that period the Russians were still rebuilding their factory's that they uprooted and shipped east beyond the Germans rapid advance.

More research continues!:salute:

And Eddie, I would assume that those loco's were sent in pieces and assembled at destination.

American lend-lease went through both the North Sea and the Persian corridor, also through the Far East since the Soviets were still neutral in the Pacific war until August, 1945.

You might be right about the losses. Looking through it again, I see sources listing around 400,000 trucks and jeeps arriving until either the end of the war (September, 1945) or March, 1946, while other sources list around 300,000 until the end of the war in Europe. Though I don't think the amount sent after the end of the war in Europe could amount to so much...

Anyway, I agree that if Lend-Lease saved the Russians it was in 1941 and 1942, but don't forget that it wasn't just Soviet production that was rebuilding but Lend-Lease also didn't start arriving in large quantities until 1943 and 1944. Whatever the actual number of trucks that arrived were, only about 10%-20% of them arrived in 1941 and 1942, and over half of them arrived after 1944.