Click here to access the Tanksim website
SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

BUYING GAMES, BOOKS, ELECTRONICS, and STUFF
THROUGH THIS LINK SUPPORTS SUBSIM, THANKS!

The Web's #1 BBS for all submarine and naval simulations!

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > General > Tanksim.com

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-20-2011, 10:45 PM   #16
Raptor1
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Stavka
Posts: 8,216
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frinik View Post
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.
__________________
Current Eastern Front status: Probable Victory
Raptor1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2011, 10:47 PM   #17
ZeeWolf
Sea Lord
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Great NorthWest
Posts: 1,724
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 1
Default

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.
__________________
Motto: "Putting the Zee in SIEG!" www.tanksimzw.com

ZeeWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 02:54 AM   #18
frinik
Grey Wolf
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 897
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

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.
frinik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 07:53 AM   #19
Raptor1
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Stavka
Posts: 8,216
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frinik View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frinik View Post
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?
__________________
Current Eastern Front status: Probable Victory

Last edited by Raptor1; 02-21-2011 at 08:19 AM.
Raptor1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 11:40 AM   #20
ZeeWolf
Sea Lord
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Great NorthWest
Posts: 1,724
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 1
Default

Just some visuals guys


ZeeWolf
__________________
Motto: "Putting the Zee in SIEG!" www.tanksimzw.com

ZeeWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2011, 03:16 PM   #21
eddie
Ocean Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,947
Downloads: 93
Uploads: 0
Default

For WWII- The King Tiger
Cold War- M60
Modern-Merkava
__________________
Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I'm kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me.

Al Capone
eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2011, 03:32 PM   #22
takeda10
Nub
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

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.
takeda10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2011, 08:47 PM   #23
TLAM Strike
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 8,639
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 6


Default

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.
__________________


TLAM Strike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2011, 11:11 PM   #24
Sledgehammer427
Ocean Warrior
 
Sledgehammer427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Drinking coffee and staring at trees in Massachusetts
Posts: 2,883
Downloads: 233
Uploads: 0
Default

if I was forced to choose an existing tank, I'd definitely go for the Merkava, the MkIII version.
__________________
Cold Waters Voice Crew - Fire Control Officer
You can find me complaining about my team on World of Warships
Download SH427's SH4 mods here
Download SH427's SH3 skins here
Sledgehammer427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 04:15 AM   #25
Tobruk
Swabbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

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.
Tobruk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 01:58 PM   #26
Kapt. Q
Watch
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 26
Downloads: 38
Uploads: 0
Default

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???
Kapt. Q is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 09:22 PM   #27
Freiwillige
The Old Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phx. Az
Posts: 1,458
Downloads: 24
Uploads: 0
Default

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!

Modern MBT is Abrams or leopard II.

And yes lend lease did save the soviets.
__________________
(Sample lyrics from Fritz von Titz hit album u-boat musik to make love to)
Torpedo Los baby, Topedo Los! You've sunk my heart baby, Danke schone you sea vixen! You make me have to dive deep darling, C.O. rig for silent loving.)
Freiwillige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2011, 01:50 AM   #28
frinik
Grey Wolf
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 897
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default Land Lease

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

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.
frinik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2011, 01:34 PM   #29
Freiwillige
The Old Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phx. Az
Posts: 1,458
Downloads: 24
Uploads: 0
Default

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.
__________________
(Sample lyrics from Fritz von Titz hit album u-boat musik to make love to)
Torpedo Los baby, Topedo Los! You've sunk my heart baby, Danke schone you sea vixen! You make me have to dive deep darling, C.O. rig for silent loving.)
Freiwillige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2011, 02:17 PM   #30
ZeeWolf
Sea Lord
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Great NorthWest
Posts: 1,724
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 1
Default

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
__________________
Motto: "Putting the Zee in SIEG!" www.tanksimzw.com


Last edited by ZeeWolf; 03-11-2011 at 06:30 PM.
ZeeWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2019 Subsim