F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

In article ,
wrote:

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

:In article , "Keith W"
wrote:
:
: "Harry Andreas" wrote in message
: ...
: In article ,
: wrote:
:
: Note that this is sort of the same approach that lost Germany the war.
: Everything was hand-finished to very high standards, while us sloppy
: folks cranked out ten times as many tanks as they could because we let
: the tolerances be looser and eliminated a lot of the skilled
: 'touch-labor' in the finishing stages.
:
: Hmmm. I wouldn't ride that horse too far.
:
: Ever see a 1944 built Walther P-38, or Waffenfabrik Mauser?
: They didn't spend nearly any time finishing them as compared to
: the early war versions.
:
:
: The German record was very mixed
:
:Keith, I hear ya, and the other posters who have said similar things,
:but I still object to Mr McCall's statement that, in Germany,
:"Everything was hand-finished to very high standards".
:That's just not true. As you point out, it was very selective,

Yes. The big ticket items (which was what I meant by "everything",
since that is what wars are actually fought and won with) got all the
hand finishing. Small stuff and aircraft designed specifically to be
cheap and 'throw away' generally weren't.

So object and be damned to you.

Dude, you can't say "Everything" and then get mad when someone
disagrees with you. Everything means everything, not some things...
And I'll bet the Wehrmacht infantry would disagree with you about
big ticket items winning the war. As we know so well, boots on the
ground win the war, and boots on the ground are armed with rifles
and other "small" arms, the quality of which, as I pointed out in my
initial post, degraded substantially as the war progressed.
But I'm just an engineer who builds military equipment; what do I know.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

:In article ,
wrote:
:
: (Harry Andreas) wrote:
:
: :In article , "Keith W"
: wrote:
: :
: : "Harry Andreas" wrote in message
: : ...
: : In article ,
: : wrote:
: :
: : Note that this is sort of the same approach that lost Germany the war.
: : Everything was hand-finished to very high standards, while us sloppy
: : folks cranked out ten times as many tanks as they could because we let
: : the tolerances be looser and eliminated a lot of the skilled
: : 'touch-labor' in the finishing stages.
: :
: : Hmmm. I wouldn't ride that horse too far.
: :
: : Ever see a 1944 built Walther P-38, or Waffenfabrik Mauser?
: : They didn't spend nearly any time finishing them as compared to
: : the early war versions.
: :
: :
: : The German record was very mixed
: :
: :Keith, I hear ya, and the other posters who have said similar things,
: :but I still object to Mr McCall's statement that, in Germany,
: :"Everything was hand-finished to very high standards".
: :That's just not true. As you point out, it was very selective,
:
: Yes. The big ticket items (which was what I meant by "everything",
: since that is what wars are actually fought and won with) got all the
: hand finishing. Small stuff and aircraft designed specifically to be
: cheap and 'throw away' generally weren't.
:
: So object and be damned to you.
:
ude, you can't say "Everything" and then get mad when someone
:disagrees with you. Everything means everything, not some things...

Dude, I don't "get mad". It's only Usenet. Try and rent a clue...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

:In article ,
wrote:
:
: (Harry Andreas) wrote:
:
: :In article , "Keith W"
: wrote:
: :
: : "Harry Andreas" wrote in message
: : ...
: : In article ,
: : wrote:
: :
: : Note that this is sort of the same approach that lost Germany the
war.
: : Everything was hand-finished to very high standards, while us
sloppy
: : folks cranked out ten times as many tanks as they could because
we let
: : the tolerances be looser and eliminated a lot of the skilled
: : 'touch-labor' in the finishing stages.
: :
: : Hmmm. I wouldn't ride that horse too far.
: :
: : Ever see a 1944 built Walther P-38, or Waffenfabrik Mauser?
: : They didn't spend nearly any time finishing them as compared to
: : the early war versions.
: :
: :
: : The German record was very mixed
: :
: :Keith, I hear ya, and the other posters who have said similar things,
: :but I still object to Mr McCall's statement that, in Germany,
: :"Everything was hand-finished to very high standards".
: :That's just not true. As you point out, it was very selective,
:
: Yes. The big ticket items (which was what I meant by "everything",
: since that is what wars are actually fought and won with) got all the
: hand finishing. Small stuff and aircraft designed specifically to be
: cheap and 'throw away' generally weren't.
:
: So object and be damned to you.
:
ude, you can't say "Everything" and then get mad when someone
:disagrees with you. Everything means everything, not some things...

Dude, I don't "get mad". It's only Usenet. Try and rent a clue...

"Everything was hand-finished..." wasn't the issue with German production.
Read Richard Overy's "Why the Allies Won". The Wehrmacht's besetting sin was
not demanding superior (and useless) manufacturing standards. The main
problems were 1. refusal to stop changing designs and 2. not fully
mobilizing for production until 'way too late.

The Wehrmacht couldn't keep their hand off the production designs, making
changes constantly. It made production inefficient and as important, made
logistics a nightmare. Mobilization didn't happen until Speer was given
overall responsiblity for production. The first years of the war
(1939-1942), when Germany had a real chance to win by knocking the USSR out
of the war saw single-shift production and the largest factory units (Adam
Opel and Volkswagen) only peripherally contributing to war production. As a
side note, when the Barbarossa attack went in, the Wehrmacht had litterally
hundreds of types of trucks and motorcycles in use. Try getting the right
carburetor kit for your broke down truck on the outskirts of Kiev.

In sci.military.naval Keith W twisted the electrons to say:
The Panther and Tiger tanks were examples of technically advanced
weapons that simply couldnt be cranked out in the numbers needed due
to the complexity of their manufacture.

The closest to "cheap and nasty" that I can think of on the tank front
for Germany would be the Panzer IV/L70 - due mainly to them no changing
the glacis plate like their did for the Jagdpanzer IV.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
. ..
In sci.military.naval Keith W twisted the electrons to say:
The Panther and Tiger tanks were examples of technically advanced
weapons that simply couldnt be cranked out in the numbers needed due
to the complexity of their manufacture.

The closest to "cheap and nasty" that I can think of on the tank front
for Germany would be the Panzer IV/L70 - due mainly to them no changing
the glacis plate like their did for the Jagdpanzer IV.
--


I've seen estimates that put the price of a Tiger tank as $100,000 (US 1941)
as against $40,000 for a Panzer IV/L70, $ 50,000 for a Sherman M4A3(76) wet
and $80,000 for an M-26 Pershing

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 5 May 2006 17:14:06 +0100, "Keith W"
wrote:


"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
...
In sci.military.naval Keith W twisted the electrons to say:
The Panther and Tiger tanks were examples of technically advanced
weapons that simply couldnt be cranked out in the numbers needed due
to the complexity of their manufacture.

The closest to "cheap and nasty" that I can think of on the tank front
for Germany would be the Panzer IV/L70 - due mainly to them no changing
the glacis plate like their did for the Jagdpanzer IV.
--


I've seen estimates that put the price of a Tiger tank as $100,000 (US 1941)
as against $40,000 for a Panzer IV/L70, $ 50,000 for a Sherman M4A3(76) wet
and $80,000 for an M-26 Pershing

So...a Tiger was probably comparable to a P-38 ($115k 1945) to compare
apples and cantaloupes, or to give a technology figure of merit. And
nearing 10000 P-38s were built as opposed to 2000 Tigers...another of
those dumbfounders as to why were the Germans so hard to beat?



Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jack Love wrote:


I've seen estimates that put the price of a Tiger tank as $100,000
(US 1941) as against $40,000 for a Panzer IV/L70, $ 50,000 for a
Sherman M4A3(76) wet and $80,000 for an M-26 Pershing

So...a Tiger was probably comparable to a P-38 ($115k 1945) to
compare apples and cantaloupes, or to give a technology figure of
merit. And nearing 10000 P-38s were built as opposed to 2000
Tigers...another of those dumbfounders as to why were the Germans so
hard to beat?


I believe that "man for man" the Wehrmacht was simply the toughest most
resourceful and dedicated fighting force of the modern era. They could
be overwhelmed, they could be outgeneraled, they could be cut off from
supplies. But it is very difficult to find cases of equal strength
forces where they were outfought. Why such skill and sacrifice was
expended in such an appalling cause should be debated at very high levels. .

But I've been to el alamein, normandy, Anzio, Cassino, Arnhem, the
Ardennes, Remagen, Berlin and many other battlefields. The sheer
technical skill and personal courage of the german forces is terrifying.

Vince

Vince wrote:
I believe that "man for man" the Wehrmacht was simply the toughest most
resourceful and dedicated fighting force of the modern era. They could
be overwhelmed, they could be outgeneraled, they could be cut off from
supplies. But it is very difficult to find cases of equal strength
forces where they were outfought.

Opinions vary, to be honest (with a consistent grouping around "very
good", to be sure). Read Max Hastings' "Overlord" and you'll marvel at
how the far-superior Wehrmacht won the battle of Normandy (or at least,
be bemused how they could ever have been dislodged).

Sydney Jary - hindered by the baggage of actually having commanded an
infantry platoon for some months 1944-45 - was less impressed with the
German infantry skills, which he saw as repetition of opening fire, then
disengaging before the assault came in.

But I've been to el alamein, normandy, Anzio, Cassino, Arnhem, the
Ardennes, Remagen, Berlin and many other battlefields. The sheer
technical skill and personal courage of the german forces is terrifying.

Flipping it around, though - if you can't make an attacker's life an
expensive and painful misery at places like Monte Cassino or the
Normandy bocage, what use are you? And when the Germans were faced with
assaulting an extensively-prepared defence - such as First Alamein or
even more dramatically Kursk, they failed too.


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Fri, 05 May 2006 16:58:31 -0400, Vince wrote:
Follow-up to set to sci.military.naval

But it is very difficult to find cases of equal strength
forces where they were outfought.

I suggest you read _When the Odds were Even_ by Bonn, about the Vosges
campaign. Little known here in the US, because 7th Army didn't get the
press that the Patton-Bradley-Monty triumvirate got, but a quite effective
assault, across excellent defensive terrain, with little air support,
by essentially even troop strengths.

Why is it difficult to find out information on this campaign? The popular
understanding of the 1944-1945 campaign is badly skewed by the
emphasis on Anglo-American rivalry. As H.P. Wilmott pointed out, most
English-language accounts of that campaign make it seem that the Americans
and the British are the chief antagonists. Because of that focus, the
operations of 6th Army Group, critical as the were, are only lightly
touched on, usually just in a "FDR vs. Churchill: Dragoon vs. Italy"
context. The importance of Marseilles is ignored so that the blame game
over Antwerp can be played, and the attention focuses on the twin failures
of Huertgen and Market Garden, rather than the success of the Vosges.

Chris Manteuffel
--
"...the war situation has developed not necessarily
to Japan's advantage..." -Emperor Hirohito, August 14, 1945
Email spamtrapped. Try chris@(my last name).name