![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
(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. : ![]() :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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. : ![]() :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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 =---- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 =---- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
Jet Ranger Operating Costs? | greenwavepilot | Owning | 5 | February 3rd 05 03:31 PM |
The frustrating economics of aviation | C J Campbell | Piloting | 96 | July 21st 04 04:41 PM |
Club Management Issue | Geoffrey Barnes | Owning | 150 | March 30th 04 06:36 PM |
Angle of climb at Vx and glide angle when "overweight": five questions | Koopas Ly | Piloting | 16 | November 29th 03 10:01 PM |