F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

"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

Paul J. Adam wrote:
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

Given the date on your posting 4:06 am on May 7 please inform me as to
which horse won the kentucky Derby!


50
From: Paul J. Adam - view profile
Date: Sun, May 7 2006 4:06 am
Email: "Paul J. Adam"
Groups: sci.military.naval, rec.aviation.military,
rec.aviation.military.naval
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

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).

Paul J. Adam wrote:
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).


once we had landed in Normandy (an incredible feat to be sure) we had
overwhelming strength at any point. The German defense was tenacious
and skill full and if Hitler had not interfered, far more of the German
forces could have been withdrawn.

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.


the Kursk was simply overwhelmingly strong. The Battle of Prokhorovka
Showed the fundamental German problem. About 200 German armored
fighting vehicles confront about 500 Russian , inflict far more losses
than they sustain, but are unable to make good the losses and have to
retreat
(yes I know there are controversies over the numbers)

Vince

On Sat, 06 May 2006 09:09:05 -0400, Vince wrote:
Follow-up to set to sci.military.naval

Paul J. Adam wrote:

once we had landed in Normandy (an incredible feat to be sure) we had
overwhelming strength at any point.

Okay, so the Western Allies launch an opposed amphibious assault into
prepared positions, then attack through excellent defensive terrain
against a determined defense, deal with several massed panzer attacks
without giving ground, and eventually break out of the lodgment and
liberate most of France. Mostly with divisions that had never been in
combat before, against a number of experienced German divisions (and some
understrength, weaker divisions, to be sure). All of this in just about
three months, and at just about equal cost (ignoring the 200,000 or so
German POW's, just looking at killed/missing/wounded the numbers are
roughly even).

This somehow supports the argument that the Germans fought better?

And when the Germans were faced with
assaulting an extensively-prepared defence - such as First Alamein or
even more dramatically Kursk, they failed too.

Not just extensively-prepared defenses. Even a cursory examination of the
experiences of Sixth SS Panzer Army at the Bulge would suggest that, at
least in that case, the Germans were unable to perform even with massive
material superiority. I mean, when a Panzer army is attacking just a bit
more than one tired infantry division and is held up for the better part
of two days, you can't say that the Army outfought the division.

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

Vince wrote:
Paul J. Adam wrote:
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).

once we had landed in Normandy (an incredible feat to be sure) we had
overwhelming strength at any point.

Not really, no: we were landing and supplying forces across beaches,
subject to the caprices of Channel weather (which could be, and was,
very nasty), and pitting inexperienced troops against veterans on
terrain they'd had time to prepare.

Certainly the men who seized the Odon crossings, held off
counter-attacks by elements of six panzer divisions, drew in the German
strategic reserves, and withstood the attacks that were supposed to
break them, would disagree that they had "overwhelming strength", but
their success suggests that the Wehrmacht had similar difficulties
attacking in Normandy countryside as anyone else (it was the inability
of the Germans to destroy 15th Scots, despite throwing in their entire
reserve, that led Rommel on 29 June to propose a fighting retreat to the
Seine)


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.

the Kursk was simply overwhelmingly strong.

Perhaps a maxim of excellent soldiers is "don't attack where the enemy
has built seven layers of defensive lines precisely in order to defeat
your plan"? While the Germans were good at "mission command" at lower
ranks, their commanders - with a few exceptions - ranged from spineless
to clueless.

Mind you, when a senior Wehrmacht officer admitted to an inconvenient
truth, he could find himself out of a job very fast (cf von Rundstedt in
July 1944, telling Keitel that Germany's strategic options in the West
consisted of 'Make peace, you fools!' and being promptly replaced by von
Kluge) which has to be included in any assessment of their ability.



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

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

Paul J. Adam wrote:

56
From: Paul J. Adam - view profile
Date: Sun, May 7 2006 2:03 pm
Email: "Paul J. Adam"
Groups: sci.military.naval, rec.aviation.military,
rec.aviation.military.naval
Not yet rated
Rating:
hide options



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

Can I again point out that you are posting some 24 hours in the future?
There is a significant horse race on in four hours that could make a
small piece of change for both of us if you can look up who won the
Kentucky Derby in your yesterday and slip the word back in time? None
of us will tell how you did it.

On Sun, 07 May 2006 19:03:00 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

Vince wrote:
Paul J. Adam wrote:
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).

once we had landed in Normandy (an incredible feat to be sure) we had
overwhelming strength at any point.

Not really, no: we were landing and supplying forces across beaches,
subject to the caprices of Channel weather (which could be, and was,
very nasty), and pitting inexperienced troops against veterans on
terrain they'd had time to prepare.

The odds against on Overlord were very significant, but to give the
forward German divisions full 'veteran' status is probably overmuch,
many were 'white bread' garrison troops and not really that good.
But, the oft discussed medium deep maneuver reserve concept was just
plain bad, ObWest should have known better by then and been able to
count airplanes adequately to know the odds of a successful
counterattack response against that kind of tactical airpower as near
zero. Once again we owe a heck of a lot to Fuehrer 'intuition'.

Certainly the men who seized the Odon crossings, held off
counter-attacks by elements of six panzer divisions, drew in the German
strategic reserves, and withstood the attacks that were supposed to
break them, would disagree that they had "overwhelming strength", but
their success suggests that the Wehrmacht had similar difficulties
attacking in Normandy countryside as anyone else (it was the inability
of the Germans to destroy 15th Scots, despite throwing in their entire
reserve, that led Rommel on 29 June to propose a fighting retreat to the
Seine)


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.

the Kursk was simply overwhelmingly strong.

Perhaps a maxim of excellent soldiers is "don't attack where the enemy
has built seven layers of defensive lines precisely in order to defeat
your plan"? While the Germans were good at "mission command" at lower
ranks, their commanders - with a few exceptions - ranged from spineless
to clueless.

Indeed, do pay attention: the enemy may have a plan of his own.

Mind you, when a senior Wehrmacht officer admitted to an inconvenient
truth, he could find himself out of a job very fast (cf von Rundstedt in
July 1944, telling Keitel that Germany's strategic options in the West
consisted of 'Make peace, you fools!' and being promptly replaced by von
Kluge) which has to be included in any assessment of their ability.