The Superior King Tiger

In article ,
(Eunometic) wrote:

The kill ratio of panther & tiger versus sherman was about 4:1 in the
Germans favour. It was lucky

Not quite "lock," as the term is normally used.

Unless "planning and production" are synonyms for "lock."

that the Germans were outnumbered in everything and that they didn't
have fuel or were able to match the allies in the air.

What it really breaks down to is that the Germans were quite stupid
about long-range planning, and were deeply overoptimistic about how
powerful their forces were.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
(Eunometic) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure

The German tanks had higher average ground pressure than the Russian
tanks which have very low pressures due to the quagmire they had to
handle.

....a quagmire in places like Stalingrad, for example. Gee, I guess it's
lucky for the Germans they never tried to move into Russia.

Oh, wait. They did. Oops.

However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
mobility.

When you have a much higher overall pressure, a lower peak pressure
isn't going to help. Especially when that mean ground pressure can be
*twice* that of lighter tanks, or similar tanks with wider tracks.

and very high fuel consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a
landmark). Add in the very high maintenance problems, and you had
a really tough, sorta-mobile fortress.

The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks.

For shorter distances, due to (once again) higher fuel consumption.
High speed doesn't help if you end up parked waiting for the fuel
trucks. With the lousy German fuel situation by 1945, higher
consumption was the *last* thing they needed.

The 620 hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the
addition of fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best
engines: diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so
easily as the German and Allied tanks.

Higher reliability with simpler and lower-performing engines gave them a
much more effective force than they would have been able to field.
Really neat tanks that don't work will generally lose to "good" tanks
that run under most conditions and are easier to fix.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Only in some fields, and since you haven't noticed, that was about 60
years ago. But I guess you're like Arndt, and are still living in the
past.

Stolen German technology was at least a century ahead of US technology,so so
the word UFO needed to be invented to hide their origins.Germans never used
word UFO,they were their SonderFlugObjecten (SFO)
So German achievements needed to be classified for 75 years by US Gov't.

Today if you want to see beyond cutting edge science and research you must go
to Cologne,Vienna, Zurich or Oxford,or at least you must check out works of
German scientists in US.
Truth is ,contrary to general belief ,US is not a scientific and technological
powerhouse (never been) in spite of being worlds third most populated country.
US education policy is based on production of the "standardized minds" in big
numbers in other words scientific equivalents of Henry Fords workers.
But even 1000000000 standardized minds wont make even one
Einstein,Dirac,Heisenberg,Schroedinger,Planck etc.

Of course, the Soviets got a pretty large amount of technology from the
German programs, and that resulted in pretty much *every* technical
triumph by the Soviet Union for the next 40 years.

Above statement is even more applicaple for US.

So we're back to Russia again. Stolen nuclear tech (from the US),

Yeah right US did not steal nuclear technology from Germans,US only stole semi
complete bombs.(and did not even bother to erase German markings on Little Boy)


Tell us again about that incredible Russian scientific and engineering
skill...

I am not an expert on Soviet or Russian achievements,but russian speakers of
this forum could give a better answer.
But an answer from my own observation:after break up of soviet union many
soviet scientists came to US and were literally "grabbed" by US universities
and research instutions.
were they the cream of soviet scientists?Hardly (except 7or 6 maybe)

Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy was
captured from the Nazis)


Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)

Chad, last year denyev told us the Nazis built and tested two atomic bombs,
had
a working reactor and the only reason the U.S. had enough fissionable
material
was we had captured it from the Nazis.

Thats correct They were developed by Deibner and von Ardenne/Houtermans teams.
Till 1992 nobody in west were (at least openly) aware of SS nuclear program.

It was quite amusing since one of the "tests" was under a populated area and
no
one noticed.


Do you call a top secret location under control of Hans Kammler a populated
area?
Even Wehrmacht folks were told to leave area in late 1944.
Unlike your assertions the event were noticed by hunderds if not
thousands,including an USAAF crew.
But those who observed event on ground were either Germans or forced laborers
(many of them died later on radiation effects).
As far as USAAF crew concerned,they reported what they saw,but according to
officals they were simply hallucinating,whole crew!.

If you planned to hide something for 75 long years,you would not allow a lowly
aircrew screw up your plans.

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...


The German tanks had higher average ground pressure than the Russian
tanks which have very low pressures due to the quagmire they had to
handle.


Given that the Panther and Tiger were both designed to fight
Russian tanks in Russia this seems to hint at poor design

However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
mobility.


The records of their deployment suggest otherwise


and very high fuel
consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
fortress.

The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks. The 620
hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the addition of
fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best engines:
diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so easily as
the German and Allied tanks.


Indeed but the British and Americans were able to keep
their armoured formations adequately supplied for the
most part. The Germans were not.

Keith

"Eunometic" wrote in message

The kill ratio of panther & tiger versus sherman was about 4:1 in the
Germans favour. It was lucky that the Germans were outnumbered in
everything and that they didn't have fuel or were able to match the
allies in the air.

Luck had nothing to do with it.

The Germans manufactured approx 7,000 Panthers and Tigers.
The Allies produced 40,000 T-34's , 48,000 Shermans
and 28,000 Churchill's , Cromwells, Valentines etc

Fact is you could build 4 T-34's or Shermans for every
Tiger that could be produced and they were more reliable
and simpler to maintain too. The allies gave production
factors a high priority in weapons design, the Germans did not.

Keith

what the f___ does THIS topic and your replies have to do with Aviation
you moron Keith???

beside proving your high as kite......

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Eunometic" wrote in message

The kill ratio of panther & tiger versus sherman was about 4:1 in the
Germans favour. It was lucky that the Germans were outnumbered in
everything and that they didn't have fuel or were able to match the
allies in the air.

Luck had nothing to do with it.

The Germans manufactured approx 7,000 Panthers and Tigers.
The Allies produced 40,000 T-34's , 48,000 Shermans
and 28,000 Churchill's , Cromwells, Valentines etc

Fact is you could build 4 T-34's or Shermans for every
Tiger that could be produced and they were more reliable
and simpler to maintain too. The allies gave production
factors a high priority in weapons design, the Germans did not.

Keith

"Aerophotos" wrote in message
...
what the f___ does THIS topic and your replies have to do with Aviation
you moron Keith???


They main counter to the Tiger and King Tiger was
allied air power

beside proving your high as kite......

You cant even get that right, its 'high AS a kite'

Keith

Chad Irby wrote in message om...
In article ,
(Eunometic) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure

The German tanks had higher average ground pressure than the Russian
tanks which have very low pressures due to the quagmire they had to
handle.

...a quagmire in places like Stalingrad, for example. Gee, I guess it's
lucky for the Germans they never tried to move into Russia.

Oh, wait. They did. Oops.

They experienced the coldest winter in over 100 years after a
succesion of the mildest.



However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
mobility.

When you have a much higher overall pressure, a lower peak pressure
isn't going to help.

I'm afraid it very much does. Peak ground pressure is a key
characteristic of track performance. The German tracks were very good
at this. (they were vulnerable to packing with mud and freezing if
not cleaned out)


Especially when that mean ground pressure can be
*twice* that of lighter tanks, or similar tanks with wider tracks.

As I recollect it was not quite that big a difference: maybe 30%. The
T34 was champion of all tanks.


and very high fuel consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a
landmark). Add in the very high maintenance problems, and you had
a really tough, sorta-mobile fortress.

The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks.

For shorter distances, due to (once again) higher fuel consumption.
High speed doesn't help if you end up parked waiting for the fuel
trucks. With the lousy German fuel situation by 1945, higher
consumption was the *last* thing they needed.

The Germans were massively outnumbered. In that situation quality is
usually your only hope. In addition tanks like the Panther and Tiger
1 were needed to cope with tanks such as the T34 series that shocked
the Germans and the smaller number of super heavy soviet tanks already
in evidence then.

The German tanks had better optics and electric rather than manual
turret traverse as well.

A sherman would have been roast chicken to the Soviet armour despite
its relibility since it only approximated the Pzkfw IV. In fact the
shermans absurd shape was a result of it having been designed for a
horizontal radial engine: itself a signe of neglecting engine
development.

AFAIK see the air superiority spared the allies lighter armour from
having to deal with the German armour.


The 620 hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the
addition of fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best
engines: diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so
easily as the German and Allied tanks.

Higher reliability with simpler and lower-performing engines gave them a
much more effective force than they would have been able to field.
Really neat tanks that don't work will generally lose to "good" tanks
that run under most conditions and are easier to fix.

Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages. The use
of rubber running wheels as on the Sherman was I believe impossible
due to the Germans rubber shortages.

I don't know how mobile the Sherman was compared to a Tiger or Panther
in rougth tersin. A Panther was no slouch at 35 mph (faster than a
Sherman) and even the tiger could manage 25 mph. The T34 with good
speed and but a massive power to weight ratio was very difficult to
deal with. Acceleration is more key than top speed and a good crew
will use it to avoid exposing themsleves. Basically the Germans
calculated that they would need to develop gas turbines for their
tanks as no gasoline engine could do the job especialy on the octane
rating of fuel they had available to them.

The ****ty fuel situation was because Speer cut back expansion of the
syn fuel industry and its underground dispersal since the war was
supposed to be over in 2 years and thus it would be a waste to invest
in it rather than more pointy things.