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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Some new photos of the 2003 Tiger Meet (Cambrai) | Franck | Military Aviation | 0 | January 2nd 04 10:55 PM |
Airman tells of grandfather's Flying Tiger days | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 11th 03 04:55 AM |
1979 Tiger for Sale | Flynn | Aviation Marketplace | 65 | September 11th 03 08:06 PM |
P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 131 | September 7th 03 09:02 PM |