The Superior King Tiger

In message , Eunometic
writes
Chad Irby wrote in message news:5XCnc.137
...
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.

Nonsense: the Panther was designed tracks-up as a T-34 killer and
one-for-one was much superior. Trouble was, the Soviets could produce,
field, maintain and supply many more T-34s than the Germans could
Panthers.

And in terms of armour and firepower the T-34 was utterly outmatched by
the Tigers... it was an excellent if austere medium tank, but even the
Soviets felt the need to augment it with the KVs and then the Josef
Stalins.

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.

They were outnumbered from choice - they dug the hole and kept on
digging.

A sherman would have been roast chicken to the Soviet armour despite
its relibility since it only approximated the Pzkfw IV.

Which explains why the Soviets rejected the large numbers of Shermans
they were supplied...?

For that matter, they accepted and used significant supplies of
Valentines, which were no great shakes in the armour or armament shakes
but were at least agile and reliable.

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.

You realise the Sherman was four inches lower-slung than the Panther?

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

Air superiority was hugely overrated as a tank-killer (though effective
at denying them supply and scaring crews into flight).

German armour died when it met Allied armour, or when it met Allied
anti-tank guns. Sometimes it gave good account of itself, occasionally
it managed spectacular results, but mostly the recollection of an
Achilles commander held for stopping counterattacks: you got into
position covering the approaches and camouflaged properly, you let the
Germans get within a thousand yards so the 17pdr was firing battlesight,
and then you could be sure that the first or second shot would be
enough: and you displaced quickly not for fear of return fire, but
because they'd be calling artillery on you.

Defence is always easier than attack and the Germans spent most of the
war being pushed out of defensive position after defensive position.
Their few counterattacks were generally disasters.

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.

In other words, yet again failure to cope with the reality of their
situation. If you're short of key strategic materials, do *not* design
vehicles dependent on them. If you're short of POL, don't design
gas-guzzling tanks. If you're outnumbered, remember that quantity is as
important as quality and make sure you have *enough* tanks as well as
*better* tanks.

I don't know how mobile the Sherman was compared to a Tiger or Panther
in rougth tersin.

Better than the Tiger, slightly outmatched by the Panther.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

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

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.

You realise the Sherman was four inches lower-slung than the Panther?

Damn, Paul, that's just plain low - how dare you toss facts into this
argument???

G

"robert arndt" wrote in message
m...
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion). Russian T-34/85s and JS-2 tanks were even
better than American ones and even they didn't fare well in
engagements with the King Tiger.

But the SU-152 "Animal Killer" did quite well against them.
--
Zamboni

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"mut head" Mullen wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message

In March of 1991 it took Saddam's post Gulf War reduced forces, who
ignored
any of the "collateral damage" they were inflicting less than 4 days to
put
down the insurgents contained in the Holy City of Karbala. It doesn't that
much effort to destroy a city and the poorly supplied insurgents contained
within it.

I think you'll find they were operating without the constraints of democracy
or a free press. Would you suggest we get rid of those?

btw. One of the answers to a BBC poll indicated that less than 10% of
those
polled even knew that US and UK troops were in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp...iraqsurvey.pdf


Nice ref. I think you have misunderstood what the numbers mean on that
example though. I think the 98.5 % figure is the one to look at there.

All I did was expand Mullen's view of what can be considered an
insurgent.

I would suggest YOU read what you are responding to before YOU post.

And I would suggest you *think* before you post, mutt-head.

I've already labeled you the mut head.


I know. How childish of you.

J

"John Mullen" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
"mut head" Mullen wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message

In March of 1991 it took Saddam's post Gulf War reduced forces, who
ignored
any of the "collateral damage" they were inflicting less than 4 days to
put
down the insurgents contained in the Holy City of Karbala. It doesn't
that
much effort to destroy a city and the poorly supplied insurgents
contained
within it.

I think you'll find they were operating without the constraints of
democracy
or a free press. Would you suggest we get rid of those?

Which is a constraint that is removed if the forces operate without concern
for "collateral damage" and that lack of concern was the primary part of the
original post by Paladino.

btw. One of the answers to a BBC poll indicated that less than 10% of
those
polled even knew that US and UK troops were in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp...iraqsurvey.pdf


Nice ref. I think you have misunderstood what the numbers mean on that
example though. I think the 98.5 % figure is the one to look at there.

I guess that depends on how you look at it. A response from 98.5% of those
polled found that less than 10% of them had even heard that US and UK troops
were in the country and the answers to that question weeds out the responses
to other questions they asked. Looking at the quoted numbers for recognition
of local political figures the results probably match the level of
recognition you would expect to find close to an election in the US and UK
(damn low).

btw. sorry about the original comment.

"L'acrobat" wrote in message ...
"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...


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.

You mean "Most of the problems the German tanks had related to reality".

You also seem to be forgetting just how much the Germans were expecting from
an already maxed out engine in most of their tanks, overstress it and it
dies.


There was no problem with the engines reliablity. Reliabillity
problems related mainly to gearboxes and steering mechanisms on these
Tanks and possibly the use of inferior raw materials. In anycase
these are issues that are usually solved over 12 months.

Nor were they underpowered. A Panther at about 45 tons with over
600hp engine compared well with a Sherman in terms of power to weight
ratio. Using that engine in a heavier tank starts to slow them down
but they were never as slow as a churchill for instance.

The use of fuel injection is unlikely to overstress the engine.

nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...
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.

You realise the Sherman was four inches lower-slung than the Panther?

Damn, Paul, that's just plain low - how dare you toss facts into this
argument???

G

It was a "disproportionatly" tall tank.

"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."

Q: If you only have 45 tons of steel and the necesary chromite,
vanadium and manganese to make it into armour do you build 1.5
shermans or 1 panther?


http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/pantherc.html
"The Panther became one of the finest medium tanks of WW2, with a
growing increase in the number of operational Panthers and a drop in
the number of Panthers lost. Overheating was overcome by fitting a
second cooling pump and modifying the cooling distribution. Later
Panthers proved very much more reliable than the vehicles involved in
the Kursk debacle. Many of Germany's top panzer aces achieved their
finest victories with this vehicle. Soldiers like SS-Oberscharfuhrer
Ernst Barkmann, who in an exposed spot with his sole Panther knocked
out nine American M4 Shermans before withdrawing, were quick to prove
the outstanding qualities of this tank. According to statistics of the
American army, destroying a Panther costed five Shermans or about nine
T-34's. It was undoubtedly Germany's best tank design, giving the
almost ideal balance between armor, speed, weight and firepower."

"During the Ardennes offensive several Shermans were knocked out in
the middle of the night by Panthers using IR night-scopes. After
locating US tanks with the IR scope, the Germans fired flares at the
Shermans to light the target completely, and knocked them out."

In article ,
on Mon, 10 May 2004 18:50:30 GMT,
Chad Irby attempted to say .....

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

Now, *that's* funny...

Maybe,but funny things usually are not kept under the lock for 75
years!.

...in the same room with the engine that runs on water, the perpetual
motion machines, and the bodies of the little grey men from Roswell...

Actually we don't keep the bodies of the Grey's in the same room.
We have found the give off a rather horrible stench at room temperature.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on 10 May 2004 18:25:37 GMT,
Krztalizer nt attempted to say .....


Stolen German technology was at least a century ahead of US technology,

Now, *that's* funny...

I got a laugh out of that too. A *century*? Hell, we aren't the ones that
started the war with horse-drawn wagons - compare our P-80 to the Me 262 and
try to fit that whole "century" in between them. Hysterical!



We also didn't END the war still using horse draw wagons for most logistical
transport in the field.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on 10 May 2004 05:16:45 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

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)


some proof please.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.