A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Superior King Tiger



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old May 12th 04, 04:53 PM
Denyav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

How could the Germans have produced enriched Unranium anyway? They
had no spare Electrical power, and they didn't have the haterials on
hand to build anything above a laboratory scale that could handle UF6.


Gas centrifuge seperation technology does not require a TVA.

Urban Legends,before 1992 nobody knew or did not want to speak about SS nuclear
program.
Between 1945 and 1992 everbody talked about Heisenberg and his
work,interestingly the word used for his work in 3rd Reich documents is
"tarnforshung"

f you can't spare the metals to build proper jet engines, you can't
build an industrial plant that can handle Uranium Hexaflouride.

S-projects had absolute priority over V-programs and jet fighters.
Heck,we heard about S-programs only after the demise of Soviet Union.

  #162  
Old May 12th 04, 05:04 PM
Denyav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Britain alone was outproducing Germany in terms of aircraft, artillery
and tanks by 1943

Germany managed to produce around 14,000 Mk II & IV
5,000 Mk V and 2000 Mk VI

Britain produced 28,000 tanks of all types

Keith


Thats true,but its equally true that the Britain of 1943 was very different
from Britain of 2004.
Britian of 1943 was an empire streching from North America to New Zealand and
from British Isles to Indian Ocean and controlling the most of worlds raw
material and human resources.
Raw material and human resources controlled by British Crown in 1943 were even
greater than resources controlled by US and USSR combined.
You cannot even compare resources controlled by Germans with British controlled
resources.
  #164  
Old May 12th 04, 08:40 PM
T3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Denyav" wrote in message
...
o, it would be a *good* bike. One that may allow you to win the race

easier
than your competition.


Only if my competitors decide to enter race with another bike.

But in your original post, you said that we stress quantity OVER quality.


Opponents like Iraq,Serbia,Afghanistan,Panama,Vietnam,Or Grenada provide

an
excellent yardstick to measure the quality of US armed sevices.
Even aganist such powerful, sophisticated and scientifically savvy

opponents
the performance of US is below expectations.(specially in Balkans).
Iraq conflict proves something beyond any doubt,the quality of the

personel is
even lower than the weapons they use.
Trailer parks are a reality of US and its armed forces.
Without elevating the quality of population you cannot elevate the quality

of
armed forces.


Our technology makes it possible to field limited numbers of assets
if necessary (as a percent of the whole) and guarantee victory.


First of there is no "our" technology.The Most of US technology is
imported,either stolen or developed here by "imported" talent.
US is famous for not being able to produce its own top notch scientific
talent.

Regarding technologies that are the reason of next paradigm shift in

warfare,
US is not even among top countries.
Scientists in tiny Austria or Danemark are well ahead of well funded US
scientists in understanding of the physics of these technologies.
So if they wanted to become next "military" superpower of the world (very
unlikely),they have good chances.
Dont forget nations that produce excellent classical music composers,also
produce excellent top notch scientists.

US unfortunately produces only excellent rappers.



People, this guy is baiting you all, no one could actually believe his
crap. I doubt he does.
Killfile this idiot and move on.

T3


  #165  
Old May 12th 04, 11:32 PM
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Eunometic
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
It was less tall than the Panther - you seem eager to damn that capable
if overcomplicated German vehicle.


Merely pointing out that the Allies made mistakes as well.


Certainly, but not enough to lose.

The
Sherman I assert could have been a better tank if it had not of been
designed for installation of an aircooled radial.


With hindsight I'd have designed the Sherman lower, with a much better
gun (the 17pdr is the best that comes to mind in the timeframe so we'll
stick with that, but with a nice big turret ring so we can upgun later)
and - crucially - wet ammunition stowage from the start.

But, hindsight is easy.

Personally, I'd go for 1.5 Shermans and make sure they were Fireflies.


Personaly I'd go for a mix. With Panthers being the bulk


No, not Panthers. Too heavy, too unreliable, too complicated.

The 3 inch 17 pounder was a powerfull gun however from all accounts
the APDS tungsten shot it needed to deal with Panthers and Tigers lost
accuracy rapidly. Thus while the round still had penetraion at 500m
it lost accuracy so much it was difficult to actualy obtain a hit.


Curiously, interviews with the gunners who fired it reckoned that the
17pdr shot flat to a thousand yards and that one or two rounds were all
that would be needed (the Archer crewman whose account I read, commented
that they could usually kill what they fired at with the first shot out
to a thousand yards, and that they displaced rapidly not to avoid
returning direct fire but to evade artillery called on their position)

Doesn't sound like inaccuracy was a gross problem. Of course, he was
merely *using* the weapon in combat, so his opinions are naturally
dubious.

On the other hand without APDS it couldn't obtain penetration except
at point blank range


We *are* talking about the same 17pdr gun here, aren't we?


--
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
  #167  
Old May 13th 04, 04:24 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Eunometic
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
It was less tall than the Panther - you seem eager to damn that capable
if overcomplicated German vehicle.


Merely pointing out that the Allies made mistakes as well.


Certainly, but not enough to lose.

The
Sherman I assert could have been a better tank if it had not of been
designed for installation of an aircooled radial.


With hindsight I'd have designed the Sherman lower, with a much better
gun (the 17pdr is the best that comes to mind in the timeframe so we'll
stick with that, but with a nice big turret ring so we can upgun later)
and - crucially - wet ammunition stowage from the start.


I don't think that larger turret ring would have been required, based upon
the Israeli Super Sherman effort that put a 105mm in its turret.

Brooks


But, hindsight is easy.

Personally, I'd go for 1.5 Shermans and make sure they were Fireflies.


Personaly I'd go for a mix. With Panthers being the bulk


No, not Panthers. Too heavy, too unreliable, too complicated.

The 3 inch 17 pounder was a powerfull gun however from all accounts
the APDS tungsten shot it needed to deal with Panthers and Tigers lost
accuracy rapidly. Thus while the round still had penetraion at 500m
it lost accuracy so much it was difficult to actualy obtain a hit.


Curiously, interviews with the gunners who fired it reckoned that the
17pdr shot flat to a thousand yards and that one or two rounds were all
that would be needed (the Archer crewman whose account I read, commented
that they could usually kill what they fired at with the first shot out
to a thousand yards, and that they displaced rapidly not to avoid
returning direct fire but to evade artillery called on their position)

Doesn't sound like inaccuracy was a gross problem. Of course, he was
merely *using* the weapon in combat, so his opinions are naturally
dubious.

On the other hand without APDS it couldn't obtain penetration except
at point blank range


We *are* talking about the same 17pdr gun here, aren't we?


--
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



  #168  
Old May 13th 04, 06:10 AM
Denyav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

t seems that he also missed teh point about the Germans not having
the materiels at hand to be able to handle UF6 (Uranium Hexafluoride),
which is a necessary step in the gaseus diffusion process, in
industrial amounts. If you can't


Urban legends prepared by our "great leaders" for the consum of our
standardized minds.
In reality Zippe designed gas zentrifuges,manufactured in special SS controlled
parts of Degussa and Anschutz factories were achieving 30 % qffficiency .
GUZ or Gaz-Ultra-Zentrifuge technology was the key of german nuclear advances
and by the 1943 two GUZ cascades were in operation in SS controlled Berlin
north and Skoda producing weapon grade Uran.
S projects of 3rd Reich had absolute priority over everything else including V
projects.
But before 90s we did not even know that something called S projects existed
in Nazi Germany much less its details,even though Eisenhower implied that in
his book
Crusade in Europa almost half century ago.


  #169  
Old June 8th 04, 12:25 AM
Eunometic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


"The first "Tiger-B" tanks captured by Soviet forces were sent to the Chief
Armored Vehicle Directorate's (GBTU) Armored Vehicle Research and
Development proving ground (NIIBT) at Kubinka for comprehensive study. There
were vehicles numbered 102 and 502. The very movement of these tanks to the
loading station under their own power revealed numerous defects. At 86
kilometers, the left idler wheel went out of commission (when the bearings
failed), as well as the left drive sprocket (when all the mounting bolts
sheared). The high temperatures at the time, which reached 30 degrees
Celsius (86 F), turned out to be too much for the cooling system. This led
the right engine block to overheat and to continual overheating in the
gearbox. The tank was repaired, but after that the right side running gear
had completely failed. It was replaced with one scavenged from another tank,
but this one almost immediately went out of commission again when the drive
shaft roller bearings failed. Besides this, time and again it was necessary
to change the track's elements, which were constantly breaking (cracking)
due to the tank's colossal weight, especially when the vehicle was turning.
The design of the track tensioning mechanism hadn't been completely
perfected. As a result, the tension had to be adjusted after every 10-15 km
of travel. "

Overheated engine block? - still it broke down often enough from other
causes, the engine had time to cool back down. yep, no engine problems
there.


http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm

Numerous statements have been made that the Tiger II was too heavy,
too big, too slow, "a casemate", etc. One is left with the impression
that it was lucky to move at all. These banal generalities, stated as
incontrovertible facts, are never substantiated by actual
specifications, test reports or after-action accounts from the units
that used the Tiger II. In spite of these frequently repeated remarks,
the capability of the Tiger II to negotiate obstacles and cross
terrain was equivalent to or better than most German and allied tanks.

The Tiger II initially experienced numerous automotive problems which
required a continuous series of minor modifications to correct. These
problems can be traced to two main causes: leaking seals and gaskets
and an over taxed drive train originally designed for a 40 metric ton
vehicle. The problem of keeping a Tiger II in running condition was
compounded by a shortage of skilled drivers many of whom may have
never experienced driving any vehicle prior to entering the service.
In addition they were provided only limited driver's training, and
then usually on a different type of panzer, and received their own
Tiger II usually within a few days before being shipped to the front.
But, with mature drivers, taking required maintenance halts, and
modification of key automotive components, the Tiger II could be
maintained in a satisfactory operational condition. Status reports
from the Western Front, dated March 1945, showed that the percentage
of Tigers operational at the Front was about equal to the PzKpfw IV
and as good as or better than the Panther.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 11:55 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.