The Superior King Tiger

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...


Oh, wait. They did. Oops.

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


Which is irrelevant when considering the ability
of the vehicles concerned to deal with mud.



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)


That doesnt sound like a good thing


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.


30% was more than enough.


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.

Which was at least partly a result of their design decisions

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.


Trouble is the Soviets could turn out a T-34 in 30% of
the man hours required for a Tiger

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


Indeed, these factors made production more complex of course

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.


In fact the Sherman was 1942 design that was more than a
match for PzKfw III and IV it was designed to counter
and its engine was reliable and efficient.

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


That and the tank destroyers with 90mm and 17 pounder
anti-tank guns


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.

Consider the Soviet Army appraisal of the Sherman (with high pressure
76mm gun) in comparison to the T-34/76

Quote
To the head of the 2nd Department of the main Intelligence
Department of the Red Army
Major-General Khlopov

Evaluation of the T-34, KV-1 and Sherman M4A3 Tanks
at Aberdeen Proving Grounds

General Comments
From the American point of view our tanks are slow

snip

Armament, the F-34 gun is very good, it is a simple very reliable and
easy to service.Its weakness is that the muzzle velocity is significantly
INFERIOR to the American 76mm gun

snip

9) Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of
our tanks, thick armour and relaible armaments, the succesful design
of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American
tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvarability, firepower, speed
and reliability.
/Quote

The T34 with good
speed and but a massive power to weight ratio was very difficult to
deal with.

Its power to weight ratio wasnt that superior , the T-34 had
a power to weight ratio of around 16 hp/ton from a 420 hp engine
The Sherman had a 400hp engine and a power to weight ratio
of 13 hp/ton

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.


Horsefeathers, the T-34 used diesel engines which will run
on very poor quality fuel

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.

This is just silly, Speer didnt become Minister of War production
until after the death of Fritz Todt in Febuary 1942. He was
responsible for finally putting the economy of the Reich on a
war footing, more than 2 years later than was necessary.

Keith

"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.

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

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

Now, *that's* funny...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:39:54 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:



Evaluation of the T-34, KV-1 and Sherman M4A3 Tanks
at Aberdeen Proving Grounds


I never knew that the Russians shipped T34s and KVs to the US for testing.





greg

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:39:54 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:



Evaluation of the T-34, KV-1 and Sherman M4A3 Tanks
at Aberdeen Proving Grounds


I never knew that the Russians shipped T34s and KVs to the US for testing.



They also shipped copies to the UK, they are now in the
tank museum at Bovington IRC

Keith

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Alan Minyard" wrote:
On Sat, 08 May 2004 21:38:18 GMT, "Brett" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote:
On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:24:46 GMT, "Brett" wrote:

"John Mullen" wrote:
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message

[..]

The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly,
if
we
weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage'
we
could
have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive
that,
then
you
are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very
short
time
anyway.

I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent

in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
government.

Try a different dictionary www.m-w.com

1. a person who revolts against civil authority or an established
government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

"a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" and while you might not
recognize
it as a civil authority Paul Bremer does meet all of the
requirements.



Try a real dictionary, not some web page.

It's the same definition found in the hardback copy found in most
libraries
in the United States.

My copy of Black's Law Dictionary
defines an insurgent as "One who participates in an insurrection; one
who
opposes
the execution of law by force of arms, or who rises in revolt against
the
constituted
authorities." (Black's is a very highly regarded legal dictionary).

Big deal, one of my copies of Black's (7th) quotes "A person who, for
political purposes, engages in armed hostility against an established
government".

Mr. Bremer believe it or not is a civil authority.

Mr Brenner, and the rest of US civil and military personnel in Iraq
clearly do not
meet this definition.

Mr. Bremer meets all of the requirements for a recognizable civil
authority
since he appears to have been given the authority to name regional
civilian
governors.


That is an utterly ridiculous argument.

If YOU had actually read what I had posted it isn't - I am not the mut
head
called MULLEN.

I am though.

How in the world can Mr Brenner be
both the civil authority *and* an insurgent??

If you had bothered reading the thread I've never made the argument that
Bremer is an insurgent. Mullen made an argument that US Forces were not
engaged in actions against insurgents.

Er... I pointed out the dictionary definition of the word 'insurgent'. Is
that the same thing?

You are destroying your own
argument. Either the US Forces are "insurgents" or they are not, make up
your mind.

I never made the claim that US Forces were insurgents. The original claim
was that US Forces could put down an insurgency in 12 hours if they were
not
concerned about 'collateral damage' which while short could probably be
achieved.

Really? How? (Waiting with non-bated breath)

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 know, I know, that just isn't posssible.



J

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

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

It has more to do with it than your periodic anti-Bush ranting, such as the
utterly pointless little snippet you appended to another thread just a few
hours ago? JGG, you remain an idiot.

Brooks


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

Now, *that's* funny...

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

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!

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

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

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

Why toss mud at Keith - Den is the one making grotesquely inaccurate claims and
Keith is simply one of several people correcting him. Keith didn't start the
thread, Arnt did - and by answering as you have, you are basically tossing mud,
while complaining about other people doing the same.