Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-24-2014, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,087 posts, read 9,772,235 times
Reputation: 6650

Advertisements

Provide a concrete example of a weapon system since you wish to engage in criticism. Because none of the simpler weapon systems mentioned thus far were an improvement on the more complex versions which superseded them. You in the Panzer IV > Panzer VI camp? That is a fools endeavor. Standard artillery shell vs. VT fuze? corvette vs. frigate? radar vs. binoculars? B17 vs B29? class VII submarine vs. XXI? K98 vs stg44, Panzer IV vs Panzer V,hydrophones vs. sonar, depth charge vs fido, etc.etc.I could fill the page.

Like UK John's Matilda off to the Burma front for you as the environment there is not so AT deadly as against the other Axis with their more complex and expensively made weapons.

Last edited by Felix C; 05-24-2014 at 03:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-24-2014, 03:42 PM
 
46,755 posts, read 25,661,546 times
Reputation: 29271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
Pity the poor crews of those first four of five Shermans you mention above that had to tangle with a Tiger because the Allies had no heavy with armor to defeat an 88mm. But you know, too expensive and costly to make compared to a Sherman. Panzer.
Cold equations. Ain't war hell?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2014, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,087 posts, read 9,772,235 times
Reputation: 6650
That is one cold Dane.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2014, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
16,563 posts, read 15,105,033 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
You have big attitude don't you Yankieboy? The Brits saved your necks.
How many U-boats did Brits sink off our coasts? How many German bombers on their way to America did you shoot down? How many supply convoys bringing food to us did you escort? We could have sat out the war and watch you fend for yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2014, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,251 posts, read 8,616,742 times
Reputation: 6389
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider View Post
There were 4 major parties to WW2; Germany, Japan, US and Russia. Of the 3, Germany commands the lion share of interest with regards to weapons, planes, rockets, ships, subs tanks etc. If you browse the news stands you see cover story after cover story about German hardware as well as military tactics. The US side gets some coverage as do the Russians but virtually nothing Japanese. Can't think of a single Japanese light arm that impressed anybody. It is not explicit but you sense a certain admiration for the German military from the leadership on down even when they end up on the losing side of battles. For example, WW2 memorabilia is predominantly German.
I think you might have forgotten about the British, They had beaten back Germany in the Battle of Britain before we (USA) even entered the war. The Royal Navy was arguably the best in the world at the time and as for the Japanese, they had a very good Navy too, with the biggest dreadnoughts afloat. The Japanese also had advanced naval tactics using carriers as offensive weapons, something our naval doctrine had to adapt to. Japan's lack of industrial might doomed her, that and some bad luck at Midway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2014, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,251 posts, read 8,616,742 times
Reputation: 6389
It's a fact, the US Navy adopted the battle doctrine of the Royal Navy in the battle for the Atlantic. After being very ineffective at our entry into the war..
It took us several months to figure out how to utilize our strengths, in both theaters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2014, 05:15 PM
 
Location: London
4,717 posts, read 5,020,438 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali BassMan View Post
I think you might have forgotten about the British, They had beaten back Germany in the Battle of Britain before we (USA) even entered the war.
....and also defeated the Luftwaffe over Dunkirk. In 1941 over France RAF Fighter Command claimed 711 German fighters for losses of approx 400 fighters. Destroyed the German surface fleet, the French fleet or captured large parts of it, destroyed the prime part of the Italian fleet, threw the Italians out of East Africa and routed the Italians in North Africa. Also defeated the Vichy French in Syria and put down a German inspired uprising in Iraq, gaining total control of the Middle East. Also supplied 40% of the tanks in the Battle of Moscow checking the Germans in the East.

Franco refused to enter the war on Germany's side telling Hitler the British will win. During World War II, naval officer and ex Turkish prime minister Rauf Orbay was the Turkish ambassador in London, and said that the British can raise 45 million troops from its empire so certainly will win.

The Royal Navy was the largest and the best in the world at the time - its new carriers were fully armoured. The carrier HMS Victorious was loaned to the USA in the Pacific and renamed USS Robin.

Last edited by John-UK; 05-24-2014 at 06:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2014, 05:19 PM
 
Location: London
4,717 posts, read 5,020,438 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
Neither of these UK tanks would be classified as heavy tanks in the sense Tigers, JSs, or Pershing were.
Again for the third time. The Churchill had the same armour as the Tiger and with APDS ammunition could knock a Tiger out. It could also go where a Tiger could not. The Firefly could knock out a Tiger but was not a heavy tank. A big gun does not make a heavy tank.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2014, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,087 posts, read 9,772,235 times
Reputation: 6650
For the third time then you are making it something it was not.

Heavy tank Mission: Destroy other heavy tanks in the offensive or defensive. Description: heavy armor, heavy AP main battery, cross country performance with medium tanks and APVs for armored attacks.

Churchill does not meet that mission or description as it is an infantry tank proper. APDS is a crutch to provide some AP capability because it was awful. Limited supply.

Last edited by Felix C; 05-24-2014 at 05:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2014, 05:30 PM
 
Location: London
4,717 posts, read 5,020,438 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAllenDoudna View Post
Did it ever occur to you there might be a REASON why something is expenssive? They required careful workmanship that took a lot of time and men busy doing that could not at the same time be doing other things so that production lagged. Some of the materials used were difficult to obtain under wartime conditions. Consider steel: The steel that went into a tank could have repaired a railroad that brought supplies in. It could be used to build a submarine that sank ships bringing supplies to the Allies. It could build anti-aircraft batteries to shoot down the bombers that were destroying German factories. It could built artillery that could destroy enemy tanks and armies. The steel for one tank could equip a thousand soldiers with the new assault rifles that were wiping enemy infantry from the field. Which of these should recieve priority for that steel? It was expensive--even if you do have a state-controlled economy.
Good post. Economics wins wars. The example of the Sten gun, crude but effective weapon made in millions cheaply with minimum labour and materials, wins wars. The USA applied that to the Sherman tank. The UK and USA combined in the Liberty ships which were also cheap and quick to make with minimum materials and labour.

Germany was desperately short of every raw material, food and energy. Prior to invading the USSR they were considering de-motorizing due to the lack of rubber and fuel. The German surface fleet never came out because it never had enough fuel and would be sunk - apart from the Channel dash running for home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top