Not entirely correct, the German tanks had better communications gear, which gave the edge once combat began and a Commander who got to fight the tank full time, whereas the early T34 had a two man turret with no radio, the Commander had to aim and fire the main gun and fight the tank part time. To communicate use flares, which could only be used for prearranged signaling or unbutton the tank to use hand signals, now many commanders did that anyway, but the signals were easy to overlook in any case in the heat, (and smoke), of battle. In many cases communication trumps superior armor. The Israelis proved that using Shermans against T55s.
mike wilson wrote: >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 2007/10/18 Thu PM 06:16:54 GMT >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >> Subject: Re: Completely and totally OT: Politics >> >> The arms of Krupp is not entirely correct. The invasion of France was >> carried out using a large number of "training" tanks, (Panzer I and II's >> which had very small guns and light armor, the I in fact had no gun at >> all in the heavy weapon category, it was armed with twin .30 cal, >> (7.62mm) machine guns), there weren't enough of any front line German >> tanks to go around, and large numbers of Czech Tanks were pressed into >> service. A number of weapons thought to be quintessentially German were >> really of Czech origin. Russian Tanks were never that much better than >> German, in fact the vaunted T34 while a very good tank was most >> effective because of it's large numbers not it's inherent superiority, >> it was actually a prewar (1937-38 or there about) design, that began to >> enter service in late 1940 to early 1941.. The Germans actually were the >> ones who created the mid war designs, the Panther and Tiger were both >> answers to the T34. If they could have been built in sufficient numbers, >> (the Russians out produced the Germans in tanks by somewhere between >> 10-20 to 1, most being the T34, because they were good enough), the >> Russian T34 probably wouldn't have the reputation it has today. ... >> > > Wahoo! Tank thread! Just been discussing this elsewhere.. > > The PanzerV (developed to combat the T34) was, indeed, in some ways a better > tank. In fact, in only one way - it was much better armed. In a direct > confrontation it would beat both the T34 and the "Tommykocher" Sherman. > But... > > It was massively more complex and expensive to build. It was also not > designed well for field maintenance. It had a petrol engine, making it > quicker but much more thirsty then the opposition. Finally, the slave labour > that was forced to build it has a pretty good programme of sabotage going. A > recent rebuild of one found oil galleries not completely drilled, cigarette > butts in oilways, handfuls of swarf in gearboxes. > > Once the T34 was rearmed with an equivalent artillery piece, it was more then > a fighting match for the PV, which had never been a match for the T34 as a > functional fighting machine. > > >> Bob Sullivan wrote: >> >>> Adam, >>> Based on the "Arms of Krupp" book, Hitler had the war machine designed >>> and under construction long before overtaking any Chechoslovak >>> stockpiles. By the end of the war, the German tanks (pre '40's >>> designs) were outmatched by the Russian tanks (newer, better armored >>> designs). Whether or not some resistance early on would have derailed >>> Hitler is pretty speculative. >>> Regards, Bob S. >>> >>> On 10/18/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> frank theriault wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 10/18/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Bob, >>>>>> >>>>>> It's an all too common opinion in post-Trudeau Canada. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's also not shared by all Canadians. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The sad thing is that war ~isn't~ a "last resort" these days >>>>> (competent actors or no)... >>>>> >>>>> cheers, >>>>> frank >>>>> >>>>> ps: what's Trudeau got to do with it? >>>>> >>>>> -f >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> As an aside, the history of WW2 would be a lot different if the British >>>> and French governments hadn't used violence as a last resort. There's a >>>> lot of evidence to indicate that a robust response to either the >>>> Remilitarization of the Rhineland or the Occupation of the Sudetenland >>>> would have resulted in a quick coup removing Hitler. >>>> >>>> It's certain that most of the tanks that rolled into Poland in September >>>> 1939 were Czech, the Weremacht was in many ways an empty shell until the >>>> takeover of Czechoslovakia gave the Germans access to the Czech's >>>> stockpiles of armor and equipment. >>>> >>>> Violence is the last resort of the incompetent only because the competent >>>> resort to it sooner. Of course, it is far too often used as a first or >>>> second resort, which is tragic. >>>> >>>> -Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>> follow the directions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Remember, it?s pillage then burn. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> >> > > > ----------------------------------------- > Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
