fesm_ndt Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 From what I see, it is a lot of flawed design as from a lot of allied tanks to change the transmission it is a matter of ripping the front off. On one of the German rebuilds I saw it was pretty much disassemble the tank to change the transmission. So as said earlier both the allies and German tanks broke down but which were easier to fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berna2vm Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 Up to the Comet though the German tanks are undenyably better... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 berna2vmUp to the Comet though the German tanks are undenyably better.. IMO the best is often the enemy of the good, the Germans lost the plot when Hitler interfered directly in design -to an extent he was correct to be outraged that the 5cm L/60 was not in service on Pz3 prior to the start of Barbarossa, but the subsequent level of interference on AFVs was counter productive -practically all subsequent tanks were overweight, overly complex and unmaintanable. In simple terms concentration on Pz3 and Pz4 while improved AFVs in the same weight limit were developed may have made some difference particularly in the war in the east. Comet was just a Cromwell with a 50kft/lb K/E 76mm gun so no advance over a M4A1 76mm and virtually no HE capability. Had the Comet had a 17pdr (60kft/lb K/E capable weapon) it would have been a tactical advance at least in its capability as a tank killer, which is not really the purpose of a tank anyway -but that's another debate:red:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Tony BSteve, a lot of workers in German factories were forced labour, of all nationalties, political views and religions. Tony ,sorry mate I'm really not looking to lock horns on this one but I can only think you have completely misunderstood the point of my post, it was that there is too much subconcisous support for the theory that the 3rd Reich -as was the WW1 German defeat was facilitated by the "stab in the back", this probably attracts the wrong kind of interest to the forum. There is no verifable evidence that amateur sabotage of industry by forced labour materially shortened WW2, -neither of the 2 largest documentation centres, Shoah and Simon Weisenthal insts., support that theory. In the last 2 years of WW2 German war material production actually increased exponentially despite the best efforts of the real heros of WW2 -those who put on uniform and served in conventional forces and those who worked damned hard in industry at home ie in allied nations. The nearest Germany came to disruption of industrial capacity was by pointed use of air power in such matters as the attacks on the Ruhr dams, the effecive bombing of aircraft and AFV production facilities and the bombing of the Romanian oil fields -none of which stopped production for more than a few weeks. Other SOE based operations for example Le Cruseot works in France -electircity system destroyed -resulted in production -both machine tools and skilled labour being forciably relocated to Germany. The other example Norsk Hydro -the Germans probably ****** over their own nuclear capability long before the SOE (actually heroic Norwegian soldiers) did for the plant. Most of the stories are, as in your examples, at best empirical instances being used to support a hypophasis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 (edited) No problem mate! :-D Stupid as it sounds the Occupation of countries during the second world war can still raise hackles. Hopefully my generation, last to be taught or influenced by those who went through it will be last. As for 'empirical' stories, not when you knew Mr Pallot. The problem is 'Hindsight' we know the 'Facts'. The current spate of TV re-live the times programmes don't help. The one thing the 'historic re-enactors' never have, is the social attitude of the times. To start with they know what is going to happen. Edited May 29, 2011 by Tony B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Tony BNo problem mate! :-D Stupid as it sounds the Occupation of countries during the second world war can still raise hackles. Hopefully my generation, last to be taught or influenced by those who went through it will be last. As for 'empirical' stories, not when you knew Mr Pallot. Actually I over edited myself I should have said none empirical -which does mean the story isn't true it just means it is an isolated result -not sufficient data to base a hypophasis. Anyway I don't think being influenced by the generation that went though it is a bad thing Thanks for getting back so quickly steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Unfortunatley Steve it does leave prejudice, even if the person trys to fight it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.