What was better ?

[Mark]

Ever since I was a kid building Airfix models, I always had a tendency towards the German kit, always thought it was better quality, build and looking, but was it the same in real life in those times, I believe it was and still do I think the machines gave off a sense of quality, a build that was meant to carry out what the designers set out in their objective/scope.

 

This is the real humdinger.......if the allies did not have the overpowering mass of equipment, would they have overcome the superior stuff that they were facing.

 

Opinions please gentleman and ladies

[mcspool]

Read a German opinion on the Sherman!

 

From: Jentz’s Panzer Truppen, Vol. 2, p.150-151

 

The preferences of the crews for lighter, more maneuverable Panzers was recorded in a report written on November 1944 by Albert Speer on his trip to Italy during 19 to 25 October 1944:

"On the Southwest Front, opinions are in favor of the Sherman tank and its cross-country ability. The Sherman tank climbs mountains that our Panzer crews consider impassable. This is accomplished by the especially powerful engine in the Sherman in comparison to its weight. Also, according to reports from the 26.Panzer-Division, the terrain-crossing ability on level ground (in the Po valley) is completely superior to our Panzers. The Sherman tanks drive freely cross-country, while our Panzers must remain on trails and narrow roads and therefore are very restricted in their ability to fight. "

[ashley]

Ever since I was a kid building Airfix models, I always had a tendency to wards the German kit, always thought it was better quality, build and looking, but was it the same in real life in those times, I believe it was and still do I think the machines gave off a sense of quality, a build that was meant to carry out what the designers set out in their objective/scope.

 

This is the real humdinger.......if the allies did not have the overpowering mass of equipment, would they have overcome the superior stuff that they were facing.

 

Opinions please gentleman and ladies

 

As far as i understand German equipment (vehicles) were very "over engineered" and complex in their design, it is also known (as found at the Falaise gap) they still relied an large resources of horse drawn equipment wagons,artillery pieces etc .

 

But as history has shown i believe they would have still been defeated due to the lack of..............fuel resources as befell the panzers etc at Normandy.

 

Ashley

[Enigma]

German defeat can probably be summed up in 1 word.

 

Logistics...

[Mark]

OK one says fuel and onother says logistics, but what if they had both of these in place, would they have succeded in what they were doing ?

[ashley]

OK one says fuel and onother says logistics, but what if they had both of these in place, would they have succeded in what they were doing ?

 

 

The trouble is after the failed attack on Russia where the German forces litrally bled to death on a massive scale they lost the will to fight really and with the inclusion of many forign troops in the forces the few fanatical die hards 1943 onwards would not be enough for final victory.

 

Ashley

[sirhc]

OK one says fuel and onother says logistics, but what if they had both of these in place, would they have succeded in what they were doing ?

 

If they had good logistics, they would have had the fuel!

[ArtistsRifles]

I was just going to say then same - then read the above post - great minds think alike.

 

Consider, possibly, another issue with the German kit - it was over engineered and complex to service in the filed compared the Allied stuff. The longer a conflict drags on the more important field maintenance becomes in maintaining equipment availbility.

Now couple this with slave labour working in the production facilities doing their bet to introduce minor sabotage and you have a maintenace nightmare in the making.

[snowtracdave]

I wonder if maybe we are missing the point Mark was trying to make here - Leaving aside the logistics , the possibility of sabotage , the willingness or otherwise of the troops . I believe the question - pure and simple is - Was the machinery built & used by the Germans and their allies better designed & mechanically superior ?

[Bodge Deep]

I think overall it was... ignoring manufacturing costs and logistics the build quality of most of their equipment (vehicular anyway) was excellent...

Well supplied quantity verus poorly supplied quality was not the walkover that you'd imagine (purely in terms of equipment).

[Mark]

I wonder if maybe we are missing the point Mark was trying to make here - Leaving aside the logistics , the possibility of sabotage , the willingness or otherwise of the troops . I believe the question - pure and simple is - Was the machinery built & used by the Germans and their allies better designed & mechanically superior ?

 

 

Thank you I am glad that someone could put into proper england that I could not :-D

[Snapper]

This question will always be on the table. German engineering is hardly likely to be criticised. It was probably their choices of specification that effected them. They did not have a GMC or a jeep and relied on a disparate range of lorries and cars to do the job the Allies managed to standardise. I am no expert on the quality of their specifications. But I presume they were a tad over-engineered and complicated. This continues to evade the question, doesn't it? But I think you have to break it down into specifics - trucks, field cars, wheeled or tracked armour and so on. They'd obviously win hands down with some, and not others.

 

Vorsprung Durch Technic...as they say in Southend.

[ashley]

. They did not have a GMC or a jeep

Vorsprung Durch Technic...as they say in Southend.

 

I wouldn`t agree with this really as they had the volkswagen type 82(though only a two wheel drive 1300cc engined) vehicle and also the Opel (Blitz/ maultier) which i belive was the base vehicle for many more roles than the GMC...JUST MY THOUGHTS.

 

Ashley