Why Allied & Soviet equipment was superior

schwarzpanzer · 02-22-2006, 06:51 AM

It's easy; ease of use.

Simply; simplicity!

The Spitfire vs the Me109 & FW 190's vicious traits.

All were roughly equal performance & pilot wise.

A German pilot test flying a Spit said how he felt at ease in it.

The German planes were waiting to bite the pilot.

Think if you were tired, which you'd rather fly?

The Mosin-Nagant, Lee-Enfield and M1 Garand were also easier to use than the K98k.

The Panzers needed to be used with extreme skill to be maintained and handled, the Allied/Soviet tanks were steady away.

IMHO by making equipment foolproof, you make it superior.

Of course give your Elites complicated/prototype stuff, but not your entire Armed Forces - as they just can't make good use of it.

syscom3 · 02-22-2006, 10:50 AM

More than one Sherman tank crewman wished he had something similar to the Panther or Tiger.

gaussianum · 02-22-2006, 01:05 PM

Didn't the KommandoGeraet (I think this is what they called the device that controlled mixture and other engine settings), in the FW-190, make it easier and far more efficient to fly in combat situations, than any contemporary fighters?

It is true , however, that german designs were overengineered, and too complex to be easily mass-produced.

Russian designs were superior in that respect, the philosophy being that even a farmer could have the possibility of jumping into a T-34, and fight with it, for example.

Don't know about allied designs.

I have read several books, in which american tanks are considered unreliable, or something of the sort. But in this case, the results speak for themselves. I think german panzers knocked out Shermans and Grants with a kill-to-loss ratio that is quite amazing.

But this forum is about planes, not tanks.

Soren · 02-22-2006, 02:02 PM

Schwarz you're way outta line here !

evangilder · 02-22-2006, 02:29 PM

I don't agree. Making it simpler does not make it better, just makes it easier to produce and thus you can create a lot of them. But sometimes more advanced machines hold an advantage because they have capabilities that simpler machines do not have.

schwarzpanzer · 02-22-2006, 02:59 PM

Why do you say that Soren?

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

More than one Sherman tank crewman wished he had something similar to the Panther or Tiger.

True, he would have gotten it too (Firefly or Pershing) had the decision to concentrate on the 'standard' Sherman been taken.

Old Sherman crews were still wanting answers about this, last I heard.

gaussianum:

Quote:

Didn't the KommandoGeraet (I think this is what they called the device that controlled mixture and other engine settings), in the FW-190, make it easier and far more efficient to fly in combat situations, than any contemporary fighters?

Yes, there was something niggling me about the FW190 - that was it! Thanks gaussianum.

Quote:

Don't know about allied designs.

I have read several books, in which american tanks are considered unreliable, or something of the sort.

Yes and no, the Allied engines could give trouble, depending on the version, but the rest was beautifully put together IMHO.

e.g. the Shermans radial, Churchill's engine, Mathilda's steering and the fact that the Stuart had 2 engines that needed syncronising complicated matters, but whereas German Tech got more complicated, Allied Tech got better.

Quote:

I think german panzers knocked out Shermans and Grants with a kill-to-loss ratio that is quite amazing.

It was due to the Blitz and Anti-Tank abilities that dictated the designs/upgrades. If the Allied designers had been given similar criteria... - The Mathilda II is a great (and unfortunately almost unique) example, a good heavy tank as opposed to a pointless infantry tank - but that's another story...

evangilder:

Quote:

I don't agree. Making it simpler does not make it better, just makes it easier to produce and thus you can create a lot of them.

Quantity is a quality.

Quote:

But sometimes more advanced machines hold an advantage because they have capabilities that simpler machines do not have.

What exactly?

German equipment is often complicated just for the sake of it.

Simplification happened, but sometimes went too far (e.g. deleting escape hatches etc).

The Panzers were probably more comfortable than all the Soviet tanks, and those of the Allies I'd say. This was Walter Christie's theory.

How you feel about equipment could also be on it's reputation i.e. Tiger or Sherman?

Being issued sub-standard equipment hardly boosts morale.

gaussianum · 02-22-2006, 05:37 PM

You're welcome,

Quantity may be a military quality, but it is not a design or engineering quality.

Since you're into tanks, you probably know a lot better than I do, the reasons why german panzers were so effective. One of those reasons had nothing to do with engines or armour, or gunpower.

Surely you must've heard of Zeiss optics. German optics were so superior to the allied's that the germans knocked out allied tanks which were kilometers away (I think the record stands at about 10 Kms), before they even knew what was going on. I'm not even going to mention the german superiority in crew training and experience.

Do you know how hard it is to create a good lens? I once started building a telescope, and you know how I molded the main mirror? Sandpaper. That's right. It took me and a colleague a month before it even resembled a parabolic shape. Don't know the methods the germans used, but I would bet that they were still very laborious.

This is where quality plays a fundamental part. What is the point of building 10 tanks with substandard optics, and a big gun, if you know that the enemy will destroy you at a much longer range?

Only a massive numerical superiority (which the allieds had, and used) can counter such a difference in quality.

Since we're mostly talking about aircraft designs and characteristics, I would think that aircraft production efficiency would be a slightly secondary issue. I don't think that alone can make a design superior to another one.

As a specific example: what would happen if you pit 100 Fokkers against a single F-16?

As you see, quantity alone is not a very good yardstick.

Let's not discuss tanks anymore, this is not the right thread or forum.

Best Regards

loomaluftwaffe · 02-23-2006, 01:06 AM

look, the germans arent retards, they wouldnt make it more complicated without making it better then sending 14 yr old boys to play with it outside.

German planes are twitchy little mean things that you need to get used to, before you can hack that Spitfire/'stang/p38/p51 apart

They make their planes like that cause that was the concept, they werent like the soviets, wherein their machines can be used by any random bystander.

Soren · 02-23-2006, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Why do you say that Soren?

Because you're spilling out lies, thats why.

R988 · 02-23-2006, 08:35 AM

I was watching Stalingrad (the movie) the other day and the Germans were depicted as dumping their guns for Soviet PPsh41s as they 'didn't jam' in the harsh environment. The Soviet stuff has always been simple for the peasants to use (eg Ak47), it's usually inferior to other equipment, but it does work when you need it I guess, thats more important in the heat of battle, the most accurate gun in the world isn't much good if it wont fire. OTOH some allied soldiers would also pinch German Luger handguns as they were also a well made gun. I think generally in war the natural pessimism is that the enemy has the superior weapon, the old grass is greener on the other side.

I have also heard more 109s were lost to landing accidents than enemy fire, but I've never checked that fact? P39s were notoriously unstable though, and there were many other allied aircraft with potentially lethal handling tendancies, the main difference being that the western allies could afford the time for proper training, the soviets had enough people and such a low value on human life that they didn't mind losing huge numbers of pilots/troops, the Germans didn't really have either of these luxuries, especially by the end of the war.

Dogwalker · 02-23-2006, 10:47 AM

Even the Tokarev SVT 40 was considered a much desiderable prey for wermacht's soldiers, second only to the soviet boots.

DogW

Erich · 02-23-2006, 10:53 AM

none of the Soviet equipments were superior to anything of the Wehrmacht

Superior may not necessarily be the right word to use in this thread

syscom3 · 02-23-2006, 11:24 AM

Dont know if its true or not, but wasnt one of the drawbacks of the Tiger tank was its complicated suspension system? If one of the wheels (I cant remember the correct term for them) had to be replaced, you almost had to take all of them off.

KraziKanuK · 02-23-2006, 11:24 AM

There is superior and then there is superior.

From a technical point, the German stuff (ie ground) was 'superior', though overly complex and labour intensive to manufacture. The Allied stuff on the other hand, was 'superior' in that it could be produce relatively easily, ie quicker, which put more units in the field.

It took 300,000 man hours to build one Tiger, almost twice as much time as a Panther required.

The average cost of a Tiger was 250,000 Reichsmarks. In comparison, a PzKpfw III cost RM 96,200, a PzKpfw IV RM 103,500, and a PzKpfw V Panther RM 117,000; all these figures are exclusive of weapons and radios. The Tiger cost $100,000 in 1941 U.S. dollars.

Erich · 02-23-2006, 11:37 AM

the thread question is too generalized.............

we should probably talk about a/c and or armor plus ammo, the guns in general, optics, engines/tranny's, etc ......

the Tiger 1's engine plus the King's were dogs, consuming too much fuel sources. break downs were inevitable and because of late war, parts at a premium. the werkstatt Kompanies were always moving sometimes to the point the existing armor on the Ost front did not know where there workshop was located in all the chaos

do you follow ?