WWII quality....the manufacturers.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Glider

I cannot comment on all the nations but it did vary. The USA tended to have the highest quality of finish in the weapons produced. Certainly my Grandfather was astonished when he picked up his Liberty ship. It even had an Ice Cream machine which he had never seen before and it AA guns would shame a typical british escort.

As for the UK it did vary. Aircraft were as well built as anyones, ships were simple but reliable but our tanks were awfull, not just design but in quality of Production.

I think the first really "good" British tank was the Comet of late '44 from what I've heard. The Valentine was more reliable than the cruiser tanks (Crusader etc.) but too small. The irony is that the best commonwealth tank in 1941 was the Canadian "Ram' which was never used in comat. It's one great flaw was that the British Tank commision over-ruled Col. Worthington (who wanted a 60 inch turret ring - big enough for the 75mm) and so it was only able to carry the standard Brit 6 pounder. (57 mm) It used most of the running gear of the US Grant, but had better armour, better radio equip, lower profile & a 360' turret.

By the time the Brit's got a really good design, on the Centurion, the war was over!

Ram mk. II at CFB Borden

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by ppopsie

If we had learned the QC before making Zero, we would have fought better a lot.

If Deming went to Japan in 1936, Japan might of won the war!

[Glider]

Originally Posted by freebird

I think the first really "good" British tank was the Comet of late '44 from what I've heard. The Valentine was more reliable than the cruiser tanks (Crusader etc.) but too small. The irony is that the best commonwealth tank in 1941 was the Canadian "Ram' which was never used in comat. It's one great flaw was that the British Tank commision over-ruled Col. Worthington (who wanted a 60 inch turret ring - big enough for the 75mm) and so it was only able to carry the standard Brit 6 pounder. (57 mm) It used most of the running gear of the US Grant, but had better armour, better radio equip, lower profile & a 360' turret.

By the time the Brit's got a really good design, on the Centurion, the war was over!

Ram mk. II at CFB Borden

Have to agree with every word of this posting, but its worth noting that even the Comet didn't have any sloping armour.

[freebird]

Yes it would have been nice to see the 8th army using Canadian tanks at El Alamein. But of course it would have been even better to see a Canadian army in "Torch", unfortunately our government was playing stupid politics, so we would up doing "Jubilee" instead. (Dieppe)

Interestingly, although the reference books say that the Ram's 60" turret ring could not mount a 75mm, the Dutch managed to do this with the Ram's they got after the war. The Ram had better armour (25 - 78mm) than ANY of the main Allied tanks in 1942 or 1943 except the Churchill. (although the Russian had better sloped) The Ram had semi-sloped armour I guess, but rounded in the front.

Allied tank armour

M-3 Grant 25 -50mm
M-4 Sherman 25-50 mm
T-34 14 - 45 mm
Matilda 20-78 mm
Valentine 8 - 65 mm
Churchill 16 - 102 mm

[AL Schlageter]

Were not Rams used as APCs, called the Kangaroo. The Sexton SPG was based on the Ram.

[Soren]

Well I think it was and is still the general rule that the Germans prioritize quality over quantity more than any of the other countries involved here, and sometimes that proves to be their downfall.

Take a look at the AFV's of each country, the German AFV's clearly stand out in terms quality & finish featuring absolutely top quality & beautiful welds, optics, refined surfaces, polstery etc etc. The same goes for the German a/c (Take a look at how all was covered in the cockpits, esp. those of FW a/c), and although the lack raw materials meant that substitute metals sometimes had to be used the finish was always excellent.

German guns & projectiles were also of unmatched quality throughout the war, take for example the MG-42, it is still is widespread use today and is still considered by many the best LMG available. Or the K98K, the exact action being used by over 80% of all bolt action rifles today.

German optical range finders on tanks being copied and used by all tanks from post WW2 and up until the introduction of laser range finders. And Zeiss continues to provide the best tank optics to date.

There's also anti tank & tank guns, a field where Germany was completely ahead throughout WW2 and still is today. Krupp & Rheinmetall designed & produced the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 for the Tiger Ausf.B in 1943, the deadliest gun to be mounted on a tank with a turret during WW2, and in 1979 they designed & produced the 12cm L/44 smoothbore gun, at the time the most precise & powerful tank gun in the world, used today by the Leopard 2 & M1A1/2 Abrams. The gun was only recently surpassed in performance by the 12cm Rheinmetall L/55 gun mounted on the Leopard 2A6, the new gun adding an extra 200 m/s velocity to any AP projectile being fired.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by AL Schlageter

Were not Rams used as APCs, called the Kangaroo. The Sexton SPG was based on the Ram.

You are correct. There was also a version the "Badger" a flame tank, and the original configuration RAM was used as a command tank, with extra radio eqip & a dummy gun.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by freebird

Yes it would have been nice to see the 8th army using Canadian tanks at El Alamein. But of course it would have been even better to see a Canadian army in "Torch", unfortunately our government was playing stupid politics, so we would up doing "Jubilee" instead. (Dieppe)

Tanks and AFV are certainly one of the araes where my knowledge is not as good as in other areas.

In your opinion how do you think these Candian AFV's would have held up against the German tanks?

[freebird]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Tanks and AFV are certainly one of the araes where my knowledge is not as good as in other areas.

In your opinion how do you think these Candian AFV's would have held up against the German tanks?

Absolutely, the Canadian Ram could have bested the Germans! (and not just Canadian patriotism here LOL) If the Ram had been built as originally proposed by the Canadians (75mm version) it would have made a dramatic difference, even the modified version, (after the British had changed the main gun to the 6-pounder - 57 mm) was still the best American or Commonwealth tank. (Sherman had better gun but poorer armour - it arrived Aug/Sept 1942)

The British 6-pounder anti-tank gun was higher velocity, its anti-tank performance in 1942 was almost as good as the lower velocity 75 mm in the Grant. The performance of the US 76 mm (later Shermans) was much better, but wasn't around in 1942. In the desert in 1942 the British 6-pounder could penetrate any German tank in the Africa Korps

The US M-3, (Grant) first produced from May 1941, and was first used in Combat mid 1942. (Eur. theatre) At the battle of Gazala, (May 27, '42) the shortcomings of the tank were noticed (too high silhouette, limited traverse, hull mounted 75 mm prevented hull-down use), and the British armour could not cope with the Germans.

The Canadian RAM (first production was Aug of 1941), was developed very quickly, by using the engine & drivetrain of the M-3 Grant. The Ram improved on the M-3 design by increasing the frontal armour from 50 to 78 mm, main gun was turreted (allowing the use of hull-down), adding a turret radio & lowering the profile by 18". The added weight of the armour only lowered the speed by 1 mph (Grant - 26 mph, Ram 25 mph)

It basically corrected the problems of the other '40 - '42 British AFV's - Crusader was too lightly armoured (7 - 40mm), only had the 40mm gun & very unreliable (breakdowns!); Both the Valentine & Matilda II were too slow (15 mph) and had the smaller 40 mm main gun; and the Grant's problems as forementioned.

Remember that at this time the best German tanks (in the desert 1942) were the Pz III with the 50 mm gun, and the Pz IV with the low-velocity 75 mm. By August of 1942 Rommel only had about 30 of the new Pz IV "F" with the high velocity long 75mm. In 1942 both the Pz. III & Pz IV had armour of 10-30 mm, some were up-armoured to 10 - 50 mm (But most were not) and none were proof against the British 57mm gun.

if the Ram's had been sent to the desert in early '42 I think it is far less likely that the British would have suffered the heavy defeats of spring/summer 1942!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thanks for your opinion on the matter. As I said AFV's are not really the area that I read to much about and to be honest I knew very little about the Ram.

[Soren]

The Ram would've faired no better at all, the 88's of the DAK would turn the Ram inside-out at ranges of up to 3km, just as they did to Monty's Matildas, and the Pzkpfw. IV with the 7.5cm L/43 gun would outfight it just as easily as it did the Sherman, Grant & Matilda.

The 6 pdr was a short range weapon, at long ranges its performance was poor, so it certainly wasn't a very good gun on the long range desert battlefield. It was only really effective when firing APDS rounds at close range.

[The Basket]

I remember reading about a factory fresh Spitfire been destroyed on its first mission. It lasted about an hour.

So you could argue that any combat machine would have a low life expectancy and should be built accordingly.

That where the Soviets scored.

[AL Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Soren

The Ram would've faired no better at all, the 88's of the DAK would turn the Ram inside-out at ranges of up to 3km, just as they did to Monty's Matildas, and the Pzkpfw. IV with the 7.5cm L/43 gun would outfight it just as easily as it did the Sherman, Grant & Matilda.

Yet the Sherman help push the DAK out of North Africa and all the way back to almost Berlin.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Soren

The Ram would've faired no better at all, the 88's of the DAK would turn the Ram inside-out at ranges of up to 3km, just as they did to Monty's Matildas, and the Pzkpfw. IV with the 7.5cm L/43 gun would outfight it just as easily as it did the Sherman, Grant & Matilda.

The 6 pdr was a short range weapon, at long ranges its performance was poor, so it certainly wasn't a very good gun on the long range desert battlefield. It was only really effective when firing APDS rounds at close range.

Yes, and the British 17 pounder antitank gun could crack open German tanks at that range too!
The goal was not to engage the emplaced 88's with your tanks!!!

There were no Pz IV L/43's until mid '42, by the time of El Alamein there were still less than 30. The Ram could have been in Africa by the beginning of 1942.

The point is that the better armour & profile of the Ram would be much better against the 300 - 500 German tanks in Africa with the 50mm or short 75mm, and would still improve its chances against the 25 - 30 Pz IVs with the long 75mm gun. There were also a good # of the German 37mm & 50mm antitank guns, they were certainly not all 88's

The 6 pounder was by no means the "ideal" weapon, but as all other British tanks in early '42 had the 2 pounder 40mm gun (a few CS Matilda's had 75mm howitzer) the 6 pounder was certainly an improvement. The 6 pounder field gun had some good success at Gazala & Alamein.

The battle at El Alamein was more of a defensive engagement, with a strong British assault slowly battering through Rommel's minefields & defences. My point was that the Ram would have made a bigger difference in the early '42 battles, in which there was more movement & less "set-piece" defence. It would be hard to argue against using the best tank available, compared to what was on hand, Crusaders & Valentines, which had less armour & smaller gun.

[freebird]

The question from DerAdler was how it would hold up to the German tanks. Yes, any Allied tank was probably scrap if it ran into emplaced 88's, just as the German tanks would be hammered if they tried to push through the British 17 & 25 pounder guns. That was the trick that Rommel used several times, to lure the Allied tanks into his line of 88's.

The British were in a fairly good position after the end of "Crusader" (Nov/Dec 1941) when they had beaten Rommel and captured several hundred German tanks. After a several month lull, there was the key battle at "Gazala" beginning on the 26 of May 1942. There was a large tank vs tank battle lasting several days in the "Cauldron". The British nearly had Rommel beaten, but a German Panzer counterattack (early June) could not be contained by the British armour, and broke the British position. The result of the battle was a disaster for the British, who lost Tobruk and retreated all the way into Egypt. The Ram tank would certainly have done far better against the German Panzers, compared to the weaker Crusaders & Matilda's etc.