The Superior King Tiger

From: (robert arndt)

Tank Fixer wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
on 10 May 2004 05:16:45 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy was
captured from the Nazis)


Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)


some proof please.

Captured German uranium WAS used in the atomic bombs dropped over
Japan.

Prove it.

I've heard of and seen the photo of the Fat Man with the
supposed German "Warning or Danger" label on it (down low near the
tail fins)but honestly I couldn't read what the little arrow was
pointing to.

And I have seen photographs of UFOs and space aliens. Now just WHY would the
U.S. release a picture with such a thing when they spent so much time saying
they had no Nazi influence or components.

Please note that both Fatman's and Little Boy's shells were both made before
you surrendered.

Even if all the weapons grade uranium the Nazis made was in Little Boy it was
still a very small fraction of that required. You guys simply didn't have the
capacity to mass produce it.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: (Denyav)

A-Bomb was also ready and waiting for uran shipment,(Another small piece of
info that our "Great Leaders" never told us).

Prove it. Where did they get the berylium?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

Can you explain how Germany that,according to urban legends needed every
gram
of enriched uranium,loaded hundreds of kilograms in a submarine and
shipped to
the Japan?.(Cargo of U234 was not unenriched Uran,it was enriched,you must
be
very careful when spreading disinformation,containers designed for the
transport of enriched uran is much more expensive).

Bull****, if they had stacked that much highly enriched uranium
in the manner described they'd have had a prompt criticallity
event.

Keith

In message , Eunometic
writes
(Krztalizer) wrote in message news:20040
...
You realise the Sherman was four inches lower-slung than the Panther?

Damn, Paul, that's just plain low - how dare you toss facts into this
argument???

G

It was a "disproportionatly" tall tank.

It was less tall than the Panther - you seem eager to damn that capable
if overcomplicated German vehicle.

"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."

Q: If you only have 45 tons of steel and the necesary chromite,
vanadium and manganese to make it into armour do you build 1.5
shermans or 1 panther?

Personally, I'd go for 1.5 Shermans and make sure they were Fireflies.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" writes:

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

Can you explain how Germany that,according to urban legends needed every
gram
of enriched uranium,loaded hundreds of kilograms in a submarine and
shipped to
the Japan?.(Cargo of U234 was not unenriched Uran,it was enriched,you must
be
very careful when spreading disinformation,containers designed for the
transport of enriched uran is much more expensive).

Bull****, if they had stacked that much highly enriched uranium
in the manner described they'd have had a prompt criticallity
event.

It most certainly wasn't wnriched U. According to teh people I have
known who helped unload that boat, it was most likely Yellowcake.

How could the Germans have produced enriched Unranium anyway? They
had no spare Electrical power, and they didn't have the haterials on
hand to build anything above a laboratory scale that could handle UF6.
If you can't spare the metals to build proper jet engines, you can't
build an industrial plant that can handle Uranium Hexaflouride.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...

It was a "disproportionatly" tall tank.

To what description of "ideal tank proportions"? Where are these proportions
laid out?

"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."

If you think its news that the Panther was a better tank, its not.
The salient point is not which is better, it is this: at the end of the
war, JS, KV, Shermans, M-26s, and Cromwells parked on top of the wreckage
of the last smoking King Tiger and Panther hulls. We won.

The numerical superiority of the allies was not primarily due to
better production technology. It was that the Germans, infact the
whole axis, were simply outnumbered. The USA was a large nation
loaded with manpower and raw materials that was out of attack range.


Q: If you only have 45 tons of steel and the necesary chromite,
vanadium and manganese to make it into armour do you build 1.5
shermans or 1 panther?

Well, that's a little incomplete, isn't it? Add a few modifiers to that
question, such as, how many expert tank builders are required to build each,
and how many of these can effectively be fielded and supported in combat?

In theory less than 1.5. The ratio of mass of a Panther versus
Sherman.
In reality debugging the design and the production means that it will
take somewhat more resources intitially.

An
individual tank's relative usefulness to its country has to take into account
its reliability, and I would take a force of Shermans over a force of Panthers
and 70% of the time, I'd win.

The reliablity of the Panther improved to a level that it could not be
considered unreliable. Was the Sherman ever unreliable in its life
cycle.

What that translates to is that eventually, I
get to plant my flag in the middle of your garden. In a war of attritrition,
give me my 1.5 tanks over your 1.0 tanks, but remember, I get unlimited
logistics and you get a noose of steadily decreasing diameter. See, we didn't
just have that extra .5 of a tank - we had tens of thousands more, plus total
command of the air over most of our battlefields on the continent.

The general argument in these threads was that quantity and
reliabillity beets superior quality.

The realities of the situation are that Germany's resources and
manpower were significantly less. A superior tank like the Panther
gave the Germans the Chance to develop a 4:1 kill ratio with only 4-5
crew in a single 45 ton tank as opposed to 1.5 30 ton tanks requiring
7.5 crew. Despite its largers size logistics of fuel and munition
favours the panther as well I think.


http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/pantherc.html
"The Panther became one of the finest medium tanks of WW2, with a
growing increase in the number of operational Panthers and a drop in
the number of Panthers lost. Overheating was overcome by fitting a
second cooling pump and modifying the cooling distribution. Later
Panthers proved very much more reliable than the vehicles involved in
the Kursk debacle. Many of Germany's top panzer aces achieved their
finest victories with this vehicle.

The ones that survived Kursk in their early defective Panthers...

Everyone new they had been rushed into service way ahead of schedule.


Soldiers like SS-Oberscharfuhrer
Ernst Barkmann, who in an exposed spot with his sole Panther knocked
out nine American M4 Shermans before withdrawing, were quick to prove
the outstanding qualities of this tank.

He is not exactly a "typical" Panther commander, is he? In the right hands,
any weapon is lethal: consider the Brewster Buffalo in Finnish service.
Barkmann could have managed that particular crossroads defence in a Pzkw IV;
nothing about the encounter was dependent upon a unique Mk. V trait.
Barkmann's excellent tactical positioning and years of tank warfare experience
doomed those Shermans before they ever rounded that bend in the road. He was
the tanker equivalent of a surgeon and his accomplishments were due to his own
tactics and abilities - his Panther certainly helped.

The Pzkw IV was equavalent to the Sherman and T34 and with its longer
barrelled version had much more hitting power than sherman or T34/76
(accept for the firefly sherman). This of course was a reliable,
mobile and easy to manufacture tank with adaquete hitting power.
Would Barkmann have been able to do the above without the Panther?
That surely depends on the range of the engagement, did the Panther
take hits.

Too bad for Germany that we had air power, eh?

That's political and I try, a bit on this newgroup, to stay away from
it.

Nevertheless this was a fratracidal war. Looking at the state of the
world now I don't think the west or the world would have been worse of
for either having avoided a fight with the Germans or even lost it in
parts.


According to statistics of the
American army, destroying a Panther costed five Shermans or about nine
T-34's.

But on 6 May 1945, how many operational Panthers did they have, versus
how many operational Shermans and T-34s for us..?

The tanks the east, some 1200 heavies, defending Germany from the
final Red drive had less than 2-3 loads of fuel (about 400 kilometer
range). It probaly cost germany the loss of most of the annexed
eastern parts.

Without the use of fluidised bed reactors (under development) took
over 15 tons of steel to provide the synthetic fuel plant the abillity
to make just 1 barrel per day.

This is another reason to focus on using less steel in a smaller
number of heavier and superior tanks.



It was undoubtedly Germany's best tank design, giving the
almost ideal balance between armor, speed, weight and firepower."

Yep. A fine tank. Then, we overwhelmed and defeated them. End of story.

Mostly on the basis of numericaly superior manufacturing facilities
and access to raw materials. Although there is apparently much truth
to the superiroty of allied manufacturing managment this relates to
the immaturity of the resurgent German arms industry: strenuous and
effective mass production techniques were introduced. The modularised
method of ship building used in destroyers and the type XXI u-boat
seems to have been followed by the German industry post WW2.

The Me 109 was a case of the Germans following the very stratagy you
support: quantity over quality. It was easy to produce: the airframe
with its all 2 dimensional curves took about 1/4th the manhowers of
that of the spitfire by one account as far as Me 109E and MkIII
spitfire is concerned. Would you argue that the British gave up the
Spit in favour of Huricane production?

How many Pzkw Mk IV were sacrificed in order to build one Pzkw Mk V
(Panthers). If steel is the determining factor it is only 1.5 and the
Panther makes tremendous sense.

Other factors of course may have come into play such as the lower
efficiency of production due to the introduction of a new type. This
is however only an initial factor.

Given the Soviet possesion of a number of super heavy tanks something
better than the Pzkw Mk IV was needed anyway.

Furthermore the Panther was capable of growth. The already potent
75mm caliber L70 gun could be replaced by the 75mm L100 or 88 L65 or
L71. The last version under test was to receive the bigger guns, a
stereoscopic range finder, standard night vision equipment and
gyrostablisation and would have been needed to deal with Centurions
and Pershings.



"During the Ardennes offensive several Shermans were knocked out in
the middle of the night by Panthers using IR night-scopes. After
locating US tanks with the IR scope, the Germans fired flares at the
Shermans to light the target completely, and knocked them out."

"Within two months, every German soldier that participated in this engagement
was either dead, wounded, captured, or in full retreat, having abandoned their
fancy tanks long before."

This doesn't mean that buiding the Panther was an irrational decision.
It may have been optimal given the Gemran predicament in resources.



v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay.

In article ,
on 11 May 2004 16:45:21 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

Except they didn't. Most of the crews of those knocked out Shermans were in
another tank a few days later

I thought the name of M1 was Abrams not Sherman


And here I thought we were talking about world war 2 tanks.

But, matters not, the statement still stands. The majority of crews from
NMC Abrahms were able to crew a tank the next day.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on 11 May 2004 11:05:25 -0700,
robert arndt attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote in message nk.net...
In article ,
on 10 May 2004 05:16:45 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

Fat Man (last year he explained to us the uranium used in Little Boy was
captured from the Nazis)


Not uranium,but Little boy itself ( check out for German markings)


some proof please.

Captured German uranium WAS used in the atomic bombs dropped over
Japan. I've heard of and seen the photo of the Fat Man with the
supposed German "Warning or Danger" label on it (down low near the
tail fins)but honestly I couldn't read what the little arrow was
pointing to.

You can't be serious if you call this proof.

AFAIK, the Germans were only working on two radiological weapons that
were partially constructed when the war ended. The Sanger Silverbird
(aka Antipodal Bomber) program was reactivated in Feb 1945 and a
wooden mock-up was under construction at a plant in Lofer. The
hypersonic bomber if built (no chance) would theoretically have
carried a German radiological weapon, not an atomic bomb as connected
to the He-277 and Ho XVIIIB.
I believe that there may be more to the German program but I think it
is in context to the German awareness of the Japanese secret A-bomb
project going in occupied Korea. The Germans were sending uranium via
U-boat transfer and were confident their Japanese ally would make a
handful of bombs by Dec 1945.
Germany surrendered in May and Japan in Aug. While Germany's wartime
A-bomb project has been widely explored the Japanese program remains
shrouded in mystery with very little known about the main effort in
Korea, not the scientific stuff discovered in Japan.
For more about "Genzai Bakudan" read "Japan's Secret War" by Robert
Wilcox.


The German's sent Yellowcake, not refined U-235

Just where was germany geting refine u235 ?

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"Eunometic" wrote in message
m...
nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message
...

snip


Too bad for Germany that we had air power, eh?

That's political and I try, a bit on this newgroup, to stay away from
it.

Yeah, gosh forbid we get back somewhere close to being on-topic.


Nevertheless this was a fratracidal war. Looking at the state of the
world now I don't think the west or the world would have been worse of
for either having avoided a fight with the Germans or even lost it in
parts.

Unbelievable. You don't think either the West *or* the world would have been
worse off if Hitler had remained in power, if we had "lost it in parts"? You
and Arndt need to go off by yourselves and create a, "Hitler was OK by me"
group where you can commiserate with each other. How many more millions fed
through the gas chambers and ovens would have satisfied you, and how well do
you think that serves the state of today's world?

I don't agree with much of what you argue in this thread, but at least it
has been a cogent argument that you have made...right up until you blathered
the above, that is.

Brooks

snip

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Eunometic
writes
(Krztalizer) wrote in message news:20040
...
You realise the Sherman was four inches lower-slung than the Panther?

Damn, Paul, that's just plain low - how dare you toss facts into this
argument???

G

It was a "disproportionatly" tall tank.

It was less tall than the Panther - you seem eager to damn that capable
if overcomplicated German vehicle.

Merely pointing out that the Allies made mistakes as well. The
Sherman I assert could have been a better tank if it had not of been
designed for installation of an aircooled radial. That drove the
designe and I suggest it compromised protection.



"According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther
costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's."

Q: If you only have 45 tons of steel and the necesary chromite,
vanadium and manganese to make it into armour do you build 1.5
shermans or 1 panther?

Personally, I'd go for 1.5 Shermans and make sure they were Fireflies.

Personaly I'd go for a mix. With Panthers being the bulk and PzKw
IV/Sherman class and Tiger/JS2 class vehicles for specialist duties.
(Infact the US had a 60 ton tank heavier than even the Pershing in
service at the end of WW2)

The 3 inch 17 pounder was a powerfull gun however from all accounts
the APDS tungsten shot it needed to deal with Panthers and Tigers lost
accuracy rapidly. Thus while the round still had penetraion at 500m
it lost accuracy so much it was difficult to actualy obtain a hit.
On the other hand without APDS it couldn't obtain penetration except
at point blank range and with it it couldn't obtain a hit much beyond
it. Latter work (much latter) clearly debugged the issues with APDS
and the sherman received 90mm and even 105mm (lower velocity and
caliber but ideal for APDS)

The 3000fps L70 75mm of the Panther would easily obtain hits and kills
at 1500-2000m. The L100 (I suspect) would have achieved 3500 fps and
surely opened up range even further.

For whatever reason range was opening up. The Germans also had very
limited supplies of tungsten and had to rely on these hypervelocity
guns. Tungsten was reserved for machine tool production though some
was available to long barrelled Mk103 30mm canon wielding Fw190s which
could penetrate 140mm with its muzzle velicity increased by the 150m/s
of the aircraft.

Since the Germans used Uranium (they had their own mines) as a
substitute for Tungsten in hardening some of their metal cutting tools
one wonders whether they would have hit on the idea of using it as
shot or mayber even hardened some armour piercing shells with it?