If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
In sci.military.naval Keith W twisted the electrons to say:
The Panther and Tiger tanks were examples of technically advanced weapons that simply couldnt be cranked out in the numbers needed due to the complexity of their manufacture. The closest to "cheap and nasty" that I can think of on the tank front for Germany would be the Panzer IV/L70 - due mainly to them no changing the glacis plate like their did for the Jagdpanzer IV. -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ... |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
In article ,
wrote: (Harry Andreas) wrote: :In article , "Keith W" wrote: : : "Harry Andreas" wrote in message : ... : In article , : wrote: : : Note that this is sort of the same approach that lost Germany the war. : Everything was hand-finished to very high standards, while us sloppy : folks cranked out ten times as many tanks as they could because we let : the tolerances be looser and eliminated a lot of the skilled : 'touch-labor' in the finishing stages. : : Hmmm. I wouldn't ride that horse too far. : : Ever see a 1944 built Walther P-38, or Waffenfabrik Mauser? : They didn't spend nearly any time finishing them as compared to : the early war versions. : : : The German record was very mixed : :Keith, I hear ya, and the other posters who have said similar things, :but I still object to Mr McCall's statement that, in Germany, :"Everything was hand-finished to very high standards". :That's just not true. As you point out, it was very selective, Yes. The big ticket items (which was what I meant by "everything", since that is what wars are actually fought and won with) got all the hand finishing. Small stuff and aircraft designed specifically to be cheap and 'throw away' generally weren't. So object and be damned to you. Dude, you can't say "Everything" and then get mad when someone disagrees with you. Everything means everything, not some things... And I'll bet the Wehrmacht infantry would disagree with you about big ticket items winning the war. As we know so well, boots on the ground win the war, and boots on the ground are armed with rifles and other "small" arms, the quality of which, as I pointed out in my initial post, degraded substantially as the war progressed. But I'm just an engineer who builds military equipment; what do I know. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message . .. In sci.military.naval Keith W twisted the electrons to say: The Panther and Tiger tanks were examples of technically advanced weapons that simply couldnt be cranked out in the numbers needed due to the complexity of their manufacture. The closest to "cheap and nasty" that I can think of on the tank front for Germany would be the Panzer IV/L70 - due mainly to them no changing the glacis plate like their did for the Jagdpanzer IV. -- I've seen estimates that put the price of a Tiger tank as $100,000 (US 1941) as against $40,000 for a Panzer IV/L70, $ 50,000 for a Sherman M4A3(76) wet and $80,000 for an M-26 Pershing Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
On Fri, 5 May 2006 17:14:06 +0100, "Keith W"
wrote: "Alistair Gunn" wrote in message ... In sci.military.naval Keith W twisted the electrons to say: The Panther and Tiger tanks were examples of technically advanced weapons that simply couldnt be cranked out in the numbers needed due to the complexity of their manufacture. The closest to "cheap and nasty" that I can think of on the tank front for Germany would be the Panzer IV/L70 - due mainly to them no changing the glacis plate like their did for the Jagdpanzer IV. -- I've seen estimates that put the price of a Tiger tank as $100,000 (US 1941) as against $40,000 for a Panzer IV/L70, $ 50,000 for a Sherman M4A3(76) wet and $80,000 for an M-26 Pershing So...a Tiger was probably comparable to a P-38 ($115k 1945) to compare apples and cantaloupes, or to give a technology figure of merit. And nearing 10000 P-38s were built as opposed to 2000 Tigers...another of those dumbfounders as to why were the Germans so hard to beat? Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
Jack Love wrote:
I've seen estimates that put the price of a Tiger tank as $100,000 (US 1941) as against $40,000 for a Panzer IV/L70, $ 50,000 for a Sherman M4A3(76) wet and $80,000 for an M-26 Pershing So...a Tiger was probably comparable to a P-38 ($115k 1945) to compare apples and cantaloupes, or to give a technology figure of merit. And nearing 10000 P-38s were built as opposed to 2000 Tigers...another of those dumbfounders as to why were the Germans so hard to beat? I believe that "man for man" the Wehrmacht was simply the toughest most resourceful and dedicated fighting force of the modern era. They could be overwhelmed, they could be outgeneraled, they could be cut off from supplies. But it is very difficult to find cases of equal strength forces where they were outfought. Why such skill and sacrifice was expended in such an appalling cause should be debated at very high levels. . But I've been to el alamein, normandy, Anzio, Cassino, Arnhem, the Ardennes, Remagen, Berlin and many other battlefields. The sheer technical skill and personal courage of the german forces is terrifying. Vince |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
WRT German dive bombing: the type most used for that was the JU-87 Stuka and they were such dead meat for the RAF that the Luftwaffe stopped sending them over early on in BoB. cheers -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur I know this not what you are really implying, but eneogh people will read into this statement that I feel it should be mentioned....... JU-87 & Dive bombing = TACTICAL CAS Battle of Britain = STRATEGIC bombing While an improved ability to survive fighters was found to be desirable for CAS aircraft, useing the BOB as an example of why not to build dedicated CAS aircraft (don't laugh, the USAF has done exactly that multiple times) is BOGUS. Stukas did poorly in the BOB after doing well in the low countries becouse it was a completly differnt mission and tactical environment then one for which it was designed and trained for, not becouse it was newly obsolete to the mighty british technology advancements. Reed |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
(Harry Andreas) wrote:
:In article , wrote: : : (Harry Andreas) wrote: : : :In article , "Keith W" : wrote: : : : : "Harry Andreas" wrote in message : : ... : : In article , : : wrote: : : : : Note that this is sort of the same approach that lost Germany the war. : : Everything was hand-finished to very high standards, while us sloppy : : folks cranked out ten times as many tanks as they could because we let : : the tolerances be looser and eliminated a lot of the skilled : : 'touch-labor' in the finishing stages. : : : : Hmmm. I wouldn't ride that horse too far. : : : : Ever see a 1944 built Walther P-38, or Waffenfabrik Mauser? : : They didn't spend nearly any time finishing them as compared to : : the early war versions. : : : : : : The German record was very mixed : : : :Keith, I hear ya, and the other posters who have said similar things, : :but I still object to Mr McCall's statement that, in Germany, : :"Everything was hand-finished to very high standards". : :That's just not true. As you point out, it was very selective, : : Yes. The big ticket items (which was what I meant by "everything", : since that is what wars are actually fought and won with) got all the : hand finishing. Small stuff and aircraft designed specifically to be : cheap and 'throw away' generally weren't. : : So object and be damned to you. : ude, you can't say "Everything" and then get mad when someone :disagrees with you. Everything means everything, not some things... Dude, I don't "get mad". It's only Usenet. Try and rent a clue... -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
Paul J. Adam wrote: Vince wrote: I believe that "man for man" the Wehrmacht was simply the toughest most resourceful and dedicated fighting force of the modern era. They could be overwhelmed, they could be outgeneraled, they could be cut off from supplies. But it is very difficult to find cases of equal strength forces where they were outfought. Opinions vary, to be honest (with a consistent grouping around "very good", to be sure). Read Max Hastings' "Overlord" and you'll marvel at how the far-superior Wehrmacht won the battle of Normandy (or at least, be bemused how they could ever have been dislodged). Sydney Jary - hindered by the baggage of actually having commanded an infantry platoon for some months 1944-45 - was less impressed with the German infantry skills, which he saw as repetition of opening fire, then disengaging before the assault came in. But I've been to el alamein, normandy, Anzio, Cassino, Arnhem, the Ardennes, Remagen, Berlin and many other battlefields. The sheer technical skill and personal courage of the german forces is terrifying. Flipping it around, though - if you can't make an attacker's life an expensive and painful misery at places like Monte Cassino or the Normandy bocage, what use are you? And when the Germans were faced with assaulting an extensively-prepared defence - such as First Alamein or even more dramatically Kursk, they failed too. -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk Given the date on your posting 4:06 am on May 7 please inform me as to which horse won the kentucky Derby! 50 From: Paul J. Adam - view profile Date: Sun, May 7 2006 4:06 am Email: "Paul J. Adam" Groups: sci.military.naval, rec.aviation.military, rec.aviation.military.naval Not yet rated Rating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Vince wrote: I believe that "man for man" the Wehrmacht was simply the toughest most resourceful and dedicated fighting force of the modern era. They could be overwhelmed, they could be outgeneraled, they could be cut off from supplies. But it is very difficult to find cases of equal strength forces where they were outfought. Opinions vary, to be honest (with a consistent grouping around "very good", to be sure). Read Max Hastings' "Overlord" and you'll marvel at how the far-superior Wehrmacht won the battle of Normandy (or at least, be bemused how they could ever have been dislodged). |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
Paul J. Adam wrote:
Vince wrote: I believe that "man for man" the Wehrmacht was simply the toughest most resourceful and dedicated fighting force of the modern era. They could be overwhelmed, they could be outgeneraled, they could be cut off from supplies. But it is very difficult to find cases of equal strength forces where they were outfought. Opinions vary, to be honest (with a consistent grouping around "very good", to be sure). Read Max Hastings' "Overlord" and you'll marvel at how the far-superior Wehrmacht won the battle of Normandy (or at least, be bemused how they could ever have been dislodged). once we had landed in Normandy (an incredible feat to be sure) we had overwhelming strength at any point. The German defense was tenacious and skill full and if Hitler had not interfered, far more of the German forces could have been withdrawn. Sydney Jary - hindered by the baggage of actually having commanded an infantry platoon for some months 1944-45 - was less impressed with the German infantry skills, which he saw as repetition of opening fire, then disengaging before the assault came in. But I've been to el alamein, normandy, Anzio, Cassino, Arnhem, the Ardennes, Remagen, Berlin and many other battlefields. The sheer technical skill and personal courage of the german forces is terrifying. Flipping it around, though - if you can't make an attacker's life an expensive and painful misery at places like Monte Cassino or the Normandy bocage, what use are you? And when the Germans were faced with assaulting an extensively-prepared defence - such as First Alamein or even more dramatically Kursk, they failed too. the Kursk was simply overwhelmingly strong. The Battle of Prokhorovka Showed the fundamental German problem. About 200 German armored fighting vehicles confront about 500 Russian , inflict far more losses than they sustain, but are unable to make good the losses and have to retreat (yes I know there are controversies over the numbers) Vince |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
Jet Ranger Operating Costs? | greenwavepilot | Owning | 5 | February 3rd 05 03:31 PM |
The frustrating economics of aviation | C J Campbell | Piloting | 96 | July 21st 04 04:41 PM |
Club Management Issue | Geoffrey Barnes | Owning | 150 | March 30th 04 06:36 PM |
Angle of climb at Vx and glide angle when "overweight": five questions | Koopas Ly | Piloting | 16 | November 29th 03 10:01 PM |