F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

(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.


and as
:I pointed out, there are definite examples of German industry
:reducing their quality standards to meet production demands.
:
:cheers
:
:PS: now that the Hobbit's (Rooney) out, what will England do?

--
"So many women. So little charm."
-- Donna, to Josh; The West Wing

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 ...

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

"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 =----

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 =----

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

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

(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

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).

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