Toxn

You forgot liberty ships, penicillin and the pigeon-guided bomb. You know the Nazi's would have wet themselves over the first two. And would have fielded the last and then awarded the pigeons tiny iron crosses posthumously 
 
I guess the cavity magnetron (which is why allied radar was so far ahead of the Axis stuff) should also count. The Germans actually stole this one the first chance they could.
 

You forgot liberty ships, penicillin and the pigeon-guided bomb. You know the Nazi's would have wet themselves over the first two. And would have fielded the last and then awarded the pigeons tiny iron crosses posthumously 
 
I guess the cavity magnetron (which is why allied radar was so far ahead of the Axis stuff) should also count. The Germans actually stole this one the first chance they could.
 

I'm struggling to understand your take here. You can't calculate armour thickness values (120mm at 60' is over 200mm btw), but the Germans would be thrilled to have the IS-2 regardless.
Also, the Tiger's turret rotation et al sucked but (per your previous) Tiger had a 'load of features' that the IS-2 was poorer without.
 
Also LOL at "dismantling breakthroughs". Glad to see that the Germans were heroically repulsing the enemy while being pushed back to Berlin. Rather than, you know, getting pushed back and then launching local counter-attacks to provide time for the line to reform to the rear.
 
Because I'm right, you putz.
 
Man, that KwK42. So much better than 17 pounder because it gets slightly less performance out of an L70 barrel than the British got out of an L55 one. Truly a wonder of design rather than just being, you know, fine.
 
Funny how other tanks of comparable weight to Panther didn't need double torsion bars and interleaved road wheels to work, no?
 
The similarities to Panther just keep cropping up, don't they? I'll say it again: Centurion is just Panther done competently.
 
Wrong. God's sake, man. Read up on things before you spout whatever drivel got poured into your ear by the History Channel or that one kid on YouTube. Jumbos lead columns on long road marches (you know, that thing that Shermans did that Panthers certainly didn't) specifically to soak up anti-tank fire. The only major problems with them were ground pressure and the fact that the US only saw fit to make a few hundred rather than a few thousand.
 
It's the definition of mediocre. Literally middle of the road in terms of power density.
 
Again, the thing doesn't even use that advantage. It manages to be mediocre in terms of crew comfort as well. So your train of logic goes something like: use taller engine to save length -> make longer anyway for more crew comfort -> don't make the crew particularly comfortable.
 
That's the precise problem with the Panther from a design standpoint - there were all of these compromises made due to features that "had" to be put in for reasons of preference rather than design necessity (the front-mounted transmission and drives, the turret in the centre of the hull, the interleaved road wheels, the thicker front hull), the compromises then leading to further compromises which just made the whole thing worse. So the result is that you have a 47-tonne tank packing all the features of a 35-tonne one (including a 1.65m turret ring). Hell, even it's contemporaries in terms of weight (like M26) managed to have more armour, upgrade potential and mechanical reliability. And they were considered flawed beasts.
 
Do you see how insane your arguments are once you step back from gormlessly defending the damn thing and look at the bigger picture?
 
Which, again, the Panther didn't manage because it's suspension setup was overloaded, prone to jamming and clogging and hard to service. Again - stupid decisions lead to design compromises that erased any theoretical advantages.
 
This has been dealt with already. Again, know your history. 

I gave you reports in my post which clearly speak about German early tanks and specifically Pz.III as having brittle armor and producing a lot of spalling. If you just delete it from quote of my post it won't disappear from history.  
 
So again:
 
Here you go with just a few photos of early Panzers with cracked armor 

"Average lifespan" bruv. 
 
Well yes, because they operated Panthers for years longer than the Germans did, and without the constraints that are usually cited as affecting the German vehicles beyond the design itself.
No, it indicates that they were monstrously unreliable. One example is merely a data point, yes. But eventually you end up with a trend.
Nope. The Shermans did get better replacement parts and servicing (because the US can into logistics and late-war Germany couldn't) but they're more reliable beasts too. By any conceivable metric.
What are you on about? The Maybach engine is huge!
It's something like 1.2x1x1.3 metres (l/w/h) and puts out 440kW. That's 0.28W/cc.
The V-2-34 is more compactly dimensioned height-wise (1.5x0.8x0.9m) and puts out 340kW. Which, if you can do maths, means that its specific power is around 0.3W/cc. Meaning that the Maybach is ever so slightly subpar when compared to a soviet diesel engine from 1937.
 
As to "choosing between mobility, protection and firepower" - the IS-2 is more heavily armoured, has better firepower, is more mobile and weighs two tonnes less. How's that for optimization?
 
Finally; "a generation above it's contemporaries"? Fucking really? A tank which was copied by no-one, whose technologies inspired no great interest, and whose legacy was a few years in the service of armies who ditched them the second they could?
 
That's not a generation ahead of anything. That's stillbirth. The T-44 was half a generation ahead (and T-54 was all the way). The Centurion was everything the Panther was trying to be but actually successful (and even then sired no direct line of vehicles). Even the M26 was a harbinger of tank development to come. The Panther was simply a dead end, the inevitable product of a dysfunctional system. Which is not to say that it was useless, didn't have positive attributes, or that it didn't have a valid operational use once conceived and put into service. But definitely far short of being good, much less great.

Even this stuff is overblown. 
 
Yeah the 262, made it into service, it was trash, and the P-80 and Meteor were better. Granted the P-80 didn't see combat, but that's because the US was taking its time testing it. The Germans put their trash into the sky as soon as it was viable, because they were desperate. 
 
They had the Fritz-X we had the BAT. 
 
The STG-44 was not very good, was issued with a single magazine and there was a shortage, making it kind of useless.  The AK was not based on it.  Even so, I guess we can give them a little kudos here for producing a trash Weapon that would have influence on the future. 
 
On the HS-293, V1 and V2, they get credit. So that's one and half to far. 
 
Not a single tank could make the list of buck rogers like weapons.   They had that one stupid sub, that was a good idea, but was so poorly built, like most German stuff, it wasn't really viable. 
 
Now, if you really want to talk about where the German of WWII was innovative?  Mass Murder.  After years of trial and error, they figured out how to murder millions of people and destroy the bodies! They were truly on the cutting edge of mass murder technology!
 
Things they sucked at? Food productions, ships of any kind, logistics and winning wars. 
 
Things the Allies do not get credit for that were actually pretty amazing for their time.
 
The US 90mm M1,2, and 3 radar controlled AA guns. The 88 was a trash AA guns, the 90 was very good. 
The Proximity fuze. 
Code breaking and useful military intelligence systems.
Long range Bombers. 
Aircraft engines. 
Sonar and Radar.
The Stabilizer system in the Sherman and Lee. Yes the fucking Lee had a stabilizers on BOTH GUNS!  
Factories with production lines 
Automated Welders. 
 
Also, the Atomic Bomb. And no, the Nazis were not even close. 
 
So Nazi Germany gets Rockets and the technology of Mass Murder.   The people making excuses for their shitty equipment make themselves look like ignorant twats at best, or a fucking Nazi apologist at worst.  
 

I'm struggling to understand your take here. You can't calculate armour thickness values (120mm at 60' is over 200mm btw), but the Germans would be thrilled to have the IS-2 regardless.
Also, the Tiger's turret rotation et al sucked but (per your previous) Tiger had a 'load of features' that the IS-2 was poorer without.
 
Also LOL at "dismantling breakthroughs". Glad to see that the Germans were heroically repulsing the enemy while being pushed back to Berlin. Rather than, you know, getting pushed back and then launching local counter-attacks to provide time for the line to reform to the rear.
 
Because I'm right, you putz.
 
Man, that KwK42. So much better than 17 pounder because it gets slightly less performance out of an L70 barrel than the British got out of an L55 one. Truly a wonder of design rather than just being, you know, fine.
 
Funny how other tanks of comparable weight to Panther didn't need double torsion bars and interleaved road wheels to work, no?
 
The similarities to Panther just keep cropping up, don't they? I'll say it again: Centurion is just Panther done competently.
 
Wrong. God's sake, man. Read up on things before you spout whatever drivel got poured into your ear by the History Channel or that one kid on YouTube. Jumbos lead columns on long road marches (you know, that thing that Shermans did that Panthers certainly didn't) specifically to soak up anti-tank fire. The only major problems with them were ground pressure and the fact that the US only saw fit to make a few hundred rather than a few thousand.
 
It's the definition of mediocre. Literally middle of the road in terms of power density.
 
Again, the thing doesn't even use that advantage. It manages to be mediocre in terms of crew comfort as well. So your train of logic goes something like: use taller engine to save length -> make longer anyway for more crew comfort -> don't make the crew particularly comfortable.
 
That's the precise problem with the Panther from a design standpoint - there were all of these compromises made due to features that "had" to be put in for reasons of preference rather than design necessity (the front-mounted transmission and drives, the turret in the centre of the hull, the interleaved road wheels, the thicker front hull), the compromises then leading to further compromises which just made the whole thing worse. So the result is that you have a 47-tonne tank packing all the features of a 35-tonne one (including a 1.65m turret ring). Hell, even it's contemporaries in terms of weight (like M26) managed to have more armour, upgrade potential and mechanical reliability. And they were considered flawed beasts.
 
Do you see how insane your arguments are once you step back from gormlessly defending the damn thing and look at the bigger picture?
 
Which, again, the Panther didn't manage because it's suspension setup was overloaded, prone to jamming and clogging and hard to service. Again - stupid decisions lead to design compromises that erased any theoretical advantages.
 
This has been dealt with already. Again, know your history. 

I'm posting this again because 1) I think I'm funny, and 2) because some folk still need to get the fucking message.
 
Also: tank tier list when?

Ya, being on the defensive for three years in a total war does wonders for your kill ratio. Having most of Western Europe and a big chunk of the East to pillage also helps (although read Tooze for why having all that real estate didn't translate into a win on the logistical level).
 
And nobody's denying that the German army was good at tactics and wars of manoeuvre. They have been since the dawn of the modern era.
 
What we're arguing about here was whether their kit (and specifically post-1942) was any good. Again, not so much - lots of late-war German stuff seemed to put a premium on gee-whiz factor over boring things like reliability or efficiency.
 
But we can go deeper still. When evaluating a design you need to look into the context of the human and material systems which build, operate and support it. So we can ask: was it fitted for their operational and strategic needs? Did it align with their doctrine? Were the logistics up to the task of supporting it? Did it have a coherent, sane development process based on real requirements? Did it meet them?
 
Tell me with a straight face that the answer to most of those questions was "yes".

Oh indeed, and no doubt they wouldn't stop there. Germans are very resourceful after all! They'd also redesign the hull for a low profile, sponsonless arrangement with rear drive, switch from interleaved roadwheels to a Christie type arrangement, delete the bow gunner, redesign the exhaust system, replace the troublesome turret traverse mechanism, integrate new unity periscopes for every crew station, delete the unnecessarily complex and difficult to replace dual torsion bars with a slicker single bar arrangement, redesign the KwK 43 to have a concentric recoil mechanism and enlarge the bore to 105mm for new Hohlladungsgeschosse projectiles, delete the interlocking plate welding scheme and use automatic welders, convert over to production lines, switch the manufacturer from MAN to Daimler Benz, and have the tanks license-produced in the USA.

This also reminds me that the M48 is sexy as hell.
Curvy tonks best tonks.

I'm posting this again because 1) I think I'm funny, and 2) because some folk still need to get the fucking message.
 
Also: tank tier list when?

For a guy on a history-centric forum you know fuck-all history.
Go read about West Germany sometime.

They sort of were sort of weren't. The engineering manager's grift was a baked in feature of the late Nazi state. So they created tons of, effectively, research projects that they then used as weapons. This really just means they were the only ones daft enough to do this, not that they were necessarily meaningfully ahead in these areas.
 

"Average lifespan" bruv. 
 
Well yes, because they operated Panthers for years longer than the Germans did, and without the constraints that are usually cited as affecting the German vehicles beyond the design itself.
No, it indicates that they were monstrously unreliable. One example is merely a data point, yes. But eventually you end up with a trend.
Nope. The Shermans did get better replacement parts and servicing (because the US can into logistics and late-war Germany couldn't) but they're more reliable beasts too. By any conceivable metric.
What are you on about? The Maybach engine is huge!
It's something like 1.2x1x1.3 metres (l/w/h) and puts out 440kW. That's 0.28W/cc.
The V-2-34 is more compactly dimensioned height-wise (1.5x0.8x0.9m) and puts out 340kW. Which, if you can do maths, means that its specific power is around 0.3W/cc. Meaning that the Maybach is ever so slightly subpar when compared to a soviet diesel engine from 1937.
 
As to "choosing between mobility, protection and firepower" - the IS-2 is more heavily armoured, has better firepower, is more mobile and weighs two tonnes less. How's that for optimization?
 
Finally; "a generation above it's contemporaries"? Fucking really? A tank which was copied by no-one, whose technologies inspired no great interest, and whose legacy was a few years in the service of armies who ditched them the second they could?
 
That's not a generation ahead of anything. That's stillbirth. The T-44 was half a generation ahead (and T-54 was all the way). The Centurion was everything the Panther was trying to be but actually successful (and even then sired no direct line of vehicles). Even the M26 was a harbinger of tank development to come. The Panther was simply a dead end, the inevitable product of a dysfunctional system. Which is not to say that it was useless, didn't have positive attributes, or that it didn't have a valid operational use once conceived and put into service. But definitely far short of being good, much less great.

"Average lifespan" bruv. 
 
Well yes, because they operated Panthers for years longer than the Germans did, and without the constraints that are usually cited as affecting the German vehicles beyond the design itself.
No, it indicates that they were monstrously unreliable. One example is merely a data point, yes. But eventually you end up with a trend.
Nope. The Shermans did get better replacement parts and servicing (because the US can into logistics and late-war Germany couldn't) but they're more reliable beasts too. By any conceivable metric.
What are you on about? The Maybach engine is huge!
It's something like 1.2x1x1.3 metres (l/w/h) and puts out 440kW. That's 0.28W/cc.
The V-2-34 is more compactly dimensioned height-wise (1.5x0.8x0.9m) and puts out 340kW. Which, if you can do maths, means that its specific power is around 0.3W/cc. Meaning that the Maybach is ever so slightly subpar when compared to a soviet diesel engine from 1937.
 
As to "choosing between mobility, protection and firepower" - the IS-2 is more heavily armoured, has better firepower, is more mobile and weighs two tonnes less. How's that for optimization?
 
Finally; "a generation above it's contemporaries"? Fucking really? A tank which was copied by no-one, whose technologies inspired no great interest, and whose legacy was a few years in the service of armies who ditched them the second they could?
 
That's not a generation ahead of anything. That's stillbirth. The T-44 was half a generation ahead (and T-54 was all the way). The Centurion was everything the Panther was trying to be but actually successful (and even then sired no direct line of vehicles). Even the M26 was a harbinger of tank development to come. The Panther was simply a dead end, the inevitable product of a dysfunctional system. Which is not to say that it was useless, didn't have positive attributes, or that it didn't have a valid operational use once conceived and put into service. But definitely far short of being good, much less great.

"Average lifespan" bruv. 
 
Well yes, because they operated Panthers for years longer than the Germans did, and without the constraints that are usually cited as affecting the German vehicles beyond the design itself.
No, it indicates that they were monstrously unreliable. One example is merely a data point, yes. But eventually you end up with a trend.
Nope. The Shermans did get better replacement parts and servicing (because the US can into logistics and late-war Germany couldn't) but they're more reliable beasts too. By any conceivable metric.
What are you on about? The Maybach engine is huge!
It's something like 1.2x1x1.3 metres (l/w/h) and puts out 440kW. That's 0.28W/cc.
The V-2-34 is more compactly dimensioned height-wise (1.5x0.8x0.9m) and puts out 340kW. Which, if you can do maths, means that its specific power is around 0.3W/cc. Meaning that the Maybach is ever so slightly subpar when compared to a soviet diesel engine from 1937.
 
As to "choosing between mobility, protection and firepower" - the IS-2 is more heavily armoured, has better firepower, is more mobile and weighs two tonnes less. How's that for optimization?
 
Finally; "a generation above it's contemporaries"? Fucking really? A tank which was copied by no-one, whose technologies inspired no great interest, and whose legacy was a few years in the service of armies who ditched them the second they could?
 
That's not a generation ahead of anything. That's stillbirth. The T-44 was half a generation ahead (and T-54 was all the way). The Centurion was everything the Panther was trying to be but actually successful (and even then sired no direct line of vehicles). Even the M26 was a harbinger of tank development to come. The Panther was simply a dead end, the inevitable product of a dysfunctional system. Which is not to say that it was useless, didn't have positive attributes, or that it didn't have a valid operational use once conceived and put into service. But definitely far short of being good, much less great.

Given our interactions and your self-stylings, I'm beginning to see the need for Astartes.
 
The rates for PzIV vs Panther can be explained in the same way as those for PzIV vs Tiger. Panther got given to the best, most well-supplied units first. PzIV got given to everyone. You'd also be the first person to point out that the >90% readiness rate achieved by American units in Western Europe for Sherman are not inherently indicative of mechanical perfection.
 
I mentioned earlier how I derived a 3% figure, and it's done using basic maths: divide number of vehicles with final drive breakdowns by total number of vehicles to get overall percentage. Then divide percentage by days mentioned in report.
 
Again, the French experience with vehicles run for years without slave labour, sabotage etc is illuminating.

Just to point out: having to replace 3% of your vehicle park's final drives per day of operation lines up almost perfectly with an expected average lifetime of 150km given the operational tempo of the Germans in 1944.
 
So I'm leaning towards the French report not being a typo.

Just to point out: having to replace 3% of your vehicle park's final drives per day of operation lines up almost perfectly with an expected average lifetime of 150km given the operational tempo of the Germans in 1944.
 
So I'm leaning towards the French report not being a typo.

So you're willing to concede that overall reliability was on par with tanks being rolled out from factories that were literally just relocated to Siberia?
 
Regarding the French stuff - yeah, well that's what getting to run them post-war rather than in 1944 will do for you (most developed vehicles, better materials, no slave labour etc). Doubly damning then that they're still complaining about the final drives even then.

This breaks the improvements down very well:
 
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/
 
In general: the engine got worked on extensively (the changes being minutely detailed), with non-specific fixed applied to the transmission and final drives.
 
By 1944 you're looking at the following:
- Engine: maximum lifespan of 1800 km (unknown average)
- Transmission: maximum lifespan of 1800 km (unknown average)
- Final drives: maximum lifespan unknown, replacement rate at around 3% of vehicles per day (ie: horrific)
- Tracks: maximum of 1800 km (unknown average)
 
Basically: Panthers were, in the best case, around 70% as reliable as T-34s (maximum lifespans of components being reported at around 2500 km) only if you exclude the final drives. If you include the final drives then they were an unmitigated dog-show compared to more or less anything.

This breaks the improvements down very well:
 
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/
 
In general: the engine got worked on extensively (the changes being minutely detailed), with non-specific fixed applied to the transmission and final drives.
 
By 1944 you're looking at the following:
- Engine: maximum lifespan of 1800 km (unknown average)
- Transmission: maximum lifespan of 1800 km (unknown average)
- Final drives: maximum lifespan unknown, replacement rate at around 3% of vehicles per day (ie: horrific)
- Tracks: maximum of 1800 km (unknown average)
 
Basically: Panthers were, in the best case, around 70% as reliable as T-34s (maximum lifespans of components being reported at around 2500 km) only if you exclude the final drives. If you include the final drives then they were an unmitigated dog-show compared to more or less anything.

This breaks the improvements down very well:
 
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/
 
In general: the engine got worked on extensively (the changes being minutely detailed), with non-specific fixed applied to the transmission and final drives.
 
By 1944 you're looking at the following:
- Engine: maximum lifespan of 1800 km (unknown average)
- Transmission: maximum lifespan of 1800 km (unknown average)
- Final drives: maximum lifespan unknown, replacement rate at around 3% of vehicles per day (ie: horrific)
- Tracks: maximum of 1800 km (unknown average)
 
Basically: Panthers were, in the best case, around 70% as reliable as T-34s (maximum lifespans of components being reported at around 2500 km) only if you exclude the final drives. If you include the final drives then they were an unmitigated dog-show compared to more or less anything.

This breaks the improvements down very well:
 
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/
 
In general: the engine got worked on extensively (the changes being minutely detailed), with non-specific fixed applied to the transmission and final drives.
 
By 1944 you're looking at the following:
- Engine: maximum lifespan of 1800 km (unknown average)
- Transmission: maximum lifespan of 1800 km (unknown average)
- Final drives: maximum lifespan unknown, replacement rate at around 3% of vehicles per day (ie: horrific)
- Tracks: maximum of 1800 km (unknown average)
 
Basically: Panthers were, in the best case, around 70% as reliable as T-34s (maximum lifespans of components being reported at around 2500 km) only if you exclude the final drives. If you include the final drives then they were an unmitigated dog-show compared to more or less anything.