Panzer march! - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Hatterasguy · #16 01-12-2008, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

I think actually it was in the winter '42- '43, when it was over. Stalingrad and von Paulus' 6th armee showed the end.

Some people think they should have driven to Moscow and captured it.

But AH wanted to go south to the Don and the Caucausus (sp?) and try to grab all the manganese, oil fields etc.

I would really like to drink bier with you in Conn one day (or Calif if you ever came there) and discuss some of this with you. You are really up on it, a lot more than me, and this stuff fascinates me.

The Eastern front was totally under reported in the west, and in sums, men and materiel spent, and in suffering, it dwarfs the Western front by far.

Russia was, in the end, just too god damned big. It goes all the way to Vladivostok and the Pacific, too much to occupy and hold, the supply lines alone couldn't take it.

They couldn't even take Leningrad after over 900 days of siege.

Maybe AH would have stopped marching east, then sued for peace when he had enough lebenstraum, who knows?

AH had no intention of capturing all of Russia, the Volga river was the stop point. They would have set up a defensive position along this river and sued for peace, or started a cold war scenerio. If they had followed the pointes I laid out in another post this was a very do able in 1942.

I'm going to be in SD from the 20th-26th. If your near there I'm up for some beer.

t walgamuth · #17 01-12-2008, 09:08 PM

I don't think it would have mattered where they stopped and sued for peace. Stalin would never have stood for it. He would have kept fighting untlil they were driven off or destroyed.

IMHO.

Tom W

KylePavao · #18 01-12-2008, 10:16 PM

They needed numbers because of the incompetence and lack of radio communication in the T34's. While German tank commanders had radios with throat microphones and all the "high tech" equipment, Russian tank commanders were expected to scream over the 500HP V12 engine.
I'll take a quote from German commander Friedrich Wilhelm von Mellenthin: "We had nothing comparable"
They didn't. Well, they got the Panther. But was it easy to produce? Was it as reliable? Could it be produced by untrained peasants? No.
The T34 had wide tracks that allowed it to operate in the mud, combined with a reliable, torquey diesel engine. While German tanks struggled to even get started in the cold weather, the T34s, equipped with air starters, fired right up.
The Germans only developed armor sloping comparable to that of the T34s in 1943. Panzer IV's did not stand a chance, and lacked the mobility. Only the guile and superior training of their crews allowed them to compete.
The sloping on the turret of the T34 is remarkable.
The diesel fuel would not burst into flames like the gasoline engines used in German tanks. On top of it, the T34 was more fuel efficient; and the Russians had tons of fuel!
The Germans were creating behemoths equipped with Maybach V12's that were using gasoline that they didn't even have.
Superior training allowed the Germans to compete. That and superior technology in regards to crew and platoon level communication. The Soviets were still using flags.

Field Marshal Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist called it "The Finest tank in the
world"

Hatterasguy · #19 01-12-2008, 10:29 PM

The throat radios were Guderians idea, and the training, and the tactics.

If Hitler didn't screw up it would have all been pointless. Guderian would have taken Moscow in November of 41, pushed on to the river, and Stalin would have sued for peace.

They could crank them out in numbers, but Soviet junk is Soviet junk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHWHjK2VsUo

Here is the T72, which is close enough to the T34.

I love this part "Then we get a hold of one and find out its a death trap like everything else the Russians ever built"

pastmaster · #20 01-12-2008, 10:50 PM

I like March's, and the Radetsky March, played on New Years, by the Vienna Philharmonic, at Vienna Opera house, is one of my favorites. I like Zubin Mehta's 2007 version. There is also a version of the Blue Danube Waltz, also by Johan Strauss, vater, that is just great!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BSKKLROWgOI&feature=related

MIlitary Band with cavalry;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s6UNlJVFk4&feature=related

MS Fowler · #21 01-13-2008, 07:46 AM

Hattersguy,
Your dismissal of all things Russian is quite telling, and typical of Americans. We tend to look down on everything they did. But slow down, and consider a few factors.
The T72 is not a T34; not even close--wrong war--wrong battlefield. The sloping armor of the T34 was a REVOLUTION in thinking. Every significant tank design since has copied this feature.
Are we talking design or production? The soviets had significant problems with production on many fronts. The secrecy under Stalin was intense--so intense that when Ford sent people over to assist with Tractor production in the 1930s, the soviets could not produce a map showing the locations of the raw materials needed for production. They actually told Charlie Sorensen to " ask your President" as the current American President had spent some time surveying in Russia and might actually know more than the planners in Russia. ( Story from memory, buts its in Sorensen's book, [U]My Forty Years with Ford[U]
The Russians did lack in numbers of trained engineers. Again referring to Sorensen's trip, he found that they had problems with the durability of the final worm drive. The Russians had reverse-engineered the whole tractor, but they could not reverse-engineer the heat-treating processes Ford had used on that worm drive. The Russian parts looked and fit right, but the steel was not up to the task.

As was pointed out above, the Russians had to design not only the Tank itself, but the production process--and the production process had to be geared to the available labor, and manufacturing conditions. Part of design of anything has to consider the manufacturing of it. What good would it have done for the Soviets to design a King Tiger--if they could not build it, or get it to the battle field.? What they did was produce a very innovative tank in large enough numbers to reverse the direction of the war.

Considering the handicaps under which they operated, they produced a remarkable Tank in the T34.

I own some Russian ( now Ukrainian), cameras and lenses. Most are copies of fine German cameras and optical designs, obtained as war reparations when the Soviets captured Dresden and Jena. The optical designs are excellent. The camera designs are likewise very good. They do suffer in the assembly quality. If you get a good one; you likely have a very good camera or lens. If you get a bad one, exchange it for another one. Many of the truly poorly made stuff has already been thrown out, so time acts as sort of a QC for them. The Russian-built cameras, ( as well as their East German counterparts) are certainly built to a price, and engineered down to that price. The parts--principally the gear trains-- are not as finely finished, nor built to as close a tolerance. However they work. What they lack is that mechanical"delight" found in the cameras they copied. For instance, the film advance on a Leica is a joy to operate--there is a silky feel to the mechanism, and a satisfying sound that conveys the concept that dozens of precisely manufactured, and aligned parts are acting in perfect harmony. The film advance on a similar Zorki sounds, and feels more like a coffee grinder--but it does still egt the job done ( mostly).
Wow! quite a diversion from the tank discussion----
The point is that all of us need to realize that German or American stuff is not always "better" for a particular job.
When we have that superior attitude is when we open ourselves up to nasty surprises----You are too young to remember ( so am I), but the prevailing attitude of Americans during the 1930 towards the Japanese was that they were clever little people, but not capable of anything really significant . Witness Pearl Harbor.
In the 1950s the Russians were still considered "backward". That is until we heard the " beep beep beep" of the Sputnik on the nightly news, as that little sphere circled overhead. Those "backward" Russians had launched the first artificial satellite. That was not a one shot thing--they followed that achievement with the first dog in space, the first man in space, and the first woman in space.
Another example--After the first attack on the World Trade Center, many Americans were smug--what did those silly Arabs think they were going to do with a van of explosives. Were they really so crazy as to think they could destroy the World Trade Center?

We adopt those smug and ethno-centric ideas at great peril.

t walgamuth · #22 01-13-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Hattersguy,
Your dismissal of all things Russian is quite telling, and typical of Americans. We tend to look down on everything they did. But slow down, and consider a few factors.
The T72 is not a T34; not even close--wrong war--wrong battlefield. The sloping armor of the T34 was a REVOLUTION in thinking. Every significant tank design since has copied this feature.
Are we talking design or production? The soviets had significant problems with production on many fronts. The secrecy under Stalin was intense--so intense that when Ford sent people over to assist with Tractor production in the 1930s, the soviets could not produce a map showing the locations of the raw materials needed for production. They actually told Charlie Sorensen to " ask your President" as the current American President had spent some time surveying in Russia and might actually know more than the planners in Russia. ( Story from memory, buts its in Sorensen's book, [U]My Forty Years with Ford[U]
The Russians did lack in numbers of trained engineers. Again referring to Sorensen's trip, he found that they had problems with the durability of the final worm drive. The Russians had reverse-engineered the whole tractor, but they could not reverse-engineer the heat-treating processes Ford had used on that worm drive. The Russian parts looked and fit right, but the steel was not up to the task.

As was pointed out above, the Russians had to design not only the Tank itself, but the production process--and the production process had to be geared to the available labor, and manufacturing conditions. Part of design of anything has to consider the manufacturing of it. What good would it have done for the Soviets to design a King Tiger--if they could not build it, or get it to the battle field.? What they did was produce a very innovative tank in large enough numbers to reverse the direction of the war.

Considering the handicaps under which they operated, they produced a remarkable Tank in the T34.

I own some Russian ( now Ukrainian), cameras and lenses. Most are copies of fine German cameras and optical designs, obtained as war reparations when the Soviets captured Dresden and Jena. The optical designs are excellent. The camera designs are likewise very good. They do suffer in the assembly quality. If you get a good one; you likely have a very good camera or lens. If you get a bad one, exchange it for another one. Many of the truly poorly made stuff has already been thrown out, so time acts as sort of a QC for them. The Russian-built cameras, ( as well as their East German counterparts) are certainly built to a price, and engineered down to that price. The parts--principally the gear trains-- are not as finely finished, nor built to as close a tolerance. However they work. What they lack is that mechanical"delight" found in the cameras they copied. For instance, the film advance on a Leica is a joy to operate--there is a silky feel to the mechanism, and a satisfying sound that conveys the concept that dozens of precisely manufactured, and aligned parts are acting in perfect harmony. The film advance on a similar Zorki sounds, and feels more like a coffee grinder--but it does still egt the job done ( mostly).
Wow! quite a diversion from the tank discussion----
The point is that all of us need to realize that German or American stuff is not always "better" for a particular job.
When we have that superior attitude is when we open ourselves up to nasty surprises----You are too young to remember ( so am I), but the prevailing attitude of Americans during the 1930 towards the Japanese was that they were clever little people, but not capable of anything really significant . Witness Pearl Harbor.
In the 1950s the Russians were still considered "backward". That is until we heard the " beep beep beep" of the Sputnik on the nightly news, as that little sphere circled overhead. Those "backward" Russians had launched the first artificial satellite. That was not a one shot thing--they followed that achievement with the first dog in space, the first man in space, and the first woman in space.
Another example--After the first attack on the World Trade Center, many Americans were smug--what did those silly Arabs think they were going to do with a van of explosives. Were they really so crazy as to think they could destroy the World Trade Center?

We adopt those smug and ethno-centric ideas at great peril.

Excellent post. I was looking at the russian tank and thinking it was a rather nice looking design. Although I know nothing or slightly more about tanks I could see the sloping sides of the turret looked better than the german tanks posted alongside. It actually looks lke a much newer tank, imho.

The point about the russian "junk" getting the job done is welll taken.

The german manufacturing and engineering prowess is and was formidable. The germans simply cannot force themselves to make junky stuff....but in time of war quantity makes up for much of it. In ww2 our weapons were not as high quality as the german weapons but I always say.....if you get hit by one of our bullets you will die just as quickly as if it were shot from the precision manufactured german item.

We just flooded the world with munitinos in ww2. German tanks knocking out four of our little tanks to one of ours knocking out theirs? No problem we are making twenty of ours to one of theirs anyway and we just kept them coming. A nearly endless flood of munitions.

Our soldiers were brave and fought hard and many other factors were in our favor but our manufacturing capabilities really were the deciding factor in ww2.

Tom W

Hatterasguy · #23 01-13-2008, 10:13 AM

Bah I know the T34 was a good tank, the suspension design alone was revolutionary. The story behind that one aspect is quite interesting. Very and simple to produce and take care of, much more reliable than the complicated Panther and King Tiger.

I'm screwing with Kyle.

I love Russian hardwear. However one on one the Panther is a better tank, its just that it was usualy 24 on 1.

pj67coll · #24 01-13-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Bah I know the T34 was a good tank, the suspension design alone was revolutionary.
I love Russian hardwear. However one on one the Panther is a better tank, its just that it was usualy 24 on 1.

The T34's suspension was a Christie design was it not? 1920's American engineer. Anyway. It certainly was a good tank. Though not as good a fighting machine as either the Tigers or Panthers. You have only to ask which vehicle one would rather be in in combat to see the truth staring you in the face. However it didn't matter which vehicle was better. In an industrial war of attrition the side that has a massive numerical advantage is likely to win, wether their stuff is better or not. As combat vehicles, in relation to Tigers and Panthers the T34's and Shermans, were indeed junk. Death traps in fact. But it didn't matter because the allies and the Russians in particular could afford the casualties necessary to attrit the German to the point of collapse.

The T34 was like a Lada in comparison toe a 600. Both in terms of capability and in terms of numbers produced.

- Peter.

Hatterasguy · #25 01-13-2008, 01:28 PM

Yep the Russians were open to the new suspension type while we were not, thats another reason the Sherman wasn't that great. Actualy it was a pretty poor tank all around.

Numbers will carry the day, as the Germans said, a Tiger can take out 10 Shermans, but the Americans always have an 11th.

Jim B. · #26 01-13-2008, 01:45 PM

Most combat tankers from any country you could name, would tell you that they are riding around in death traps.....

Hatterasguy · #27 01-13-2008, 01:53 PM

Except the guys who are in Tigers, King Tigers, Panthers, Abhrams, and that British tank thats pretty impressive.

Our guys thought the Shermans were great! Right up to the point where there shell bounced off the hull of a Tiger at 1k yards, and a Tigar put one through the front and right out of the back at 3k yards. The 88 had just a bit more kick than the 75, just a little...

MS Fowler · #28 01-13-2008, 04:56 PM

There is a point at which fine engineering and manufacturing can be counterproductive.
One is if the precision manufacture takes too much time and too many resources. Thats the Panzer vs Sherman.

The other one is when that fine precision get fouled with a grain of sand. Look at the way you can pour hand fulls of sand thru an AK 47 and it still works, vs the number of German Lugers found lying all over the beaches.

pastmaster · #29 01-13-2008, 05:36 PM

Very interesting discourse on the tanks from WWII and production philosophies. Our friends the Japanese were mentioned, but in studying their technical skills and abilities as a nation during WWII, I was amazed at their advancements and acheivements that I was never taught, or knew existed! We fought and defeated a very formidible enemy! Look at them Today!

The simplest statement that I can make between the USA and the old Soviet Union, is this. During our space-race and our developement of the space hardware, using a writing instrument in weightlessness, a pen that would function in zero gravity and the temperature extremes found in space. We spent a lot of money to develope an ink that would work in a pen for our Astronauts, and we succeded. The Russians, modified a graphite and carbon device used everyday in both our countries! Yup, they used a pencil! It did the job and used simple, beautiful, logic, to achieve it's design goals! No more no less!

pastmaster · #30 01-13-2008, 06:13 PM

Getting back to the Marches. I saw I was late in the posting of my contribution, (post 20), and the Radetsky Marches, that I posted. Talk got into the TANKS. On the second link, the Cavalry and Military Bands, I want to note that Chilean Military, outdoes the Germans! The "pickle-stabber," helmets, the German-type Combat Helmet, I don't think it's one of our new-style Kevlars, and the Drum-Major, is very good in his command of a big-baton. Then he starts goose-stepping along with the others who are Marching! Does a pretty good job of it! So for all you guys who like this type of Marching, as it does look impressive. I was just surprised.