Timotheus -> RE: No wonder Wehr is winning in '41 - they are using best equipment available (1/9/2015 12:49:37 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SigUp quote:
ORIGINAL: Aurelian You want reliability and to win the war, go T-34. Define reliability. T-34 had notoriously poor engines that broke down way earlier than German, let alone American models. Of course, the Soviets didn't put much emphasis on the engine, since the tanks tended to get taken out before the engine went down. [:D] The less said about von altair derpage, the better. Now, on with the "who's the superior WW2 dork" thread [:D] I think that Mr. SigUp is confusing two very different concepts here. One is the lifespan of a product - in this case, a T34 tank. Just like your Japanese TV, it has a certain lifespan built in after which the product will have to be either refurbished or replaced. Called obsolescence, it is timed just right for the TV to crap out RIGHT after your warranty runs out, so you have to buy a new one [:D]. Now, a T34 had a certain lifespan due to its engine, which the Soviets built for a purpose - there was no point in building a complicated engine which would last a year for a T34 because its lifespan would be less than a year. In case it survived its obsolescence, great - get it to the rear, switch the engine for a new one, and off it goes. In contrast, those wonderful Pz I and Pz II tanks kept on running from 1939 to 1942 to the unbound joy of their crews [:D]. Now, reliability as I understand it is this - before obsolescence, before the product (in this case, a tank) is SUPPOSED TO crap out, will it be able to work, drive, shoot, pew pew without problems? In this T34 WAS KING. I like to use source material when discussing stuff, instead of, yah know, throwing **** outta an ***, so I will use Forczyk's Osprey title T34 vs Panther: Ukraine 1943. As a stunt, the T34 prototype was driven on a 2900 km (that's 1802 miles for you metric phobists [:D]) without a break. But you say, OK, it was a special crew, a special tank to demonstrate it to Stalin, what about combat conditions? Again, from the book, I will paraphrase: T34-85 of 5th Guards Tank Army were driven on their own tracks 300km between July 7 to 9th. After this horrendous route march, 90% of tanks were operational. Author states that this was impossible for a Panther unit to do. 5% of Panther tanks broke down within 100km and over 90% broke down within 1500km. In Italy, Liebstandarte was given Panther tanks. All of them were returned/rejected for service due to mechanical problems. Panthers and Tigers had to be moved by rail, as these German tanks could not move more than 100km without SIGNIFICANT losses. The action part of the book then gives Kursk and Rumanstyev offensive, during which the Panther unit was forced to leave tank after tank due to mechanical breakdowns. In the Aftermath section of the book, it is stated that more Panthers were lost due to mechanical breakdowns than enemy action (Ausf A and D models). Panther Ausf G solved a lot of technical problems, such as engine fires (ahahahahaahaha [:D]) and weak transmission, but it was still basically a piece of crap which broke down ALL the time, and its technical problems were NEVER fixed. It did not matter that the Panther had a super gun and superbly trained crews when the fast AND RELIABLE T34's flanked them and forced them to withdraw... they couldn't - mechanical breakdown, weak transmission, engine fire happened and the expensive piece of crap had to be written off. Edit: My favorite quote from the book. "Only one out of eight Panther battalions sent to the Eastern Front in 1943 managed to keep at least half its tanks operational for one week. The I/Panzer Regiment had an OR rate of 57% after nine days." PzIV, the workhorse of German army, had OR rate of 65%, comparable to the T34's of 90% before combat and 70% during combat. One last thing - Panther was a fuel hog, and so was the Tiger. The mobility was horrendous, it was a nightmare to repair and change stuff in (engine, wheels, track). I mean just look at a Panther tank from a side. See the wheel configuration? What moron thought that THAT would be a good idea [:D]
|
|
|
|