Likes dislikes

Discussion in 'WW2 General' started by tomo pauk, Apr 28, 2009.

  1. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,987
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Fellas, I've just thinked out the layout of the new thread: people should post the things they like about one country's military (WWII era), separated into "excellent", "decent", and "not good" parts.
    Please refrain to post about the quality/bravery of, say pilots or infantrymen, since that would lead into the flame war.
    Thanks.

    I'll start with Soviet Union:
    -excellent:
    -artillery of all kinds, from light At guns to heavy field pieces; mortars Katyushas included
    -KV and IS series of tanks (minus the KV-2)
    -torpedo boats
    -infantry weapons, from PPSH to 14,5mm AT rifles
    -La-5 and -7, Yak-1 and-3, I-16, Pe-2 and Tu-2 planes
    -SP artillery, from SU-85 to ISU-152

    -decent:
    -T-34, T-60 and -70 tanks
    -Yak-7 -9, Il-2, Mig-1 -3
    -37mm 85mm AAA
    -destroyers cruisers

    -not good:
    -armored cars
    -heavy trucks
    -heavy AAA and radars (or non-existence of those)
    -capital ships (or non-existence of CVs)
    -SP anti-aircraft vehicles
    -tracked/half-tracked personal carriers
     
  2. imalko

    imalko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vojvodina, Serbia
    I'm just wondering, why did you put T-34 into the "decent" part and not "excellent"?
     
  3. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Unwittingly
    I think you've just endorsed the nature of the thread
    So I guess we'll need to see your idea of excellent/decent/not good... :)
     
  4. imalko

    imalko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vojvodina, Serbia
    Okay, my list of excellent/decent/not good when Soviet Union is concerned would be pretty much same as Tomo's only I would put T-34 into excellent category... 8)

    I guess the criteria is your subjective feeling about certain equipment that you personally like or dislike?
     
  5. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Who's guessing?
    I'm just reading the thread title :)
     
  6. imalko

    imalko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vojvodina, Serbia
    I guess that I am guessing in this case.... :oops: :D :D
    Just forget that I asked and go on with the thread...
     
  7. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    Well, I'll do mine for Blighty...

    Excellent

    CH Radar (and the associated fighter control system)
    The Pathfinder Force
    Convoy escort tactics (once they had been fully developed)
    Artilley - 25lb gun-howitzer and 17lb AT gun in particular
    Decent

    Churchill tank (best British-built tank of the war, IMHO)
    Heavy bombers (although the Stirling was poor)
    Surface warships, of all kinds
    Fighter aircraft (the Spit would be excellent, but was constantly dogged by short range)

    Not So Good

    Tanks other than the Churchill - they were either underarmoured, undergunned or too slow.
    Royal Navy fire control systems - the HACS AAA control system was particularly poor. Debate still rages over the the superiority of Pollen's main gun system over the Admiralty type used in WWI and WWII.
     
  8. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,987
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The T-34 was a great concept, yet the realization was lacking on many things:
    the 2 men turret crew until 1944, lack of radios prior 1943, poor visibility sights, crude gear shifting, no ergonomics, hull remained with same armour almost all the way, driver's hatch hull MG mount that weakened the glacis plate.
    For a more info (perhaps biased against T-34, but use your brain cells to filter the stuff out) could be found in book: "T-34, the mytical weapon", available in PDF form online.
    The T-43 (yep, 43) with KV-85 turret should've been produced instead of T-34-85, saving a lot of soviet tankers. Also, the soviets did have plans for T-34M that would feature the torsion bar suspension and some ergonomics issues rectified, but OP Barbarossa interfered.

    Even if you just feel the piece is good or bad, please post your list:)
     
  9. Doughboy

    Doughboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    N/A
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #9 Doughboy, Apr 29, 2009
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2009
    Excellent
    F4U Corsair
    P-38 Lightning
    P-47 Thunderbolt(possibly belongs in decent)
    P-57 Mustang
    M1A1 Thompson


    Decent
    Johnson rifle
    M-24 Chaffee
    F4F Wildcat
    P-40 Warhawk
    M1 Garand

    Not good
    Sherman
    Stuart
    Riesing(maybe Reising?)


    That's my list.:tongue8: :puke:
     
  10. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    Tomo,

    I'm not sure that all the issues you cite with the T-34 were necessarily serious. The weakening of the glacis plate due to the inclusion of a driver's viewport and BMG position is a weakness shared by virtually every tank from the FT-17 up to the Challenger 2. For example, the Panther, which we would mostly consider to be a superior tank, suffered exactly the same 'defect'.

    More controversially, I'm not sure the absence of radios in most vehicles before 1943 was a huge problem either. Soviet tank tactics thru WWII and well into the Cold War generally called for massed assaults with each maneuver unit following their platoon/company/battalion leader. In such circumstances,lack of a radio is not the handicap it might have been for German or European Allied tankers. Perhaps the 'fault' here lies more with the tactics than the tanks? I would agree however that the two man turret crew and lack of hull armour upgrades were serious issues.

    Doughboy,

    Great list, only thing I would personally question is the description of the Garand as 'excellent'. The inability to reload without first emptying the clip could be a disadvantage in close quarters fighting - I'm sure you wouldn't want to storm into a building with one round left, knowing you might have to reload under fire in a room. At least a rifleman using an SMLE, K98k or Nagant put a fresh clip in before rushing in. I have also heard that in the jungle, the distinctive ejection noise of the clip told Japanese soldiers when US troops were vulnerable and could be rushed with a hand weapon. Not sure that this was a huge killer of US troops, but if true it seems something of a weakness. Otherwise, a great weapon, maybe not quite excellent, IMHO.
     
  11. Doughboy

    Doughboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    N/A
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    You made a great point and you have changed my mind...The Garand goes in decent.:)
     
  12. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,987
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Hi, Bombtaxi,

    I find radio essential to tanks, since tanks have situation awareness problems when buttoned-up. The T-34 (and other Russian tanks) lacked the commander's turret, so the lack of radio was even more acute.
    While I agree that the availability of radio has more to do with doctrine, the lack of radios for T-34 until 1943 hampered the battlefield performance nevertheless.
    As for glacis plate being weakened by those openings, it was a pity that designers of (revolutionary) T-34 haven't avoid that. The benefits would've been better integrity and easier up-armoring.

    I'd add the aircraft MGs cannons into 'excellent' and spread the radar entry in 'not good' to the whole electronics for Russian equipment.
     
Loading...

Share This Page