Sherman Main gun

[Soren]

They are roller bearings, great for F1, not so good for a mass-produced, desperately needed engine.

If you mean they were time consuming to built, then yes I agree - one of the faults of German mindset, it just has to be perfect.

 

[mkloby]

If you mean they were time consuming to built, then yes I agree - one of the faults of German mindset, it just has to be perfect.

That mindset did much damage to the german war effort...

 

[Soren]

Indeed it did.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Germans are known for over engineering everything. Sad but true...

 

[schwarzpanzer]

A well-made, simple mechanism is ideal (Bulgarian AK47).

I suppose having a back-up system is good though (at the expense of weight).

German designs were simplified though in WW2, but were still too complicated.

If a system has merits (such as Henshel suspension's stability and protection), then fair enough I think.

Less is more (think Goering).

I find it weird that Chinese built Mauser C96's are the best though - a German design built in China really shouldn't work.

Also, to anyone who says Germans design ugly cars: Nissan 240Z.

- Glad that's off my chest.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Oh Soren, there's a documentary on the rebuild of 2 Panther's (Ausf A D).

In it, it tells you just what a crap piece of design the Maybach was (For a tank engine). Also how it was built by saboteurs; untightened bolts, oil galleys compromised with drilling or being stuffed with cigarette filters, parts cut off then glued back on.

Have you seen it?

 

[MacArther]

Ok, lets solve this engine debate right now......Which side won WWII? Your engine can be great, but if you still lose the war then what is the point? Not meaning to be biggoted or anything, just thought this ongoing arguement might need a resolution.

 

[plan_D]

That's a pretty pathetic attempt to resolve the debate, Macarthur. Just because the Axis lost the war it doesn't mean all their tactics, industry, equipment and fighting strength was inferior. And you know that, or at least should.

 

[Hunter368]

That's a pretty pathetic attempt to resolve the debate, Macarthur. Just because the Axis lost the war it doesn't mean all their tactics, industry, equipment and fighting strength was inferior. And you know that, or at least should.

Yup. See every day even. The "Best team" does not win ever baseball, hockey, football, soccer game, best boxer, fighter does not win every fight.

If they did we would have no need to play the match or watch the fight.

As PlanD said its alot more than just saying "who won? thus they have the best ......"

 

[MacArther]

Never said they had bad stuff, just said that if everything was as good as some of my books say, then the war would have at least been a stalemate. Anyway, my purpose was to bring a resolution to an arguement that seemed ready to become more heated than neccessary. I meant no ill will, I mearly wished to resolve a dispute between two people on this site.

Macarthur

Ya know, I spell my name wrong for a reason....I can't hope to be famous or important like the real macoy was.

 

[Soren]

Schwarz,

No I haven't seen it, but like you mentioned some Maybach engines were victim to sabotage. But this still doesn't change the fact that the engine design was excellent and the examples which hadn't been sabotaged performed well in the field - which was by far the majority.

MacArther,

You'd need flawless equipment to win a 10 to 1 situation with which the Germans were faced - not only did your equipment have to be extremely effective in combat (which the German did manage to achieve), it also had to be extremely rugged and require much less maintenance than usual, about 10times less. And when a maintenance was to be made it had to be quick and easy to carry out- something which would be abit hard with the sophisticated and complicated German designs, and it was infact a nightmare.

 

[HealzDevo]

Good thought. What the Germans needed to win was a tank that they could mass-produce easily in large numbers at their factories. What they got was tanks that were hard to mass-produce and over-engineered.

 

[MacArther]

Soren, you're missing my point: I was trying to resolve what seemed to be a deep seated arguement between two people. I just didn't want tempers flairing or anything (yes, I have been told not to care so much for others by people in real life, not that I listen). As to the point about the great engineering, I find not many faults there. However, it's something akin to taking an early M16 into combat in trying conditions as opposed to a AK47. While one does the job great, it is still a handful to maintain. In contrast, the other gets the job done, and it keeps going no matter what happens (off topic, but I would still prefer the 7.62mm to the NATO 5.56mm). Anyway, both of you have valid points. The Germans made really good tanks for the era, and the Allies focused more on having more tanks to overwhelm the Germans.

 

[HealzDevo]

The German equipment was great in range and power but hard to maintain in the field. The Allied equipment was not so great really in range and power but easier to maintain in the field. Therefore for an equal number of tanks, more Allied tanks would have been in the field at any one time.