Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hell it was the basis for the AK-47 which still today is one of the best weapons ever built.
The Me-109 doesnt even deserve to be mentioned for anything post summer 1944. It was a great design at the start of the war, but decidely inferior untill the last few months when it didnt even matter.
US fire control of the artillery were the best in the world.
German tanks and halftracks were superior to the allies,
except for the T34, which could give the Panther a run for its money.
Allied proximity shells were superior to the German ones.
Bollocks, where have you heard this ?
And don't even get me started on the halftracks !
But if you want to discuss shells I can tell you the Germans were light years ahead of the Allies in terms of quality, precision 'and' fusing!
Yes, and the K98k is the best bolt action rifle design of all time
And the German also had the Stg44, the best infantry small-arm of WWII.
And although the Garand IS superior to the K43
No syscom3, the US designs won the day because of quantity quantity quantity...
The Panther shared nothing with the T-34 except for its sloping armor, and even this had been used on tanks before and can therefore not be considered copying.
A gun which couldn't harm the Tiger Ausf.E unless it came within 100m of its side armor
and a sloped armor protection which could be penetrated frontally as far away as over 2km by the 88mm Kwk36 L/56 main gun of the Tiger Ausf.E. (And at even longer distances by the Panther's 75mm Kwk42 L/70 main gun)
Probably the worst by late 1943 and onwards. Even the US Sherman can be considered better by 1944 with the introduction of the EasyEight.
it litterally became gun-fodder throughout the second half of the war.
But the introduction of the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F/2 and Pz.Kpfw VI Ausf E in that year rendered the T-34/76 an obselete design.
As the Tigers would simply destroy dozens before being made inoperable themselves, mostly by breaking down or getting stuck.
Even in those circumstances, the Tiger was an effective tank destroyer and could halt any Soviet counter-offensive sometimes on their own!
The Panther's cannon was superior to both the 76mm and 85mm T-34 cannons, and none could hope to strike back at the same distances. The optical equipment in a T-34 wouldn't give them a chance in hell to hit anything anyway.
The Panther, however, had the most precise optics of the war. And had superior radio to anything Soviet, making it a more flexiable tank.
The armour of the Panther was superior in thickness and sloping.
It was on par with the IS-2, and that was a Soviet design itself superior to the T-34.
Panthers would often destroy dozens of T-34s with little loss to themselves. I've seen ratios in battles of 70 : 2 between T-34s and Panthers , and there well could be higher.
and a lot had the unfortunate incident of trapping their hands in the loading mechanism
The reliabilty of the Panther was an issue in the first two marks, D and A. But by the G the problems were largely solved. And the production would have been extremely high had Germany not wasted resources on hundreds of dead end projects, and costly tanks. Had we seen a complete replacement of German armour by the Panther and Panther alone ... you'd have seen a lot more dead Allies and Soviets on the battlefield.
And the King Tiger was the most powerful tank ever to see the battlefield during World War II.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Schwarzpanzer are you trying to tell me that the Stg 44 was not the basis for the AK-47? I hope you are not. The AK-47 is a very different gun but it was adapted from the design of the Stg 44.
Soren said:Now I'm going to create a new thread where you, Schwarz, in order to prove your claims will post all your sources, thank you!
I think there is a lot of merit in your query. The French were the most vindictive in setting harsh terms against Germany, setting the stage for WW11 and the rise of Hitler to power as Chancellor in 1933-France? Do you think that the French input into the treaty of Versailles put Germany in a position were a leader like Hitler could rise to power and there by causing the war? The British and American input was not anywhere as near as the harsh punishment wanted by the French. If the treaty had been realistic would it have prevented WW2?
I asked this on another forum and got some interesting answers, discuss away!
I didn't say that you did Adler. In 1930s Germany people were not as well off as they previously had been, they were still better off than most people in the world as a nation and as individuals.I did not say it was an excuse, I said it was a contributing factor...
I would say that WW1 and WW2 are actually the same war with a gap in the middle.
If you look at the Russo-Japanese war 1904-1905 then did WW2 start there?
or the Franco-Prussian war in 1870?