Have tried to avoid quoting as much as poss, as some people have complained.
gaussianum:
Yes, I have heard of Zeiss.
The thing is, you can compensate for an equipments 'quirks'.
However, this takes time and familiarity. Thee Soviets didn't usually have long in their equipment though, the Germans did.
I know what you mean, but it takes a huge difference in skill/technology to offset not much numerical superiority.
I wanted to make this all on aircraft, then set up another similar thread on WW2 General, but I thought this would be tidier?
I can still do that if people want?
loomaluftwaffe:
they wouldnt make it more complicated without making it better
Sometimes that is exactly what happened! The Merritt-Brown botch-up on the TigerI+ is a good example.
The twitchiness is fine for elites, but denying you have novices is asking for defeat.
Soviet equipment, whilst being simple, is certainly not comfortable.
(Something Allied equipment seemed to be).
R988:
The PPSh41 vs MP40 thing is a matter of opinion/situation. Some Soviets much preffered the MP40 to the PPSh and vice-versa. Also a soldier armed with a bolt-action rifle is gonna dump it for an SMG in a street-fighting situation anyway.
The Luger was a horrible weapon in WW2. Even SAS soldiers nicked them, but soon learnt not to.
I think the Me109 was actually good at landing. Taking off, especially in the Gustav onwards, was where the damage was done.
The Soviet's thoughts? "The death of one is a tradgedy..."
Erich:
none of the Soviet equipments were superior to anything of the Wehrmacht
Nothing?? Not the T34 over the PzIII/IV?? Or the SVT 40 Dogwalker mentioned over the G41??
These were obviously superior, else why would the Germans copiy them??
BTW: Not too well known is that some T34 attributes came from the PzIII!
syscom3:
The wheels are called bogies, but you can call them wheels and still remain accurate.
If an inner wheel had a problem then yes, it was a pain to fix.
The main problem is being close together caused them to clog.
KraziKanuK:
Are those prices accurate? If they are, thanks.
I can never understand why the Panther cost half the man-hours of the Tiger
, but the quality was far, far inferior. It was even far worse than Soviet quality at times!!
This is another problem with complicated designs. Not only do they need highly skilled operators, but a highly skilled workforce and loborious construction too.
It's weird the Panther costing more $ than the Tiger.
I follow your point
Erich. The workforce had to be happy, something I know the English made sure of.
The heavy Panzers should have had better powertrains too, you can thank a bean-counting screw-up for that one.
I agree with you
Twitch, but you need good equipment. Would you take on AK47's with a baseball bat? - Kudos if you would BTW!
Hitler had some right ideas IMHO
loomaluftwaffe. It was he that wanted the T34 copying, who ordered the Tiger and who wanted the PzIII to originally carry a 50mm L60.
He was overruled and these cost Germany dear.
All this talk about Soviet peasants doing the fighting. The Volksturm, Luftwaffe groundcrew and Hitler Jugend seem to be forgotten?