Why Allied Soviet equipment was superior (1 Viewer)

Weapons and equipment can be good to very good and be quite effective where excellent to astounding things costs calculate into astronomical sums to be justified ONLY if they consistently win conflicts due to overwhelming superiority. One would not copete against an AK 47 with a bat but one certainly could be effective with an M-2 carbine.

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.

Click to expand...

There is a reason the Soviet troops did not spend much time in their vehicles, to become accustomed. The reason was they'd be blown to pieces when they entered combat because of their inferior equipment.

Russian equipment was not easy to handle anyway. They were mostly clumsy, and the early T-34/76 was extremely cramped. It only had a two man turret, extremely inefficient. And the IS-2 had two-piece loading!

It does not take a huge technological advantage to offset numercial advantage. It can take only a minor technology advantage, such as superior optical equipment or a better small arm.

It is simple; imagine a Tiger without optical equipment compared to a Tiger with optical equipment engaging at 3,000 metres and closing. Who will win?

The twitchiness is fine for elites, but denying you have novices is asking for defeat. Soviet equipment, whilst being simple, is certainly not comfortable.

Click to expand...

It must be true that the entire Wehrmacht was made up of elite troops, sailors and pilots then. Because they handled all of their equipment with skill and efficiency.

At least you're right that the Soviet equipment was not comfortable. They lacked all creature comforts, and that sometimes included optical equipment and seat covers ...

I think the Me109 was actually good at landing. Taking off, especially in the Gustav onwards, was where the damage was done.

Click to expand...

The Me-109 was not 'good' at landing, it was no better than any other World War II front-line fighter. But most of the damage was done on taking-off, but this is probably most true for all the fighters, except naval fighters.

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!

Click to expand...

The T-34 was no better than the Pz.Kpfw IV. In 1941 it was, yes, but once the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 was developed the T-34 lost it's edge. The T-34 was superior to the Pz.Kpfw III but that was simply because it was a different class, the Germans never intended the Pz.Kpfw III to face up to a T-34.

The Germans never tried to copy the T-34. Drawings were made up of the shell of the T-34, but the internal workings were to be all German design from scratch. It was quickly realised that this would be pointless as the Germans knew they could produce something better, and they did - the Pz.Kpfw V 'Panther' . The Panther was designed to counteract the T-34, but in no way was it a copy. And this is no due credit for the T-34 since war is all about trying to out-do your enemy, if you discover they have something better, you make something even better ... that is why technology moves so fast during wartime.

And nothing from the Pz.Kpfw III was used on the T-34. The development of the T-34 began in 1936, which produced the A-20. The Pz.Kpfw III (1 Serie ZW) was not produced until 1937, and even then only ten were.

I shall not be so upfront actually. I will let you prove this, if you can. What, if anything, was used on the T-34 that was directly copied from the Pz.Kpfw III?

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.

Click to expand...

Road wheels and bogies are different objects in the suspension system of a tank. The road wheel is the actual wheel which rotates, it's simple enough. The bogie is to what the spring for the suspension system is connected. This is easiest to describe by looking at a picture of a Sherman, the bogie is the arm to which the pairs of road wheels are attached.
Only on the Christie suspension can this be nullified because the springs attached to each individual wheel, which could then be refered to as a bogie.

If any road wheel, on any tank, needs replacing it is a 'pain to fix' - this is nothing against the Tiger. And it got stuck no more than most World War II armour in the given situations.

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.

Click to expand...

It's not that hard to understand, the Panther was a simple machine compared to the Tiger. It also used less material than the Tiger. It was in no way inferior in quality to the Tiger, or any other machine for that matter. Calling the build quality far worse than Soviet build quality is just beyond idiotic! You're comparing the build of machine that did, admittedly, lack manganese and had to make up for it with inefficient materials to the build of machine (In question IS-2) that did not even have it's frontal armour tempered ! And that was under perfect conditions with plenty of men and material!

The high labour related to the Panther was, in fact, not that high for the amount of damage one Panther did to the enemy. If the Panther would destroy several T-34s, it's paid for it's man hours with the enemies man hours in building those T-34s. The Panther, and the Tiger, could pay for themselves many times over in combat.

The Panther did not cost more than the Tiger. Read KKs post again ...

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.

Click to expand...

If Hitler did, in fact, order the T-34 copied then he is less intelligent than I thought. The Waffenamt ordered a closer look at the T-34 to gain ideas from it, never to actively copy it. As it was, we all know the Germans were right - they could build a better machine, called the Panther.

Hitler did not order the Tiger, it had been in development since 1937. The Waffenamt had ordered a breakthrough tank back then which led to the Tiger appearing in August 1942.

Correct on the final point. Hitler was correct in ordering the L/60, but it hardly cost Germany the war!!

All this talk about Soviet peasants doing the fighting. The Volksturm, Luftwaffe groundcrew and Hitler Jugend seem to be forgotten?

Click to expand...

The fighting of Volksturm, Luftwaffe and Hitler Jugend is far from forgotten. But those actions were out of desperation. In fact, the Volksturm were German equal to the British Home Guard - only the Volksturm had to be used.

This does not take anything away from Germany who were in desperate times. The Red Army consisted of troops worse trained than these old men and boys throughout the entirety of the war !!

And the reason people get annoyed with your quotes is because you quote single words, or a collection of one or two. Quote the entire statement instead of nit-picking .

If the british home guard was used why did i hear a story of spitfire pilot, in flames, shot down a 109, parachuted and was shot inaccurately by ome british home guards, then the pilot got a Victoria Cross

That made no sense. I will say this though, the British Home Guard was not used in combat. Because Britain was never invaded, funnily enough.

Schwarz, since I own both weapons, how exactly is the Mosin more simple to use than the K98k ? Don't you rotate and push the bolt back and forth on the Mosin, or does it have some kind of magical reloading system I don't know about, cause if it does please let me know

No, the Mosin is infact a far inferior rifle to the K98k, as it could take far less chamber pressures and is much less safe for the shooter. The strong M98 action of the K98k is still considered the best bolt action design today, and has been copied over a million times to this day because of it. Most modern hunting rifles as-well as Sniper-rifles still use the M98 action, and the reason is simple - it is simply as good as it gets.

PlanD:

Yep, a lot of Soviet tank stuff was hard to use.


I don't think any technology advantage can be considered small, even if it is unreliable?

It is simple; imagine a Tiger without optical equipment compared to a Tiger with optical equipment engaging at 3,000 metres and closing. Who will win?

Click to expand...

Yes, but they are the same vehicle. I could argue that if one is mobile, the other is not. Who will win?

It must be true that the entire Wehrmacht was made up of elite troops, sailors and pilots then. Because they handled all of their equipment with skill and efficiency.

Click to expand...

To a point I'd agree. Low-skilled German personnel were the exceptions from the rule, 'till late in the war. Visa-versa for the Soviets, again changing at the end of the war.

The Me-109 was not 'good' at landing, it was no better than any other World War II front-line fighter.

Click to expand...

I've heard the fuselage-mounted wheel spars did well in crash-landings. The photographic evidence of crashed 'Schmitts seems to prove this?

Aircraft carrier based planes also have their wheel spars mounted on the fuselage because of this, I believe?

Also, my grandad's squadron used Spifires near a cliff in '45, the "Spitfire bounce" meant that they embedded themselves (and their pilots) in the cliff face a few times too often.

He said the Spit's could get off the ground with absolutely no problems though.

I believe both these factors + - are due to the wide-track landing gear?

The T-34 was no better than the Pz.Kpfw IV. In 1941 it was, yes, but once the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 was developed the T-34 lost it's edge.

Click to expand...

I know, I meant the early pre-Special L24 PzIV's.

The T-34 was superior to the Pz.Kpfw III but that was simply because it was a different class, the Germans never intended the Pz.Kpfw III to face up to a T-34.

Click to expand...

Guderian and Hitler expected it. It's purpose was to engage enemy tanks, after all.

There was a tip-off from the Soviets on the Pz's failings during the mutual co-operation era.

Ministry of Armaments bean-counting ( possibly also pride) was responsible for ignoring this as well.

What, if anything, was used on the T-34 that was directly copied from the Pz.Kpfw III?

Click to expand...

The link:

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=50〈=en

Well it shows how quick progress was!

The implemented features were:

immediately

good mobility

mechanical reliability (save gearbox)

eventually

comfortable

3-man turret

commanders cupola

radio

intercom for all crew members

good ammo layout

never!

low noise

quality optics

I guess that this was an export spec PzIII, I think you understand what this means? (Pig-spec in Russian)


I take bogie to mean unsprung weight, you are correct - I will use your system from now on - it's a lot better/easier.

And it got stuck no more than most World War II armour in the given situations.

Click to expand...

Well it was worse than the T34 and Churchill, but I suppose it was OK.


The Panther did suffer from quality control issues, I've proved it on another thread, but I don't think the TigerI ever did?

The early IS2 quality control was beyond shocking, admittedly. The thing is, they were upgunned IS1's - and probably meant to be only prototypes!

There is a Russophobic propaganda-ish rumour that they were deliberately unhardened to increase production/reduce costs. Though this wouldn't surprise me.

Did you know that some combat StuG's were made of mild steel? - their crews found out about this and unsurprisingly weren't best pleased about it!


I agree with you that the Tiger and Panther were very cost-effective, despite what historians say, I've always thought this.

After that, there's always the cost in lives. Though Stalin was not as bothered about this 'resource'.

The Panther did not cost more than the Tiger. Read KKs post again ...

Click to expand...

Silly me!


It was suggested the T34 be directly copied. German pride and lack of experience and materials prevented this, so a 'Germanised' T34 was deigned by DB along with a 'Sovietised' Panzer by MAN.

Hitler preferred the former, but was again overruled. Surprisingly seemed to happen quite a bit, didn't it?


A point I don't get is MAN invented the Diesel engine, yet didn't use it in the Panther.


I know about the DW tank, but the Tiger design brief called for a different type of vehicle entirely.

The experience of the DW was all that was carried through, as it was the heaviest and most technologically advanced design available as a base.


I think if the PzIII had had the L60 from the start, that it would have been almost decisive.

This does not take anything away from Germany who were in desperate times.

Click to expand...

It does not excuse needlessly sacrificing women, children and old men. If they want to, then maybe, but like the Soviets, they were often forced into it.

Soviet troops were just flung into battle, but I feel so sorry for them, as not only did Hitler want them dead, but Stalin too! - poor beggers.


I'll try to better my quotes, but I hate posting a huge part as I feel it detracts greatly. (Also with my colossal nattering, I need all the space I can get! )


The British home guard did kill a deaf kid when he failed to hear "who goes there? Stop!" - I rember hearing of that incident.

I think they were used against bailing Luftwaffe crews too? (Think Spike Milligan)

why did i hear a story of spitfire pilot, in flames, shot down a 109, parachuted and was shot inaccurately by ome british home guards, then the pilot got a Victoria Cross

Click to expand...

i don't believe this is true, as you don't get a VC for being fired at by your own troops, and as i understand it only one VC was awarded to fighter command, to that guy that chopped off the tail of a -110 with the wing of his hurricane...........

stupid rumors

It is true and it was a DO-17 that was headed towards Buckingham Palace...

Yup...

The STG.44 over a M1 Garand could easily be considered a small technological advantage, compared to the nuclear bomb - which is a huge advantage. But equipping your unit with the STG.44 makes them a better unit than that equipped with the Garand.

The immobile Tiger with optical equipment would defeat the mobile Tiger without at 3,000 metres. It's simple , while the mobile Tiger is getting close enough to aim without any aids ... the optical-equipped Tiger is shooting accurately on a stable platform.

Soviet troops late in the war were not much better than those early in the war. Since the vast majority of those that gained experience would die in battle because of faulty tactics. The overall grand strategy of the Red Army changed, that's what made it better. Even in 1945 a few German AFVs could rout whole groups of Soviets ... so much for élite and experienced.

Crash landing a plane, and landing a plane normally is something quite different. There's plenty of crash landed Spitfires that are intact ... it's not hard to fly, land or take-off a Spitfire.

And I believe I stated that the T-34 was better than those types !

Expecting something, and intending something are completely different. The Germans knew nothing of the T-34 pre-war time ... or at least, very little. They knew, however, that the vast majority of the Red Army armour was made up of the T-26 - which was inferior to the Pz.Kpfw III .
The Soviet inspectors of the German factories made no indication directly to the Germans about the inadequecy of their technology. The "tip-off" came when the Soviet inspectors did not believe the Pz.Kpfw IV was the heaviest of the German vehicles - this rang alarm bells in the Waffenamt.

Those are not technologies taken from the Pz.Kpfw III ! They just realised that the Pz.Kpfw III was better in those areas - so improved the T-34 to best it ... ! And the T-34 was never comfortable in relative terms to the German and Allied vehicles !

The Churchill was terrible in icy conditions though ! The 6th Coldstream Guards captured a Panther G during the Ardennes offensive, and stated it made a mockery of the Churchill in the icy conditions - as the Churchills slid off the road, the Panther stuck to it like glue ... !

The Panther suffered from lack of material - it was still more than capable of withstanding both Soviet and Allied armour ... and was, in fact superior to both !

The IS-2 ... all the way through it's production was unhardened ... and it was to keep the production high. Face hardening armour takes a long time !

How would the L/60 done anything !? The armour would have still been diverted - the armour would have still got stuck - the supplies would have still been inadequete . The troops would have still frozen ... they would have still not taken Moscow - 'cos the armour wouldn't have been there to do it ! Sure , with the L/60 the Germans would have had an easier time - no doubt about that ... but in no way would it have won the war ... !

We're talking military situation , not the politics of the Nazi party - Germany needed fighting people, so the Volksturm were used. The British Home Guard never saw action - many were old, and many were young. Would we hold it against Britian if they had to be used !?

It is true and it was a DO-17

Click to expand...

my mistake........

PlanD:

Thanks, the nuke would be a big advantage, yes.

I would probably not choose the StG44 over the M1 Garand, even for close combat!


It depends if the Tiger sans optical aids could still hit a target...

the vast majority of those that gained experience would die in battle because of faulty tactics.

Click to expand...

After '43 tactics in the UUSR were much improved. Guerilla tactics etc replaced pointless charges etc.

Even in 1945 a few German AFVs could rout whole groups of Soviets ... so much for élite and experienced.

Click to expand...

Also vice-versa.

It is said that Stalin learned to be more like Hitler and Hitler learned to be more like Stalin.

While Germany was copying Maginot Line-style WW1 tactics, Stalin was using BlitzKrieg and Guerilla warfare.

Also add to this the material and production advantages the Soviets enjoyed...

There's plenty of crash landed Spitfires that are intact

Click to expand...

More so with Me109's? Did the pilots survive these crashes? Any details?

it's not hard to fly, land or take-off a Spitfire.

Click to expand...

It's very easy, but landing is a bit dodgy.

They knew, however, that the vast majority of the Red Army armour was made up of the T-26 - which was inferior to the Pz.Kpfw III .

Click to expand...

True and true.


The Kurile Islands and Winter wars caused a bit of bother; The Japanese were scared of the Soviets and because the Finns handled the Soviets so roughly, Hitler thought they'd be a pushover (which they very nearly were).

The "tip-off" came when the Soviet inspectors did not believe the Pz.Kpfw IV was the heaviest of the German vehicles - this rang alarm bells in the Waffenamt.

Click to expand...

Some influential people thought they Soviets were bluffing and to be honest I can't blame them.

I know Guderian believed it though.

Those are not technologies taken from the Pz.Kpfw III ! They just realised that the Pz.Kpfw III was better in those areas - so improved the T-34 to best it ... !

Click to expand...

It's similar for the T34 and the Panther - they certainly influenced each other.

And the T-34 was never comfortable in relative terms to the German and Allied vehicles !

Click to expand...

That's true.

Yeah, I can understand 'Cuckoo' being better on hard ground, but then again - so would the Maus.

I agree with your views on the Panther to a point. To me the Late Panther G was the best or equal best tank in WW2.

The IS-2 ... all the way through it's production was unhardened ... and it was to keep the production high.

Click to expand...

It was for early versions, then it was realised that the time saved just wasn't worth it.

The armour would have still been diverted - the armour would have still got stuck - the supplies would have still been inadequete . The troops would have still frozen ... they would have still not taken Moscow - 'cos the armour wouldn't have been there to do it !

Click to expand...

True, but I think that there would have been a lot less pre-Barbarossa deaths, morale would have been improved and numbers higher.

Germany would then maybe not have been as reliant on the Finns?

The Moscow counter-attack could even maybe been stopped?

A few other counter-attacks would also maybe have been stopped in their tracks and those that were anyway would very likely have had lower German mortality rates.

Would we hold it against Britian if they had to be used !?

Click to expand...

A good point, but I doubt any refusers would have had the SS or Gestapo systematically executing them on the streets and hanging placards round their necks as they dangled from lampposts?

- Or would they?...

Dad's Army was about voluntarily defending a country and millenia old ways of life, not being forced to protect some insane Political Ideaology that was obviously on the way out.

"If the German people are incapable of winning the war, then let them rot"

"There can be no Civilians..."

- Adolf Hitler

Don't choose the STG.44 , and get beaten. It's a well known fact the STG.44 was a great weapon, and would have been much appreciated in all armies.

Tiger optical equipment was ranged up to 5,000 metres, it could well easily hit another Tiger at 3,000 metres.

True, the Red Army had improved tactically but it did not replace mass charges. The only difference was that now, the charges were mobile and the armoured rushes were more co-ordinated.

No, not vice-versa. German troops never had enough to be routed by inferior numbered forces. The Red Army always out-numbered the opposing Wehrmacht , and more often than not the Germans would not rout unless in a hopeless situation. In some circumstances, even then, they'd hold ground.

The Wehrmacht never, ever, ever adopted trench-warfare tactics. Read a book or two, and you'll come across the term "elastic defence" which the Germans used throughout the entirety of the war.

Where are your details for the Bf-109 being more survivable in a crash landing? There's no reports of the Spitfire being any harder to land than any other aircraft. It gave a decent stall warning and had a low landing speed - excellent characteristics for a good landing aircraft.

They may have been influenced , but only because they realised what the enemy had was better ! There's nothing taken from the Pz.Kpfw III that was put on the T-34.

Show me where it says the IS-2 was face-hardened ! Everywhere I have read, the problem remained throughout it's production. And I've provided quotes in the past - obviously you didn't take them on board.

Germany , reliant on the Finnish !? Since when !?! Where do you read this dribble !? Oh right , so the Pz.Kpfw III equipped with the L/60 despite the fact it was still inferior to the T-34 ... was going to stop A) Panzer divisions getting stuck B) Tanks that it still couldn't destroy ... !

The German people mostly volunteered - they were defending their nation from the hordes of Bolsheviks looking to destroy Germany and it's people !

also to destroy the bolsheviks, u see, Germany wanted to attack and destroy the Bolsheviks

and ive seen pictures which said "another conscript doing drills"

Schwarzpanzer said:

I would probably not choose the StG44 over the M1 Garand, even for close combat!

Click to expand...

If you've ever had the oppotunity to try both, then oh yes you would ! (Unless you have a death wish ofcause )

USSR and US equipment can also be seen from this point of view too. We all agree for example that the US made a lot of everything, right? To a certain point I agree that simplicity was a good thing. Shermans for example were Tiger food but when, for example you compare maintence records and getting them back into combat after being damaged or "destroyed", the Sherman has a record that can't be beat. Therefore no matter how good or bad the Tiger/Panthers were there would still be more Shermans on the battlefield that one could shake a stick at. Simplicity here was lives sacrificed for numbers and it worked and I really don't have a problem with it. Also if you look at the post war record of US infantry weapons in low intensity wars, until the advent of the AK family of ARs, were US infantry weapons because again of thier simplicity.

But...

The US and the USSR could over-engeneer the crap out of equipment that all of us have agreed on other lists was the "best". Again look at another piece of US equipment the Corsair. I have read many accounts from Tommy Blackburn to Pappy Boyington to French pilots, that the Corsair while loved was WAY too overengeneered. Too much junk to watch, worry, and fool with. It was a complex machine in many aspects compared to a 109G or even Tonys and even Raidens. I think it was in Blackburn's auto bio that it was amazing that they had as good as a maintenance record as they did considering how complex these machines were and where they were deployed to before they were used on USN carriers.

My two yen

:{)

Regards the M1 Garand vs the StG44:

The StG had it's flaws; it was not comfortable and had a pathetic fore and butt stock.

The Garand was better at ranges over 600m.

At point blank the .30 is going to do serious damage, as is the 7.92 Kurz.

As a Universal gun, both were good weapons - the Garand being more common.

It's like the M16 vs SLR debate.

Unless it was at night, or for long distances both were about equal, the StG having the advantages of full-auto and lighter ammo.


PlanD:

The Red Army always out-numbered the opposing Wehrmacht

Click to expand...

You can't make blanket statements like that! Tikhvin-Volkhov, Krasnoe Sero and that incident where 1 T34 smashed 3 KonigsTiger's in -5minutes. IMO simply comparing isolated incidents like this is pointless.

The Wehrmacht never, ever, ever adopted trench-warfare tactics. Read a book or two, and you'll come across the term "elastic defence" which the Germans used throughout the entirety of the war.

Click to expand...

Yes it did, but I guess elastic or offensive overall.


The box spar, bulkhead construction of the Me109 with it's landing gear forces being fed into the fuselage makes sense. If I find the source again, I'll notify you.

Surely you must have heard of the 'classic Spitfire bounce'??

It gave a decent stall warning and had a low landing speed

Click to expand...

Yes, the 2nd point... well from his account they didn't exactly land that slowly. - suppose it's not that funny really, boy I'm macabre!

Show me where it says the IS-2 was face-hardened !

Click to expand...

It's not a case of none were face hardened, it's just that a limited number were not bothered with to save time/cost. The Germans also did this at times. Show me where it says the KonigsTiger and Panther were face-hardened .

Everywhere I have read, the problem remained throughout it's production.

Click to expand...

The ones with the sloping Glacis (JS2M to Westerners) were all face-hardened, to my knowledge.

And I've provided quotes in the past - obviously you didn't take them on board.

Click to expand...

They were obviously biased, that's why. Though there is truth in the matter and quality was never brilliant.

Germany , reliant on the Finnish !?

Click to expand...

I didn't mean completely reliant, obviously. I just meant a little too much.

B) Tanks that it still couldn't destroy ... !

Click to expand...

The PzIII J ( even G) could destroy a T34 (harder if it was a pre-'41 model with a good crew, but what are the chances of that?)

The German people mostly volunteered - they were defending their nation from the hordes of Bolsheviks looking to destroy Germany and it's people !

Click to expand...

True, but a lot weren't. Obviously German; Communists, partisans, objectors or cowards fall into this category.


CurzonDax:

Therefore no matter how good or bad the Tiger/Panthers were there would still be more Shermans on the battlefield that one could shake a stick at.

Click to expand...

That's right. If even the worlds best hunter aims at 2 rabbits - he's going to miss both!

Simplicity here was lives sacrificed for numbers and it worked and I really don't have a problem with it.

Click to expand...

Simplicity I agree with, but the technology gap and waste of life I believe to be one of the most horrific parts of the war, 2nd only to the atrocities.

Also if you look at the post war record of US infantry weapons in low intensity wars, until the advent of the AK family of ARs, were US infantry weapons because again of thier simplicity.

Click to expand...

Most weapons were like that, only trendy fads are blighting modern weapons IMHO.


I wouldn't think the Corsair was more complicated than the Me109?

- but then again the way I think familiarizes me more with the Me109.


Again is user-friendliness, I actually would choose a Weaver sight over a Zeiss as I find it easier to get along with.

If I had to keep swapping rifles, I suppose the Zeiss would be far better.

- That's a point; if all Zeiss' were the same, but the Weaver's variable - that's a win for the Zeiss. What was Whitforth's Theory called anyone? - I forget.

Couldn't have said it better.

Regards the M1 Garand vs the StG44:
The StG had it's flaws; it was not comfortable and had a pathetic fore and butt stock.
The Garand was better at ranges over 600m.
At point blank the .30 is going to do serious damage, as is the 7.92 Kurz.
As a Universal gun, both were good weapons - the Garand being more common.
It's like the M16 vs SLR debate.
Unless it was at night, or for long distances both were about equal, the StG having the advantages of full-auto and lighter ammo.

Click to expand...

This is beyond absurd, the STG.44 is quite clearly the superior combat weapon. The StG.44 was able in any given situation , and ask any combat soldier which weapon they'd take into Europe; it'd be the StG.44 everytime.

The StG.44 has all advantages over the M1 Garand. It's nothing like comparing the SLR to the M-16. Since the SLR holds it's own side by having superior firepower to the M-16, being more reliable than the M-16, being sturdier than the M-16 amongst other aspects. The StG.44 matches the Garand in single-shot firepower , and it has automatic fire giving it fire superiority !

You can't make blanket statements like that! Tikhvin-Volkhov, Krasnoe Sero and that incident where 1 T34 smashed 3 KonigsTiger's in -5minutes. IMO simply comparing isolated incidents like this is pointless.

Click to expand...

Isolated incidents like this? You mean combats against these vehicles? Combat is the best test for any vehicle of war , are you not going to use it's test paper and mark it to see how good the tanks were? Possibly because the German vehicles will come out on top time, and time, and time again.

The only reason the Wehrmacht out-numbered the Red Army during the Tikhvin actions was because the Wehrmacht had smashed the Red Army in the offensives preceding those actions. And even then the action was blown well out of proportion , the German Army mostly escaped the encirclement when the Red Army advanced on Tikhvin !

I haven't heard much of Krasnoe Sero , but I do know it was September 1944. Which, I assume made it part of The Battle of Dukla Pass - which would mean the Germans were out-numbered. Especially since during Operation Bagration , the Red Army had the Wehrmacht beat with a 10:1 numercial advantage in armour !

And what incident was that then !? Maybe a source and story for us all to read.

When did the German forces adopt trench warfare ?! If you say "they dug trenches" as part of your argument , you're stupid.

The box spar, bulkhead construction of the Me109 with it's landing gear forces being fed into the fuselage makes sense. If I find the source again, I'll notify you.

Surely you must have heard of the 'classic Spitfire bounce'??

Click to expand...

I'm sure I will be waiting a long time for this 'source' - as both Soren and I have been waiting for many of your sources and pictures.

Surely you could provide something in the way of evidence of this 'classic Spitfire bounce' ? Since all aircraft bounce !

Yes, the 2nd point... well from his account they didn't exactly land that slowly. - suppose it's not that funny really, boy I'm macabre!

Click to expand...

From who's account ?

On the IS-2 :

Once again, you're nit-picking at single sentences and it's irritating.

You have not proven my sources on the quality of the IS-2 with any sources of your own . Simply calling my sources bias without any of your own that can disprove it makes your argument null and void. Get some evidence to back up you argument, then come back to me about the quality of the IS-2.