> > From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/04/28 Thu PM 01:29:35 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. > > Casting was more important than just for speed of production, (which is > debatable, complex castings > can be a bi***), using cast steel rather than stamped and welded steel > plates for armor made for a more stronger > hull with fewer weak points, (up until very recently, say about 40 years > ago welded joints would be the > weakest part of large metal constructions).
I don't think we disagree...... > > mike wilson wrote: > > >>From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Date: 2005/04/28 Thu AM 07:36:14 GMT > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. > >> > >>No doubt. The sloped armor of the T34 made with an American Steel > >>formulation btw, could stop the relatively low velocity 75mm AP shells > >>from the Panzer Mark IV cold. It was quite a surprise to the German > >>tank crews. Germany answered with a higher velocity 75mm, (maybe it was > >>a 76mm gun, I don't remember exactly), in the Panther tank which also > >>featured improved armor, the larger and heavier Tiger which mounted the > >>88mm gun which would go through the Armor of almost anything in the > >>field during WWII. If Germany could have built Panthers in the numbers > >>that the Russians churned out T34s Russia would have lost a lot more men > >>and equipment and we would have dropped the first atomic bomb on > >>Berlin. The statistics are telling however > >>Germany Produced 5,984 Panther tanks from 1943-1945, 1350 Tigers from > >>1942 -1944, and 480 of the heavier but slightly inferior, (to the Tiger > >>I), Tiger II's for a total of 7,814 tanks that were equal or superior to > >>the T34 in firepower and protection. From 1940-1944 the Russians > >>produced 35,629 T34/76 tanks, I couldn't find production figures on the > >>T34/85, but I'd bet they built "lots". The ratio is about 4.5 to 1 > >>T34/75s to everything the Germans had that could face it. > >> > >> > > > >That's part of the innovative design. IIRC, not only was the armour of a > >design that had very few flat surfaces, innovative in itself, it was also > >cast, allowing huge quantities to be made in the same time it took to > >fabricate ordinary armour. > > > >There was an earlier mention of diesel. I don't think the Russians used > >diesel much, for the simple reason that it was (and is) a bugger to keep > >liquid in the winter. Even now, all of the heavy transports and buses I saw > >in Siberia were petrol powered. > > > > That doesn't > > > > > >>include Russian heavy tanks of all kinds who's production equaled the > >>total production of all German medium and heavy tanks, (Panthers, Tigers > >>and Tiger II's), from 1943-1945. The US produced 33402 M4 (75) > >>Shermans, 10,883 M4 (76) and even produced almost 2200 M28 "heavy" tanks > >>by 1945, more than the total number Tiger and Tiger II tanks, built by > >>Germany. The high velocity Gun mounted in the Panther was designed to > >>kill T34's. > >> > >>mike wilson wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>P. J. Alling wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>It seems that the T34, (Russian), has a better reputation than it > >>>>deserves, it was simple and robust, packed a big punch and had armor > >>>>that would stand up to the main gun on a Panzer Mark IV. The Sherman > >>>>M1A[X] had also had armor designed to stand up to the Panzer Mark > >>>>IV. Unfortunately by the time the Sherman tank was facing German > >>>>Armor in Europe the Germans had developed the Panther, Tiger and > >>>>Tiger II tanks in the face of the T34. The T34 had most of the same > >>>>problems against the later German tanks that the Sherman did, only > >>>>slightly less flammable. By the way it was never supposed to be the > >>>>job of American tanks to kill Armor, that was the job of a Tank > >>>>Destroyer. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>No time to elaborate as I'm off to work 8-( but the T34 was > >>>revolutionary (groan...) in its armour design. > >>> > >>>m > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Herb Chong wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>the US also sent virtually all of the trucks and much of the > >>>>>clothing. the British took the same and also US tanks. the Soviets > >>>>>never cared for anyone else's tanks, for good reason. > >>>>> > >>>>>Herb.... > >>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>To: <[email protected]> > >>>>>Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 2:07 PM > >>>>>Subject: Re: OT: Take a course in philosophy, will ya. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>No the USA sent the Russians tons of SPAM to keep their troops > >>>>>>alive, as they were starving on the German front during the > >>>>>>winter. Just a little history. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > >----------------------------------------- > >Email sent from www.ntlworld.com > >virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software > >visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
