Actually, the T34 was greatly superior to the German designs, but not due to it's offensive or defensive power, but rather because they were easier to produce, maintain and use, and also far more reliable. The germans produced excellent designs on paper, but many were mechanically unsound (overloaded transmissions were a major issue with late-war german designs)
Note that upgunned T34's gave the US fits in Korea. -Adam P. J. Alling wrote: > The arms of Krupp is not entirely correct. The invasion of France was > carried out using a large number of "training" tanks, (Panzer I and II's > which had very small guns and light armor, the I in fact had no gun at > all in the heavy weapon category, it was armed with twin .30 cal, > (7.62mm) machine guns), there weren't enough of any front line German > tanks to go around, and large numbers of Czech Tanks were pressed into > service. A number of weapons thought to be quintessentially German were > really of Czech origin. Russian Tanks were never that much better than > German, in fact the vaunted T34 while a very good tank was most > effective because of it's large numbers not it's inherent superiority, > it was actually a prewar (1937-38 or there about) design, that began to > enter service in late 1940 to early 1941.. The Germans actually were the > ones who created the mid war designs, the Panther and Tiger were both > answers to the T34. If they could have been built in sufficient numbers, > (the Russians out produced the Germans in tanks by somewhere between > 10-20 to 1, most being the T34, because they were good enough), the > Russian T34 probably wouldn't have the reputation it has today. ... > > Bob Sullivan wrote: >> Adam, >> Based on the "Arms of Krupp" book, Hitler had the war machine designed >> and under construction long before overtaking any Chechoslovak >> stockpiles. By the end of the war, the German tanks (pre '40's >> designs) were outmatched by the Russian tanks (newer, better armored >> designs). Whether or not some resistance early on would have derailed >> Hitler is pretty speculative. >> Regards, Bob S. >> >> On 10/18/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> frank theriault wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/18/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bob, >>>>> >>>>> It's an all too common opinion in post-Trudeau Canada. >>>>> >>>>> It's also not shared by all Canadians. >>>>> >>>> The sad thing is that war ~isn't~ a "last resort" these days >>>> (competent actors or no)... >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> frank >>>> >>>> ps: what's Trudeau got to do with it? >>>> >>>> -f >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> As an aside, the history of WW2 would be a lot different if the British and >>> French governments hadn't used violence as a last resort. There's a lot of >>> evidence to indicate that a robust response to either the Remilitarization >>> of the Rhineland or the Occupation of the Sudetenland would have resulted >>> in a quick coup removing Hitler. >>> >>> It's certain that most of the tanks that rolled into Poland in September >>> 1939 were Czech, the Weremacht was in many ways an empty shell until the >>> takeover of Czechoslovakia gave the Germans access to the Czech's >>> stockpiles of armor and equipment. >>> >>> Violence is the last resort of the incompetent only because the competent >>> resort to it sooner. Of course, it is far too often used as a first or >>> second resort, which is tragic. >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >>> >>> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
