Military Review

Tank Panther - the grave-digger of the Third Reich?

105
In various books and TV shows, I have constantly met Panther's assessment as one of the best tanks Second World War. And in the program on the National Geographic channel he was generally called the absolutely best tank, a tank "ahead of its time".


Tank Panther - the grave-digger of the Third Reich?


Historical reference
Panzerkampfwagen V Panther, abbr. PzKpfw V "Panther" - a German tank during the Second World War. This combat vehicle was developed by MAN in 1941 — 1942 as the main tank of the Wehrmacht. According to the German classification, "Panther" was considered a medium tank. In the Soviet tank classification "Panther" was considered a heavy tank. In the departmental end-to-end system of designations of the Nazi Germany military equipment, the Panther had the Sd.Kfz index. 171. Starting from 27 February 1944, the Führer ordered to use only the name "Panther" to designate a tank.



The battle debut of "Panther" was the battle of Kursk, later tanks of this type were actively used by the Wehrmacht and the SS troops in all European theaters of operations. According to a number of experts, the Panther is the best German tank of the Second World War and one of the best in the world. At the same time, the tank had a number of drawbacks, was difficult and expensive to manufacture and operate. On the basis of the "Panther" produced self-propelled artillery (SAU) "Jagdpanther" and a number of specialized vehicles for engineering and artillery units of the German armed forces.



What was the real significance for the course of the war of such an outstanding machine? Why did Germany, having such an outstanding tank, not utterly defeat the Soviet armored forces?


Panther battalions on the Eastern Front. Period from the end of 1943 to 1945 year

The “Panthers” who survived the Kursk Arc were assembled as part of the 52 tank battalion, which 24 of August 1943 of the year was renamed I. Abteilung / Panzer-Regiment 15. In early August, the 51 Battalion received the new 96 "Panther" and remained in the Grenadier Division "Grossdeutschland". By the end of August, the 52 Battalion had irretrievably lost the 36 Panther. As of 31 in August, the 1943 of the 52 tank battalion had 15 tank-capable tanks, and the 45 vehicles were under repair.



At the end of August 1943, 1 arrived at the front. Abteilung / SS-Panzer-Regiment 2, part of the tank division of the SS "Das Reich". This battalion numbered the "Panther" 71. Three commander tanks were located at headquarters, and in each of the four companies there were 17 vehicles: two in the headquarters section and five in each platoon. August 31 1943 in the battalion was 21 efficient tank, 40 machines needed repair, 10 was written off.



The fourth Panther battalion, which turned out to be on the Eastern Front, was II. Abteilung / Panzer-Regiment 23. The battalion had 96 "Panthers", of which the majority were Ausf. D, but there were a few Ausf. A. The fifth part was I. Abteilung / Panzer-Regiment 2, equipped with the Panther 71, mainly Ausf. A. From the report of the 13 Tank Division of 20 in October 1943 of the year:



"Because of the threatening situation at the front, the battalion was thrown to the front, barely having time to unload. The battalion acted on companies. Due to the rush, it was not possible to establish interaction with the grenadiers. later, such use of tanks contradicted the basic tactical principles, but the situation at the front did not leave a choice. "



Below are excerpts from the reports of Commander I. Abteilung / Panzer-Regiment 2. Hauptmann Bollert, covering the period from 9 to 19 in October 1943 of the year:
Tactical training

“Insufficient tactical training of the crews did not seriously affect the combat capability of the battalion, as more than half of the battalion’s personnel have combat experience. In such an environment, young soldiers quickly improve their skills. Many young driver mechanics who have just finished tank school have been very zealous in maintaining their tanks in combat readiness. In any case, it is highly desirable to have an experienced platoon commander. "



Technical training in Germany

During several weeks of training, driver and maintenance personnel did not always learn what was required on the front line. Some of the soldiers were engaged all the time in any one task, for example, they changed the track rollers. Thus, many did not have a holistic view of the PzKpfw V device. Under the guidance of an experienced instructor, young soldiers sometimes achieved excellent results in a very short time. There is an opportunity to study the materiel at each factory collecting tanks.



Mechanical problems

Cylinder head seal went through. Destroyed fuel pump shaft.

Bolts on the big gear of onboard transfer are broken. Often there is a loss of plugs, which leads to leakage of oil. Oil also often flows through the seam between the casing of the onboard transmission and the side of the tank. The bolts with which the side gears are attached to the hull side, often loosen.

Top fan bearing often sticks. Lubrication is insufficient, even if the oil level is normal. Damage to the fan is often accompanied by damage to the fan drive.

The propeller shaft bearings fail. The drive of the hydraulic pump wears out.



Weapons problems: the compressor clutch sticks, which interferes with the operation of the barrel purge system. The TZF 12 sight fails as a result of hits in the gun mask. Optics consumption for the sight is very high.

It is absolutely necessary to equip the tank with a machine gun to fight the enemy’s infantry. The need for a course machine gun is especially acute when the coaxial machine gun is silent.



Frontal armor PzKpfw V is very good. 76,2-mm armor-piercing shells leave dents on it no deeper than 45 mm. "Panthers" fail when a direct hit 152-mm high-explosive shells - the projectile breaks through the armor. Almost all the “Panthers” received frontal hits of 76-mm projectiles, while the combat capability of the tanks practically did not suffer. In one case, the gun mask struck an 45-mm projectile fired from the 30 distance. The crew was not injured.



However, the side armor is very vulnerable. The side of the turret on one of the “Panthers” was pierced with an anti-tank rifle. The board of the other "Panther" was also punched by a small-caliber projectile. All these damages occur during battles on the streets or in the woods, where it is not possible to close the flanks.

A direct hit by an artillery shell in the lower part of the frontal armor led to the fact that the weld seams burst, and a piece several centimeters long broke off the armor plate. Obviously, the seam was not boiled to the full depth.


Skirt performed well enough. Sheet fasteners are not reliable and very awkwardly located. Since the sheets are suspended at a distance of 8 cm from the side of the tank, they are easily torn off by branches of trees and shrubs.

New basic skating rinks did not cause censures. Almost all the “Panthers” were losing speed due to explosive shells. One track roller pierced through, three damaged. Split several road wheels. Although 45-mm and 76-mm shells pierce the tracks, they cannot immobilize a tank. In any case, "Panther" can under its own power to leave the battlefield. During long marches, at the maximum speed, rubber tires on support rollers wear out quickly.


The gun proved to be excellent, only a few minor problems were noted. Frontal armor KV-1 confidently makes its way from a distance of 600 m. SU-152 makes its way from a distance of 800 m.

The new commander's turret has a fairly successful design. Diopter, which helped the tank commander in pointing the gun at the target, is absent. The three front periscopes should be moved a little closer together. The field of view through the periscopes is good, but it is impossible to use binoculars. When shells hit the tower, the optics of the periscope often fail and require replacement.


In addition, the driver and radio operator periscopes should be better sealed. During rain, water penetrates inside and makes it very difficult to work.

The Bergepanther tugs have proven their worth. One Bergepanther is enough to evacuate one tank in dry weather. In the deep mud, even two tugboats are not enough to evacuate one Panther. To date, the Bergepanther tugs have evacuated the Panthers 20. In total, the damaged tanks were towed over a distance of 600 m. The Bergepanther was used only to tow the wrecked tanks from the front to the rear. The experience of the battalion shows that it is necessary to have at least four Bergepanther tugboats, albeit at the expense of ordinary 18-ton tugs. The equipment of the tugs with radio stations turned out to be the way. During the battle, the Bergepanther commanders received instructions on the radio.


To tow one “Panther” in dry weather requires two tractor Zugkraftwagen 18t. However, even four 18-ton tractors cannot move a tank in deep mud.

October 16 battalion launched an attack by the forces of the 31 tank. Although the distance traveled was small, the Panthers 12 failed due to mechanical damage. By October 18 1943, the battalion had 26 combat-ready "Panthers". 39 tanks needed repair and 6 machines had to be written off. In the period from 9 to 19 in October, the average number of combat-ready tanks was 22 Panthers.


Results: 46 tanks hit and 4 self-propelled guns. 28 anti-tank guns, 14 artillery guns and 26 anti-tank guns destroyed. Our irretrievable worn - 8 tanks (6 was hit and burned during the fighting, two were disassembled for parts). "


Due to the mechanical unreliability of the Panther and the high level of losses 1 in November 1943, Hitler decided to send 60 tanks without engines to the Leningrad Front, which should have been dug into the ground opposite the Kronstadt Bay. From 5 to 25 in November 1943 of the year 60 "Panther" (fully combat-ready) was sent to the command of the Army Group North.


30 November 1943, the command of the L Army Corps reported that the 60 "Panthers" had entered into the 9 th and 10 th Lufwaffe field divisions. The “Panthers” were dugged in three along the defense line, having 1000-1500 m swept in front of them. If for some reason it was not possible to dig up three tanks next to each other, the single machine was reinforced with infantry and anti-tank gun. 10 most combat-ready machines left on the go as a mobile reserve.


From I. Abteilung / Panzer-Regiment, 29 identified 60 people (20 commanders, 20 driver-mechanics, 15 gunners and 5 gunners-radio operators). 26 December III Tank Corps received an order to collect all the remaining mobility "Panthers" in the composition of I. Abteilung / Panzer-Regiment 29. The trenched "Panthers" remained under the jurisdiction of the divisions.

In November 1943, two Panther battalions arrived on the Eastern Front. These were the Abteilung / Panzer-Regiment 1, which counted 76 "Panthers" (in the company of 17 tanks), as well as Ableilung / SS-Panzer-Regiment 1, fully equipped with the 96 "Panthers". Both battalions operated as part of their divisions.


In early November, the 1 battalion of the 15 Tank Regiment received a reinforcement in the form of the Panthers 31. At the end of December, the 1943, I Battalion 1 of the Tank Regiment, received the 16 of the new Panthers. Apart from the 60 Panther sent to the Leningrad Front, the 1943 Panther was sent to the Eastern Front in 841 in the year. By December 31 1943, the Germans had only 217 "Panthers", of which only 80 remained operational. 624 tank was written off (loss 74%).

From 5 to 11 December 1943, the 76 Panther was taken to the 1st battalion of the 2 Tank Regiment. Another 94 "Panther" arrived as a replenishment to other battalions. However, all these tanks were used for the first time in battle in January 1944.


5 March 1944, Guderian reported:

“As the experience of the last battles showed, the Panther was finally able to bring to mind. In a report from February 22 1944, received from the 1-th tank regiment, says: "In the current version of the Panther is suitable for front-line use. It is much superior to the T-34. Almost all the drawbacks are eliminated. The tank has excellent booking, armament, patency and speed. Currently, the average engine mileage is within 700-1000 km. The number of engine breakdowns has decreased. There are no more breakdowns in the onboard gears. The steering and transmission are fairly reliable. "


However, this report from the 1-th tank regiment was premature. Indeed, the Panther felt good in the winter on frozen ground, but already in the report from April 22 of 1944, from the 1st Battalion of the 2-Tank Regiment, numerous technical problems caused by the spring off-road were reported:

The report summarizes the experience gained between March 5 and April 15 of the year 1944.

Engine Maybach HL 230 Р30;

In general, new engines are much safer than their predecessors. Sometimes the engine without repair passes to 1700-1800 km, and the 3 "Panthers", after passing this distance, still remain on the move. But the nature of damage has not changed: the destruction of mechanical parts and damage to bearings.



Engine fires

The number of fires in the engine compartment has decreased markedly. The following causes of fires were identified:
Oil leaks through valves due to bad seals. Drops of oil fall on hot exhaust pipes and ignite.
In some cases, there is an overflow carburetor. Candles are filled with gasoline and do not give a spark. Unburned fuel is then thrown into the exhaust pipes and seeps out through the seals, causing a fire.



Трансмиссия

The service life of the transmission also increased. On average, every 1500 km of run fails the 3-I transmission, and the failure in field conditions is beyond repair. The failure of the 3 transmission is due to its overload when driving through mud. Since we sometimes fail to replace the transmission, we exploited three Panthers with a defective gearbox. Switching from the 2-th to the 4-th transmission at once sometimes caused a clutch failure, but repairing the clutch is much easier. It happens that tanks pass without a clutch breakdown on 1500-1800 km, and the Panthers 4 have already blocked this record.

Rapid steering wear is also due to constant off-road driving. The steering has a rather complicated structure, and the qualification of driver-mechanics is not enough to independently eliminate any malfunctions. Therefore, tanks are controlled by on-board brakes, which leads to their rapid wear and frequent failure.



Onboard gears

Very often, tanks fail due to damage to the onboard gear. For example, March 11 had to replace the onboard transmissions on 30 tanks. The left side gear fails more often than the right. Bolts on the big gear of onboard transfer often break. Especially adversely affects the onboard transmission reversing the mud.

Suspension and caterpillars

After 1500-1800 km of mileage, there is heavy wear on the tracks. In many cases, the guide teeth break off or bend. Four times the caterpillars had to be changed entirely, since there was no guide tooth left on any track.


Despite the fact that the reliability of tanks has increased markedly, attempts should be made to increase reliability even more. For this, it is necessary that the Panthers are adapted to the following combat situations:
Engine operation at extreme conditions when driving uphill or in deep mud.
Taxiing when reversing (the inevitable maneuver during the battle).
Clutch overload


The reduction in the level of damage is also due to the increased experience of driver mechanics and tank commanders. In the 4 th company of the 2 th tank regiment, the corporal of the Gablevsky corporation (PzKpfw V. Fgst.Nr. 154338. Motor Nr.83220046) has now passed without repair 1878 km and still retains full combat capability. During all this time it took to change a few track rollers and tracked tracks. Oil consumption on the tank is about 10 l. on 100 km. On the "Panther" still stand engine and transmission, mounted at the factory. "

In order to close the huge gap on the Eastern Front, made by the Red Army in July 1944, 14 tank brigades was hastily formed. Only seven of them were sent to the Eastern Front. The remaining seven had to be sent west, since in August 1944, the Allies launched a successful offensive in France. In each brigade with a number from 101 to 110. and also in the Fuehrer - brigade there was one battalion "Panther". The battalion consisted of a headquarters (3 "Panthers") and three companies, 11 "Panthers" in each (2 in the headquarters section and 3 in three platoons).


From August 1944, the Allied bombing began to affect the performance of German tank factories. Production of the Panther fell, and losses on the fronts, on the contrary, grew. I had to go to the reduction of tanks in the battalions. For example, in I. Abteilung / Panzer-Regiment73160; 10 had three cars with headquarters and 17 "Panthers" in the 2 and 4 companies.

In the 1st battalion of the Hermann Goering tank regiment there were 4 "Panthers" at the battalion headquarters and 14 "Panthers" in each of the four companies (two "Panthers" in the headquarters section and four in three platoons). The 1 battalions of the 6, 11, 24 and 130 tank regiments were organized in the same way. In these four battalions, all 60 Panthers were equipped with night vision devices. Field trials failed. therefore, all night-vision devices were dismantled and sent to the warehouse before the parts were sent to the front.


After the failure of the offensive on the Western Front, in February 1945 of the 8 divisions (1-I. 2-I, 9-I, 10-I and 12-I division of the SS, as well as 21-I division, 25-I Grenadier Division and Grenadier Division the Fuehrer division), which had a total of 271 tanks, was redeployed to the east.

12 February 1945, the tank inspector general, ordered the 1 company of the 101 tank battalion of the Fuehrer tank brigade to begin military tests of the FG 1250 night vision device. Ten "Panther" companies were sent to the Altengrabs, to equip the Noktovizorov. In addition, the company received three SdKfz 251 / 20. equipped with infrared illuminators BG 1251 (Uhu). 26 March 1945, Major Voelwart and Hauptmann Ritz reported on the first night of the battle using infrared sights. The fight was successful, night-vision devices were quite reliable. Having received encouraging results, the German command equipped tanks with IR sights in the following units:
I./PzRgt 6 (3. PzDiv) - March 1 10 pieces;
Ausbildungs-Lehrgang Fallingbostel - March 16 4 pieces;
I./PzRgt 130 (25. PzGrDiv) - March 23 10 pieces:
I./PzRgt 29 (PzDiv Muenchenberg) - April 5 10 pieces;
4. Kp / PzRgt 11-8 April 10 pieces.


With the exception of the four “Panthers” sent to Fallingbostel, all vehicles equipped with FG 1250 (50 units) participated in battles on the Eastern Front.

The largest number of combat-ready "Panther" was at the disposal of the German command in the summer and autumn of 1944. At this time, the peak number of efficient tanks reached 522 units. At the same time, the Red Army had several thousand T-34, KV-1, EC-2 and M4 Sherman. Despite many local successes, the Panthers could not turn the tide of the war.


Well, what do we have in the bottom line? In addition to combat and technical characteristics, any combat vehicle also has other characteristics. Such as reliability, maintainability, and most importantly - the price and the possibility of mass production resulting from it. If you evaluate the bare numbers of technical specifications, the car looks outstanding, even the statistics of battles with our tanks speak in favor of the Panther. But the above qualities, which often go beyond the attention of ordinary lovers of military history, make it simply awful. And despite its technical excellence, this machine almost destroyed the Third Reich, leaving it virtually without tanks. According to these qualities, “Panther” is not ahead of its time, but rather late. She was supposed to appear in the pre-war period, and all her childhood illnesses had to be eliminated before the war, and not at a critical moment for Germany.


Was there an alternative? I personally do not see her. Before the war, such a machine could not appear. Since it was the result of thinking about the battles against the T-34

What did Germany have to do? Probably right those colleagues who wrote that the only correct action would be to continue the modernization of T-IV. Machines rather outdated, which in my opinion, even in large numbers, would hardly change the course of the war.



Originator:
http://alternathistory.org.ua/
105 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 10 March 2012 08: 27
    15
    In 1939, the USSR used the KV tank (Finland), however, the Germans did not see an alarm bell in its appearance.
    It was at this time that it was worth starting the development of a new medium tank (with the L = 70 gun).
    Convulsive attempts during the war, to do at least something that was opposed to Soviet tanks - did not give a result.
    Panther is the worst decision.
    The optimal solution is a tank based on the third model (with reinforced torsion bars and an increased bearing area).
    Mass 32t (engine 500 hp) booking 85-50 mm, gun L-70.
    1. German
      German 10 March 2012 12: 15
      29
      if my grandmother had ... well, then she would be a grandfather ..... history dear Ivan does not tolerate the subjunctive mood! what was it was and nothing has changed.
      1. Ivan Tarasov
        Ivan Tarasov 10 March 2012 15: 51
        14
        I agree.
        But history teaches.
        By analyzing events, you can learn not to repeat mistakes.
        1. Slavyan I.
          Slavyan I. 10 March 2012 17: 48
          -1
          And you can see for yourself why errors are called errors.
    2. bandabas
      bandabas 10 March 2012 14: 14
      +3
      And then the tales began. They did not know, we did not know how. Politicians know how to hang noodles on their ears. And, apparently, the intelligence of all the warring countries was useless bully
    3. Chicot 1
      Chicot 1 10 March 2012 15: 55
      +9
      Alas, the "treshka" had limited opportunities for modernization. The Pz.IV is another matter ... wink But even from the end of the war the Germans pulled out practically everything that could be pulled out of the tank within reasonable limits ...
      The Panther was a fairly advanced machine (for a wartime design). But at the same time, it is difficult to manufacture. However, this did not prevent her from being a very serious enemy on the battlefield for almost any tank of that time ...
      Americans even gave their tankers a vacation for the padded "Panther" lol (described in the documentary book of the English historian M. Hastings "Operation Overlord") ...
    4. Kars
      10 March 2012 16: 10
      +6
      To begin with, the troika could not withstand even the mass of the L-48 gun, and it already had no modernization resource. And the mass of the SA-Panther cannon based on the T-4 pulled from overloads.
      T-4 and so they armor the forehead 80 mm, and some are slightly larger (artisanal)

      The L-70 in principle for a linear-medium tank was redundant, and the L-48 can still be upgraded to increase armor-piercing- (sleeve, gunpowder, shell design)

      Panther is a redundant option that came out neither one nor the other --- like his fellow King Tiger.
      1. predator
        predator 10 March 2012 19: 22
        0
        "Panther" is a good car, in principle the Germans wanted to copy the T-34, the appearance is very much like our tank.
        1. Astrey
          Astrey 12 March 2012 01: 30
          +9
          They wanted to. But the idea of ​​copying a machine is detrimental in itself. And the tank came out secondary and its concept of both manufacturing and use was crude. The result was a hyperbolic set of advantages and disadvantages. A sort of record holder with childhood illnesses.

          And errors superimposed on top of one another in the amount are not added, but multiplied by each other. A kind of spontaneously increasing anchor, instead of controlled ballast. Quasistable system of universal self-restoration of self-destruction results.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 24 2014 17: 47
            +1
            The Panther is a lightweight Tiger, because of which it had no problems with patency on the battlefield and the transfer on tank transopters and by rail.
            WW2 most dangerous tank
            only the Yaagdpanther was more dangerous (self-propelled guns, and much more dangerous).
            1. Cynic
              Cynic April 24 2014 19: 09
              +3
              Quote: Kassandra
              Panther is a lite Tiger

              And is it nothing that Panther is developed by MAN, and the Tiger is developed by Henschel?
              Quote: Kassandra
              WW2 most dangerous tank

              One of the most dangerous.
              hi
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra April 25 2014 01: 25
                +1
                It's nothing.

                not one of the most and the most - he traveled everywhere, and his cannon from afar was flashing everything. she was more dangerous than that of a tiger.
                1. Cynic
                  Cynic April 25 2014 19: 33
                  +6
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  not one of the most

                  Life is more complicated than in simulations.
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  he traveled everywhere

                  It’s debatable that she had a problematic one.
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  she was more dangerous than that of a tiger.

                  Hmm.
                  Have you ever read the whole article?
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra April 27 2014 21: 04
                    0
                    I did not try in simulators. anti-tank gunner told me.
                    the tiger’s chassis was much more problematic ...
                    at the expense of the gun, only the British had something similar
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17_pounder
                    1. Cynic
                      Cynic April 28 2014 07: 31
                      0
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      anti-tank gunner told me.

                      Fun, it's about _
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      not one of the most, but the most

                      I don’t want to say anything like that, but in essence such a statement requires experience of shooting at all tanks, as you understand and ours.
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      the tiger’s chassis was much more problematic ...

                      Like all heavy vehicles of that time.
                      The tiger lost in hover speed, the old truth _
                      whoever fired first is right
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra April 28 2014 10: 35
                        0
                        in fact, this is the experience of front-line soldiers, but the fact that the panther is more secure is the experience of front-line tank soldiers.

                        it's when close. before the appearance of ISs, tankmen could fight them only from close proximity from tank ambushes
    5. Krilion
      Krilion 10 March 2012 18: 17
      +3
      Quote: Ivan Tarasov
      Convulsive attempts in the course of the war, to do at least something opposed to Soviet tanks - did not work. "Panther" - the worst decision.


      the conclusion is quite controversial ... you should not take into account the figures from the article .. the author, if he wanted to characterize the technical side of the tank, should have made a comparison with the tanks of the USSR .. and there, I will tell you, there were no problems with the quality and breakdowns not better...
      1. core
        core 10 March 2012 18: 54
        11
        there were breakdowns, but the T-34 was technologically advanced, which means that the repair could take place almost in the field., without sending it to the rear for repair. plants.
        1. ISO
          ISO 11 March 2012 16: 07
          +3
          The repair systems for us and the Germans were different, no doubt. I met publications that showed that the turnover of tanks between the battlefield and the repair shop was higher among the Germans, since ours drove tanks with echelons to replace the engine almost to their own factory. But I think the truth is somewhere in between. Certainly a high production culture, qualification of repair teams, logistics of the Germans were at their best, which allowed them to spin like in a frying pan. For our part, half-starved women and children in the workplace, a mess even in a calm environment, birth injuries in the design of tanks, problems with the supply of rem kits greatly complicated the maintenance of tanks in combat condition, but still, according to the recollections of veterans, quite a few tanks were restored in parts.
          1. wenya81
            wenya81 11 March 2012 16: 52
            +9
            something wrong you read. it will be enough, we had higher tank turnover. and not our tanks were sent to the factory, but German, as the engine of a German tank was not repaired in field conditions. and on our tanks in the field workshops you can generally change the engine. as they say - study the materiel.
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 24 2014 17: 50
            0
            wrecking is still ... just one huge tower hatch on the early T-34s (instead of two) is worth it.
            try to open it from the inside wounded with one hand.
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 27 2014 21: 09
          +2
          manufacturability is not maintainability.
          the repair service was better delivered by the Germans.
          it was difficult for panthers and tigers to change skating rinks.
          1. Cynic
            Cynic April 28 2014 07: 36
            0
            Quote: Kassandra
            manufacturability is not maintainability.

            What about
            Manufacturability is one of the complex characteristics of a technical device (product, device, device, apparatus), which expresses the convenience of its production, maintainability and performance.

            Or ?
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 28 2014 10: 22
              +1
              technology is the production of something and not the operation or repair,
              A technological product is when a little material goes to waste. the milled AKM receiver is not technologically advanced (90% to waste), the cold-stamped receiver is technological.
              1. Cynic
                Cynic April 28 2014 20: 26
                0
                Quote: Kassandra
                technology is the production of something and not the operation or repair,

                Actually, I quote. Axiom, so to speak.
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra April 29 2014 02: 58
                  0
                  not, if the quote is an axiom, then this is a difficult case ..
                  1. Cynic
                    Cynic April 29 2014 08: 14
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    if the quote is an axiom, then this is a difficult case.

                    Any axiom is a quote, but not any quote is an axiom.
                    Seriously, any technological thing (of those years) is easily repairable.
                    Now we are using high technology, x ... that you will repair! Only a replacement.
                    Another level of development already.
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra April 29 2014 10: 33
                      0
                      very bad case
                      Any axiom, this is a quote,

                      the author of the axiom quoted whom?

                      usually this is what tape recorder users think
    6. postman
      postman 12 March 2012 12: 18
      0
      Quote: Ivan Tarasov
      a tank based on the third model is seen

      T-III could not be upgraded to such a level
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 29 2014 03: 00
        0
        T-IV too. Panther is a completely new tank, which appeared by the way later than the tiger, which took into account its shortcomings.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic April 29 2014 08: 17
          0
          Quote: Kassandra
          Panther is a brand new tank,

          An interesting way to conduct a discussion, in two years.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 29 2014 10: 36
            0
            Well, you noticed ...
            Last Visited: April 29, 2014

            Have you already released a completely new one?
    7. Antistaks
      Antistaks 5 November 2012 14: 09
      +1
      These are the experts in technology. On the top three (because of the narrow body) it was impossible to put anything except a 50 mm gun. Therefore, the advanced troika was removed from armament and the four (with its wretched suspension) were left.
  2. mind1954
    mind1954 10 March 2012 09: 00
    +1
    Many THANKS for the article!
  3. grizzlir
    grizzlir 10 March 2012 09: 13
    21
    Two of my grandfathers went to war by tankers, so both of them spoke of the Panthers as a formidable weapon of the enemy. If they managed to capture the Panther in normal condition, they tried to restore it and put it into battle as soon as possible. So it’s not entirely true to say that the tank was a problem , equipment breakdowns occurred at that time on all tank models and in all countries. Of the German tanks, it was the most balanced in terms of its characteristics. Firepower, good armoring, maneuverability and the convenience of the crew.
    1. KORESH80
      KORESH80 10 March 2012 16: 02
      11
      Absolutely agree. Panther is a great tank. They were used by our troops as tank destroyers, after the war they were in service with France, Czechoslovakia, etc. (The tiger was not used by anyone). At the beginning of the release, the price of the Panther was also lower than the Tiger by more than 2 times. And all the shortcomings were eliminated by newer models.
      1. Kars
        10 March 2012 16: 12
        +4
        But they stayed in service much less than the same Hetzer, and the last Four fought in the Arab-Israeli wars.
      2. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 24 2014 17: 51
        0
        she and the gun was safer than the tiger.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic April 24 2014 19: 20
          +1
          Quote: Kassandra
          she and the gun was safer than the tiger.

          I mean, is 75mm more dangerous than 88mm? Or specifically a tank gun is more dangerous than the former anti-aircraft gun?
          Or personal impressions?
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 25 2014 01: 40
            +1
            specifically, a weak likeness of this anti-tank high-kinetic gun appeared only in the British at the end of the Second World War
            the departure speed of the sub-caliber tungsten shell was almost like that of a modern BOPS
    2. alexey garbuz
      alexey garbuz 10 March 2012 21: 57
      +9
      But how to compare oil consumption-10l / 100 km? Not too much? Yes, and 4 tractors could not be pulled out of the mud. They did not try to see the buildup, and if they did, the black diggers still dig out.)))
  4. MrFYGY
    MrFYGY 10 March 2012 09: 27
    +4
    The problems with the Panther were mainly caused not by design flaws (which were the case), but by the poor state of the tank manufacturing industry (lack of working force, deterioration in the quality of materials, etc.)
    1. Flight Recorder
      Flight Recorder 10 March 2012 16: 01
      +7
      But the T-34, KV, IS didn’t have such problems precisely because of its structural advantages. And problems with the evacuation and partial destruction of industry and the resource base, the lack of skilled workers, etc., were fully experienced.
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 10 March 2012 23: 36
        +6
        t34 had a bunch of problems that the Germans never dreamed of, but that didn’t stop the war in Berlin from ending.
      2. Kostik zaika
        Kostik zaika 11 March 2012 02: 40
        +1
        Interference with tank production in Germany was also created by the Allies. With their bombardments - and they bombed not only Dresden - they disrupted the operation of factories. This also played a role.
        1. CC-18a
          CC-18a 13 March 2012 12: 39
          +4
          The Allied bombing was civilian, not factory.
          The fact is that the production of Wehrmacht armored vehicles grew independently of the Allied bombing, moreover, only 1 out of 10 attacks occurred at the plant, the remaining 9 went to peaceful cities (mainly the center of the city where there is less industry).
          The fact that the Allies somehow interfered with the production of the German military-industrial complex is a myth!
          The only thing that really affected the production of tanks by Germany was the loss of the Ruhr (metals) and the Middle East (oil-energy).
          1. The comment was deleted.
  5. Kibb
    Kibb 10 March 2012 09: 56
    0
    The article is interesting, however, some points require explanation, let's wait for some comrades))
    1. Kibb
      Kibb 10 March 2012 12: 22
      0
      Well here you are minuscule minus
      I just wanted to know
      Photo No. 4 It was already a land mine122mm campaign? Why from the stern?
      Photo with 100mm penetration. Where are the ice rinks? The Germans stole? Or a landfill?
      A photo from the Su85 from the driver’s position? Did he take pictures pulling the levers? Or a training ground?
      I didn’t understand with a machine gun at all, did he seem to be on all Panthers?
      Threat No sorcasm, just asking
      And lastly, the last photo? Was Flac standing nearby?
      1. Kars
        10 March 2012 13: 08
        +2
        4 photo did not understand
        Photo 100 mm is Balaton, and there simply couldn’t be rollers,
        Su 85 has no idea, but someone else could take a picture
        Coursework not at all
        The last --- and this is the 75 mm sleeves, why do you think the 75mm KwK 42 L / 70 has such high armor penetration.
        1. Kibb
          Kibb 10 March 2012 13: 48
          0
          what does it mean that there could be no skating rinks - it didn’t go, like that, and stood on the road like that?
          and there you look, like one shell (cartridge) is clearly not 75
          I have not seen a single Panther photo without a course, although I read about it constantly
          1. Kibb
            Kibb 10 March 2012 14: 10
            0
            Although the photo with the su85 seems to have no course, and where the crew is ... xs ..
          2. Kars
            10 March 2012 14: 28
            +3
            on the course --- only here on a vskidku pieces five photos without a course--
            it’s hard to say in the photo of the Berlin panther-dota like everything 75 mm without a caliper
            about the rinks ---- then the column went on a sabzh and was ambushed. If this is the photo ---- then, in principle, a short distance could go
            1. Flight Recorder
              Flight Recorder 10 March 2012 15: 24
              -3
              What kind of hole was he having under the tower and where could he leave with such a depressurization?
              1. Kars
                10 March 2012 15: 32
                +5
                and he went to the smelter
                and what kind of hole is signed
              2. FREGATENKAPITAN
                FREGATENKAPITAN 10 March 2012 15: 58
                +3
                .............. SMILE ................. THIS IS NOT A PLANE TO FLY SEALED ...........
      2. Cynic
        Cynic 10 March 2012 18: 18
        -4
        Quote: Kibb
        I didn’t understand with a machine gun at all, did he seem to be on all Panthers?

        Does it not surprise you that the handsome T-34 is shown everywhere?
        After all, none of those present here has even a shadow of doubt about which T-34 is everywhere replicated.
        And 34 samples of the 41st, well, it’s not photogenic.
        wink
        1. Kibb
          Kibb 10 March 2012 20: 00
          10
          I'm not there.
          I don’t understand what you mean?
          T34 SHOULD WAR AND handsome he was not- TANK SOLDER one word
          About the history of the Panther? I know if you're talking about it, only it is also similar to the T34
          how Shg44 is similar to AK47- nothing at all common except general forms
          Scha naminus
          1. Kars
            11 March 2012 13: 13
            +3
            Well, I don’t know the T-34 -85 on the exterior is not inferior to the tanks rivals.
          2. Cynic
            Cynic 11 March 2012 17: 03
            +4
            Talk about the T-34-76, which took the first blow and pulled the strap the first most difficult years of the war.
            Not deservedly forgotten, not every thirty-four in him will recognize / recognize.
            drinks
            1. Kars
              11 March 2012 17: 37
              +1
              I can’t agree with you, your words can be used only for T - 34-76 of the release of 1942 of the year, and then not all but 1941-40
              1. Cynic
                Cynic 11 March 2012 17: 57
                0

                Straight one to one
          3. The comment was deleted.
      3. alexey garbuz
        alexey garbuz 10 March 2012 22: 01
        +1
        In one photo you can see how some man with the help of a jack removed the rink and then they led him to the police under escort. So to say, red-handed.
  6. Zerstorer
    Zerstorer 10 March 2012 10: 14
    +5
    From a technical point of view, the Panther is candy. The Germans understood that their only chance was qualitative superiority (it was pointless to compete with us in terms of quantity). Therefore, we used many interesting technical solutions and novelties on the Panther. And if the design contains a lot of new and "not tested", then the reliability is low. But they had no choice, the Germans were forced to take technical risks.

    Separately, I would like to say that the time of the beginning of the ROC on the Panther theme is of certain interest. On July 18, 1941, Rheinmetall received an order for the development of a 75-mm long-barreled cannon capable of penetrating 140 mm armor at a distance of 1000 m. On November 25, Daimler-Benz and MAN received an order for a 35-ton tank. (source M. Baryatinsky. Heavy tank "Panther". Armored collection. - 1997. - No. 2)
  7. Strashila
    Strashila 10 March 2012 11: 53
    +5
    Another miracle weapon ... a miracle failed.
    1. CC-18a
      CC-18a 13 March 2012 12: 42
      +1
      Germans awakened wassat laughing
  8. Roman A
    Roman A 10 March 2012 12: 01
    +8
    Until the allies bombed, you can modernize soft seats change optics I have a question how many "panthers" would be released if they put the Ghanaians in our place at Stalingrad?
  9. ward
    ward 10 March 2012 12: 05
    12
    Well, what can we say ... Ours could afford to exchange 2 and 3 for one ... Moreover, the tanks remained on our territory ... The average recovery time of the T-34 was two days ... All work was carried out in the conditions of repair shops ... With the 85 gun, the T-34 had parity with German tanks in terms of firepower ... And I also said that tank ambush and tank offensive are two big differences ... And 41 were cases of fatal execution of German tanks ... and at the end of the war, the main tactics of the Germans are ambushes ... and also the replacement of the Panther's 8 inner rink three hours ... That’s no good ...
    1. bandabas
      bandabas 10 March 2012 16: 09
      0
      The main thing is the crew skill. Well, and, of course, the comparability of armored vehicles.
  10. German
    German 10 March 2012 12: 17
    +2
    although some questions in the article are controversial, but in general a very interesting article. thanks to the author!
    1. bandabas
      bandabas 10 March 2012 15: 32
      +5
      He was not a miracle. Prosto irrigated and efficient machine.
  11. gurbanov
    gurbanov 10 March 2012 13: 30
    +4
    The tank really was excellent, but it appeared late, the Germans did not have any resources or an insufficient production base for it.
  12. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 10 March 2012 14: 02
    +9
    Great stuff! INFA is interesting, but ...
    Reading it, I still did not fully understand why "Panther" was the gravedigger of Hitler's Germany, even if we take into account all the shortcomings that were given by the author in the article ...
    And for the sake of objectivity, it should be admitted that such a "black list" of shortcomings and omissions (with a slightly different volume) can be awarded to any tank of any manufacturer, which was developed in conditions of tough time pressure and manufactured in wartime. Another thing is that in this case, all these shortcomings went to our advantage ...
  13. laurbalaur
    laurbalaur 10 March 2012 14: 46
    +1
    Thank you, interesting material! For me, the Panther is a new milestone in tank building as a whole. I am glad that she appeared with the Nazis only in the 43rd.
  14. Flight Recorder
    Flight Recorder 10 March 2012 15: 18
    +3
    The tank is not bad, and that is not unimportant, he even managed to fight when he did get to the battlefield. True German quality.
  15. Kievan
    Kievan 10 March 2012 15: 26
    +9
    Good tanks did not help the USSR after losing the sky at the beginning of the war. Also, no tanks would help the Germans after losing air superiority in the end.
    Retreating from Kiev to Stalingrad, my grandfather did not see a single German. Only one continuous air raids. And not a single Soviet fighter ...
    The role of tanks in World War II is somewhat exaggerated.
    1. Chicot 1
      Chicot 1 10 March 2012 15: 41
      10
      But underestimate the tanks (however, like any other type and type of troops), too, all the same, you should not ...
    2. viruskvartirus
      viruskvartirus 10 March 2012 15: 49
      +8
      The tank is the main force of that war ... if the tank hadn’t appeared, they would have landed in the trench wars ...
      1. Kievan
        Kievan 10 March 2012 16: 17
        +3
        All is correct. But only without air supremacy did the tank turn into easy prey for attack aircraft. The tank is of course the main striking force of the Blitzkriegs, but the quality / superiority of tanks is not such a critical condition as air superiority.
        1. viruskvartirus
          viruskvartirus 10 March 2012 16: 41
          +4
          attack aircraft also went through their thorny path until they became a worthy weapon ... if you look at the statistics, most of the losses of the tanks were not from the actions of aviation ... now aviation is a formidable force ...
          1. Kievan
            Kievan 10 March 2012 17: 17
            +5
            I'm certainly not a participant in the Second World War))) But in those memoirs that I read, the role of German attack aircraft in the destruction of Soviet tank columns is quite high. And in Africa and in Europe in 44 the same picture. But even without assault aviation, air supremacy made it possible for scouts to constantly "hang" there. That made it possible to organize anti-tank operations in advance precisely in the areas of tank breakthroughs. This is also a massive German experience.
            1. viruskvartirus
              viruskvartirus 10 March 2012 17: 51
              +8
              Not every pilot can carry out an attack, and getting into a moving object is not easy ... and the Germans did not hesitate to exaggerate ...
            2. Per se.
              Per se. 10 March 2012 20: 55
              +4
              I agree with the Kievite, after the victory at Kursk, when Soviet tanks entered the operational space, heavy losses occurred from air attacks. It was there that the Stukas with 37-mm cannons frolicked, and then the question arose about anti-aircraft self-propelled guns to accompany tanks on the march. In open terrain without air cover (or good air defense), tanks become targets for aviation. The last major example is the war in Iraq, the so-called Desert Storm. As for the article, I liked it purely for informational content, but I in no way agree that the "Panther" tank is "the gravedigger of the Third Reich." Presumably, Leopard 1 would not have saved the Germans either.
              1. Kars
                10 March 2012 21: 27
                +2
                Well, the importance of aviation in the direct battle with tanks is much exaggerated, and is mainly based on Rudel's memoirs. Attacks on trucks and fuel trucks were of greater importance. Tanks from an airplane, especially if the battlefield is behind the tankmen, or it happened behind the front line, were just displayed out of order - up to 85% the rest on irrevocable ones - direct hit by air bombs or detonation of air defense.
                Quote: Per se.
                that the tank "Panther" - "gravedigger of the Third Reich."

                Along with the FAU 1 and 2, Dora, Jet Messerschmites --- they brought our victory closer, the refusal to produce panthers in favor of the T-4 L-48 L-55 would very likely drag out the war for a year and a half.
                1. Kievan
                  Kievan 10 March 2012 23: 54
                  +2
                  I read the memoirs of a Soviet officer who fought from 41 to 44 and rose to the rank of junior lieutenant to captain of a reconnaissance battalion. As he describes a standard situation: A German reconnaissance plane "hangs" almost constantly over the threatened area. As soon as Soviet tanks are pulled up to the front line or manpower accumulates, an art strike immediately follows in a few minutes, or after 7-10 minutes "pieces" appear and the end of the tanks. Soviet fighters are practically invisible. And so on until the end of 43rd.
                  In Africa, the defeat of Rommel began after the fighters began to take to Europe and the British began to destroy tanks with impunity from the air. The same memoirs, but I don’t remember whose ....
                  For what I bought for something I sold.
                  1. Kars
                    11 March 2012 00: 13
                    +4
                    What can I say - read more memories, you can also add German ones --- there are several who complain about Soviet aviation in 1941 and the lack of their own aviation.


                    most likely what you are describing is not a standard situation, but the most memorable one.

                    And Rommel did not have a chance in Africa when the tanks stopped supplying him and supplies --- the Italians did not hold the Mediterranean Sea even with the help of Richthofen's air group, and the allies rediscovered thousands of tanks with impunity from Africa.

                    And also the USSR and in 1945 not always had advantage in the air.
                  2. wenya81
                    wenya81 11 March 2012 02: 42
                    0
                    something I can’t remember the presence of assault aircraft from the Germans. "pieces" are dive bombers. and the only attack aircraft on the eastern front was no less legendary than the T-34, IL-2
                2. Per se.
                  Per se. 11 March 2012 17: 50
                  +3
                  I don’t want to be ironic, Kars, but if Panther, Messerschmitt-262, FAU-1, FAU-2 “brought our victory closer”, your list should be supplemented with “Faustpatrons” and “Panzershreks”, the newest series XXI boats with acoustic torpedoes , and much more, including work on the atomic bomb. The Germans helped us a lot, they diverted their forces! As for the T-IV tank, which the Germans produced throughout the war (9500 vehicles of various modifications) plus various self-propelled guns based on its base, this could hardly have saved Germany, if they did so much more if the T-34 was produced in one 1944 14648 tanks, and more than 61 thousand were produced in total. What kind of delay in the war by T-IV tanks for a year and a half are you talking about? As for the role of aviation, the German counteroffensive near the Ardens became possible only due to the fact that the Allied aviation was pinned to the ground by bad weather, with the beginning of the sorties, the domination of the Allied aviation in the air put an end to the German counterattack. Not the Panther tank, the gravedigger of the Third Reich, but the courage of our soldiers, especially tankers. In this sense, - one of the gravediggers of the Reich, our T-34.
                  1. Kars
                    11 March 2012 18: 25
                    +2
                    Quote: Per se.
                    "Faustpatronami" and "Panzershrekami"


                    But were they really expensive and resource-intensive?
                    Quote: Per se.
                    the latest boats of the XXI series with acoustic torpedoes

                    Well, they didn’t build a battleship of type H
                    Quote: Per se.
                    much more, including atomic bomb work

                    but with the bomb, you’re right, they were naively not disposing of the uranium reserves. They were also going to dump the reactor almost.
                    Quote: Per se.
                    As for the T-IV tank, which the Germans produced throughout the war (9500 vehicles of various modifications) plus various self-propelled guns based on it, this could hardly save Germany


                    And nothing could save her, the best they could count on was a separate peace with the Allies. And 5 of thousands of panthers probably greatly brought the victory of the Reich
                    Quote: Per se.
                    As for the role of aviation, the German counterattack near the Ardennes

                    All the power of the US and British air forces was still not enough for a comfortable war, so even the Ardennes offensive operation itself is an indication that aviation cannot win a war, and do not forget Balaton
                    Quote: Per se.
                    and the courage of our soldiers, especially tankers.

                    The courage of all, and especially the infantry, suffered the greatest losses
                    Quote: Per se.
                    In this sense, one of the Reich graves

                    Only grave diggers from the German side are considered here, and not a complex of grave diggers.
                    Quote: Per se.
                    I don’t want to be ironic,

                    Sorry, but the net could get.
        2. tverskoi77
          tverskoi77 11 March 2012 11: 53
          0
          This is already a question of the interaction and balanced development of the branches of the armed forces, as well as the tactics of their application. In the absence of armored vehicles, airfields also become easy prey for ground units.
    3. CC-18a
      CC-18a 13 March 2012 12: 49
      -5
      generally true, just a conclusion would be a little different.
      The role of aviation was not appreciated! by us at the beginning of the war, by the Germans at the end of the war, although we mowed more in this regard at the beginning of 41, but we learned by 43.
      I draw your attention to the fact that in 41 our armored vehicles skidded along the roads on the roads during the day, in 43-44 almost all of them with branches, leaves and other means of camouflage moved more accurately and secretly (by the year 43 of the USSR’s reign in the air complete).

      The Germans, however, due to the fact that they defended, suffered less from enemy aircraft. They masked the positions well so that the aircraft did not notice up to 90% of the German tanks, but this is how the Germans tried to attack here, the Allied aircraft grinded almost all the armored vehicles (because the tanks had to drive and open positions.

      generally something like this
  16. viruskvartirus
    viruskvartirus 10 March 2012 15: 57
    +2
    The Germans didn’t have a strange decision ... to release, at the height of the war, suffering from a lack of resources, equipment with so much novelty ... well, it was necessary to eliminate the shortcomings in combat conditions, completely change the repair base, and retrain people ... and then and the enemy is increasing and increasing the quantity and quality of tanks ..... well, the worse for them and the better for us.
  17. FREGATENKAPITAN
    FREGATENKAPITAN 10 March 2012 16: 03
    +1
    ............ Didn't keep track of ... maybe already wrote ....... "Panthers" (apart from all other advantages) became the first serial tanks in the world to be equipped with night vision devices. ..... though the number of such machines was small ...

    And of course I agree ... the only significant drawback of the "Panther" was its low technical reliability ...
    1. Kars
      10 March 2012 16: 15
      +4
      As well as price, resource intensity, low maintainability, the largest reserved volume (even more than the 2 IC). Weight, low power density,
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 10 March 2012 20: 24
        +3
        Panther is not a role model - that's for sure, everything is spelled correctly
        Beautiful gun balistics, but no more
        Quote: Kars
        price, resource intensity, low maintainability, the largest reserved volume (more even IS 2). weight, low specific power,
      2. FREGATENKAPITAN
        FREGATENKAPITAN 11 March 2012 08: 51
        +2
        Yes, yes, I agree ......
        And of course, it should be noted that the car was nevertheless created as a counteraction to the T-34 and KV tanks already in the Soviet Army, a meeting with which in the 41st year was a big surprise for the Germans ...... limited time and capabilities did not allow create a tank equal to or superior to the thirty-four in combat effectiveness .....

        Although I repeat again, I think "Panther" is the best German war tank ...
        1. Kars
          11 March 2012 10: 45
          +2
          Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
          Although I will repeat myself again, I think "Panther" is the best German tank of the war ...


          Most likely the best all the same Panzer IV Ausf. GJ. Just as the Germans don’t have to give a discount for a limited time.
          Yes, and with heavily armored tanks they came across in France.

          Just Panther along with the Tiger are the most famous German tanks and the names .. screaming ..
  18. SenyaYa
    SenyaYa 10 March 2012 16: 12
    -9
    Panther is an excellent tank, it just appeared out of time! By his appearance, he caused more damage to the Germans than brought him good ... Although the tank is advanced in every sense ... especially the filling .... I mean the FIRST WORLD LASER RANGE AND NIGHT VISION DEVICE .... nothing like this in any country of that time, even on paper. Of course, the construction is crude and non-rolled, in vain THE GREATEST THEORETIAN OF THE TANK WAR GANS GUDERIAN was against putting him on the stream ... Guderian was for increasing production and modernizing the T4. If Panther was done slowly and earlier ... I’m sure the copy would be worthy
    1. Chicot 1
      Chicot 1 10 March 2012 16: 37
      15
      LASER RANGE on Panther ??? belay
      Let me correct, dear, the first installations generating laser radiation appeared only in the 1960s. And not even in Germany and not even among the Germans ...
      Next time you’ll take a closer look at the distribution of priorities ... wink
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 10 March 2012 18: 36
        +9
        Quote: Chicot 1
        The first installations generating laser radiation appeared only in the 1960s.

        And the engineer hyperboloid Garin? So I understand the Germans were able to reproduce the idea of ​​hyperbolide, but the secret of the pyramids ... Alas, they failed.
        So it turned out only a rangefinder.
        Bullshit ?!
        Yes !
        Moreover, complete as this post itself SenyaYa - Product of the Europeanization of education.
      2. viruskvartirus
        viruskvartirus 10 March 2012 18: 46
        +4
        Also drew attention))) the Germans came up with a lot of new things but not a laser)
    2. Mercury
      Mercury 10 March 2012 19: 19
      +3
      what nonsense ??? what laser range finder in 44 year ??? fool
  19. Cynic
    Cynic 10 March 2012 18: 29
    +3
    Quote: SenyaYA
    I mean WORLD'S FIRST LASER RANGE

    And by the way, he still didn’t bullet with Stabilloy shells?
    By the way, our first cannon stabilizer (vertical) was also put on bats.
    bully
    1. Alf
      Alf 3 June 2012 00: 33
      0
      Our BTs didn’t put the STABILIZER OF WEAPONS, but the SIGHT STABILIZER, and these, as they say in Odessa, are two big differences.
  20. panzer
    panzer 10 March 2012 20: 28
    +6
    Whitman described how he spun in front of the HF for several minutes until he hit the gun. We know of cases where the T-70 flicked in front of the Tigers before they burned the chassis. The tank, and any one, is a piece of iron, the main thing in any tank crew.
    1. FREGATENKAPITAN
      FREGATENKAPITAN 11 March 2012 08: 56
      0
      ..... a plus sign is perfectly said ...... crew training is a good half of success in a battle, you can get into IS-3 or T-44 under distribution ....... as in a proverb ...- give glass fool ..... (well you know)
  21. ward
    ward 10 March 2012 20: 48
    +2
    There is no prophet in his own country ... But Gudarian considered the best T-34 tank ... And I repeat Panthers were used mainly in ambushes ... Here are the losses from this ...
  22. alesinelnikov
    alesinelnikov 10 March 2012 20: 57
    +6
    Panther is a shitty heavy tank! The frontal armor is good, and the side is weak, and where is its speed? On the gravel road ?, and on the pole according to the descriptions of our tankers who fought on it, all the brains are shaking. I had to move slower, and as on the T-34 you don’t dart and do not whirl, and hope is only for armor! In profile, she is booty for everyone !!! What about the gun? it is a tank or a tank, if a fixed armored anti-tank gun. I understand, but in the offensive? What a Teutonic manners on a duel. and the infantry with guns, and the bunkers, and the rest crap, than to break the defenses by blanks, she has no landmine (pay for a large initial projectile speed). Well, the price! They did not understand the main thing in the t-34, this is not inclined armor, but fire, maneuver, armor and price !!! And the weight is yes, imagine the slaughter in Russia has not been canceled, so the leopards and abrams will not reach Moscow.
    1. REZMovec
      REZMovec 11 March 2012 19: 15
      +1
      ... and according to the descriptions of the descriptions of our tankers who fought on it, all brains are shaking. had to move slower ...

      This is sheer nonsense! The Panther's suspension provided a very soft and smooth ride - the comfort of a premium passenger car. Read the reviews of those who had a chance to fight on these machines, the expert opinion on field tests in our country and in the USA ...
      In short, learn the materiel!
      1. postman
        postman 12 March 2012 12: 51
        0
        Quote: REZMovec
        This is utter nonsense!
        -I agree.

        Quote: REZMovec
        Offline
        alesinelnikov
        I don’t understand what it’s about.
        I advise you live to visit the T-34 and. Panther, at least in the museum.
        1. alesinelnikov
          alesinelnikov 15 March 2012 17: 45
          +1
          I understand perfectly well that the T-34 is an average tank and correspond to the parameters, but the panther is not medium, the polazium itself can reach!
        2. alesinelnikov
          alesinelnikov 15 March 2012 20: 09
          +4
          And please climb the panther and ISU2, the weight is almost a tonne per tonne and compare, and about the T-34 suspension, what kind of merkava is it now? And the t-34 in 1943 was already on top in terms of reliability, while the panther could not even dream of such reliability until the end of the war! About whether I understand what it’s up to you to judge, as I understand it, none of us went to the panther, and literature is available not only to you.
      2. alesinelnikov
        alesinelnikov 15 March 2012 17: 41
        +2
        So try on a premium car on a pole with a breeze or like a t-34 on obstacles, but on the humps! And the responses of the Americans are cheap advertising of their minds and belittling someone else ...
  23. AlexMH
    AlexMH 10 March 2012 21: 41
    15
    A few facts.
    1. Guderian in his memoirs considered the deployment of mass production of "Panthers" to the detriment of other, cheaper tanks (Pz4, "Hetzer") a serious mistake, because at the same time, the lag of Germany in the number of armored vehicles at the front from the USSR and the allies became catastrophic. At that time (1944), the "four" was brought almost to the level of T34-85, and was 2 times cheaper than the "Panther".
    2. "Panther" in terms of mass is approximately equal to our IS-2, significantly inferior to him in the thickness of the frontal armor and the power of the gun, but slightly exceeding in speed.
    3. Some researchers call the "panther" the first main battle tank. A main battle tank is a tank that, with the mass and speed of the medium, has the firepower and protection of the heavy. So, the panther, with the weight and dimensions (and cost) of a heavy tank, had the armament and protection of a medium one :)
    4. According to some estimates (it is difficult to accurately calculate, different economies, but it looks like the truth) the cost of production of 1 "panther" is equal to the cost of production of 2-3 T-34-85, while the "panther" in a number of parameters exceeded the Soviet tank, in a number - inferior, but in general its effectiveness was not higher "at times".
    1. Alf
      Alf 3 June 2012 00: 36
      0
      Briefly, but on business.
  24. nekromonger
    nekromonger 10 March 2012 23: 46
    +1
    in addition to guns, optics and crew skill, as well as combat use, the tank turned out to be raw, which is also indicated by its low use after WWII.
  25. Leisure
    Leisure 11 March 2012 08: 55
    +1
    The peak number of battle tanks reached 522. At the same time, the Red Army had several thousand T-34s, KV-1s, IS-2s, and M4 Shermans.


    Soviet Economy, dealt with a good German tank.
  26. T1GER_1
    T1GER_1 11 March 2012 10: 04
    0
    You have to learn, comrade Ivan ... On the basis of the T 3 ... his chassis is already too weak, even the T 4 could not cope with powerful guns adequate for those years of the war ... In the pictures you can see hits from tanks with large-caliber guns, and the Panthers were clearly amazed at the close combat. The Panther tank is excellent, yes, I can’t argue about the fragility of the chassis, this was a problem, unlike the Tigers, but as a tank fighter the tank proved to be excellent, in experienced hands these tanks dealt with any enemy without much effort. And about the KV ... as soon as the PZ-4 had a long-barreled gun, the problem disappeared by itself. + tank destroyers. I do not understand the denial of the facts of the story that German technology was excellent and even made poor copies of it (for example, IS-2-122 aiming devices) (well, of course, apart from the fact that the panther was in designed by the T-34 tank in many ways =)) That's it, give numerical examples, even German vehicles took better quality than the enemy. And if we compare the numbers evenly, I’m afraid the German technology would have suffered slight losses, especially at long distances over huge battlefields .If it was time to bring to mind driving performance, etc. a tank would have no equal, except for tiger 1 (Tiger 2 was already made by the drying up of production resources and human capabilities with lower quality).
    PSAlex MN, why did you get that the tank was armed as medium, its cannon could handle any enemy that year of the war, so I would not consider the caliber of the guns as a flaw. Modern tanks are armed with 120mm cannons, but the shells and the quality of the guns make these guns superpowerful. 75mm panther for that year of the war was also a very powerful weapon. For example, if you compare the 122mm ISa, then it’s more likely a mine, and practically did not exceed 75mm Panther in armor-piercing qualities.
    1. Kars
      11 March 2012 11: 02
      +5
      You can immediately see the usual sterotypes. So by the way then what was the panther? An average linear tank or a tank destroyer with a rotating turret.

      And if everything is done, then will she be able to fly?
      The Panther is the brainchild of pink glasses and bright prospects for the German High Command 1941-42 of the year.

      If I honestly get scared, if I think that on the Kursk Bulge instead of 190 Panthers, half of which broke without entering into military contact with our troops there were 600 fours
      Quote: T1GER_1
      .If, for example, compare 122mm ISa, then it is more likely a mine, and in armor-piercing qualities it almost did not exceed 75mm Panthers.

      This is also stupid, the kinetic energy of the 122 mm projectile increased the distance of armor penetration, not talking about the armored effect (and the 2 IS not a tank destroyer) --- the Germans won only in optics, and in a duel situation, the rate of fire was
    2. Alf
      Alf 3 June 2012 00: 46
      +1
      The tank, as it turned out during the 2MV years, is primarily the infantry shield, which is why tank calibers rushed up after the war, because, in addition to armor-piercing action, a high-explosive shell is also needed. And the panther with a high-explosiveness of 75 mm was bad. Making a tank just to fight your own kind is impermissible luxury.
      AND, SORRY IN ADVANCE, LET ALL WRITE TO CORRECTLY AND WITHOUT ERRORS, BUT IT IS NOT ALWAYS UNDERSTANDED BY WHO WANTS TO SAY.
  27. alexdol
    alexdol 11 March 2012 10: 35
    +3
    I read the article, got acquainted with the comments on it ... What I want to say. I am not an expert in the field of tank building, I think most commentators are, too! Therefore, I will try to answer the main question indicated in the title of the article "Tank Panther - the gravedigger of the Third Reich?" Does this article answer this question? No - it doesn't! But the answer is quite simple, here it is: the Gravedigger of the Third Reich was a SOVIET SOLDIER !!! That's it, short and clear.
  28. LION
    LION 11 March 2012 10: 44
    +4
    Panther is not a tank. The task of the tank is to break through the enemy’s defense and defeat its rear and communications. For this we need: power reserve, armor, good HE shell, maneuverability, AP shell (secondary). Ie the balance of these qualities. And this is T 34 and Sherman, well, not like Panther. Tank destroyer it. And the Panther’s mass, as they have already said, is almost IP 2.
    But beautiful. Let's say a concept tank with a huge number of new engineering and technological solutions.
  29. FROST
    FROST 11 March 2012 12: 55
    -2
    attack aircraft also went through their thorny path until they became a worthy weapon ... if you look at the statistics, most of the losses of the tanks were not from the actions of aviation ... now aviation is a formidable force ...


    Actually from the data on Rudel.

    According to official Luftwaffe data, Rudel made 2530 sorties (the largest number among the pilots of World War II), during which Rudel destroyed about 2500 units of military equipment, including 519 tanks (according to other sources, 532 tanks), 150 self-propelled guns, 4 armored trains , 800 motor vehicles, numerous, but not accurately countable, small craft, such as rafts, motor boats, etc., which were used by the Red Army command to transfer troops across the water, also participated in the sinking of two cruisers, the destroyer and battleship Marat.

    Most of the sorties took place on various modifications of the Yu-87 Shtuk dive bomber, which became highly effective for destroying tanks after the installation of two guns in the underwing gondolas at Rudel’s insistence

    Of course, he is an outstanding pilot, an order of magnitude superior to combat pilots, but these data give a complete answer to the question about the combat effectiveness of the Air Force.
    With the advent of aviation, high-precision homing ammunition and the absence of the need to dive directly "over the head of the tank", the effectiveness of destruction of armored vehicles has increased dramatically.
    1. Kars
      11 March 2012 13: 11
      +6
      Well, firstly Rudel’s track record should be divided by 4 this minimum.
      In the case of cruisers, this is a lie, and Marat continued to shoot.
      519 tanks ----- even if you don’t divide it into a cheater, (and it was mainly written from the pilot’s words, without checking) that they were mostly not destroyed, but damaged more likely, and it’s hard to vryat.
      Quote: FROST
      With the advent of aviation, high-precision homing ammunition and the absence of the need to dive directly "over the head of the tank", the effectiveness of destruction of armored vehicles has increased dramatically.

      With the advent of guided missiles, air-to-air ..., radars and thermal scanners, the introduction of guided anti-aircraft missiles, the effectiveness of the destruction of aviation has revolutionized, especially given the vulnerability of aviation technology to even small fragments and a shock wave of aviation at aerodromes (and if we take into account that aerodromes mobile and are stationary objects) well, very vulnerable to attacks by cruise and operational tactical ballistic missiles.
  30. FROST
    FROST 11 March 2012 13: 21
    -6
    Well, firstly Rudel’s track record should be divided by 4 this minimum.
    In the case of cruisers, this is a lie, and Marat continued to shoot.
    519 tanks ----- even if you don’t divide it into a cheater, (and it was mainly written from the pilot’s words, without checking) that they were mostly not destroyed, but damaged more likely, and it’s hard to vryat.


    Again, your IMHO. We can say that any data is overpriced. Driven by tankmen, pilots, gunners, etc.

    With the advent of guided missiles, air-to-air ..., radars and thermal scanners, the introduction of guided anti-aircraft missiles, the effectiveness of the destruction of aviation has revolutionized, especially given the vulnerability of aviation technology to even small fragments and a shock wave of aviation at aerodromes (and if we take into account that aerodromes mobile and are stationary objects) well, very vulnerable to attacks by cruise and operational tactical ballistic missiles.


    That's right. Nevertheless, the Air Force, Navy and missile component are the key forces in the theater of operations.
    1. Kars
      11 March 2012 13: 48
      +1
      Quote: FROST
      Again, your IMHO

      This is not my IMHO, but most of the researchers of historians and even the German command during the war
      Quote: FROST
      That's right. Nevertheless, the Air Force, Navy and missile component are the key forces in the theater of operations.

      the same as the ground forces, artillery and armored vehicles so for interest the picture with the US Army and Iran - you can make conclusions for yourself
      1. older
        older 11 March 2012 19: 32
        0
        The chances are bad, but there are chances! Who doesn’t take risks ..... They will ride it through life .. If this inspires you, I would not want to be with you anywhere ... in general
    2. wenya81
      wenya81 11 March 2012 13: 51
      +3
      Quote: FROST
      Again, your IMHO. We can say that any data is overpriced. Driven by tankmen, pilots, gunners, etc.

      in the Red Army, the data considered by the scholars to be true if there were witnesses to the defeat of the same tank or aircraft. the Soviet military paid for each destroyed unit of military equipment. therefore, every fact had to be confirmed. and the Germans could record one downed plane over the entire squadron, like each plane. here are Prikint, 519 tanks, but Rudel is not the only pilot of the German Air Force, there were others. even worse, and not 500 tanks were destroyed, but 100-200 each. it's only one Air Force that could destroy all the tanks of the USSR
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 11 March 2012 17: 12
        0
        Quote: wenya81
        one downed aircraft for the entire squadron

        As far as I remember, they counted on the engines, so the Germans were so hunting for multi-engine.
        A sort of twisted opposition to the doctrine of the Douai.
        bully
  31. SenyaYa
    SenyaYa 11 March 2012 14: 35
    -2
    Not on the panther of a laser rangefinder! test of your knowledge was ... who noticed well done and who did not notice that cucumber!
  32. vylvyn
    vylvyn 11 March 2012 14: 38
    +1
    The panther often broke, could fail at the most inopportune moment. In this regard, she does not stand close with the T-34. The main thing in war is the survivability of technology.
  33. makrus
    makrus 11 March 2012 14: 59
    +7
    Tank "Panther" shows very well what the German engineers put at the forefront. Based on the same "material" (T-34/76), the Germans came to the Panther, and the Soviet Union to the T-44 and T-54. In my opinion, the Soviet tank building school has created a much more efficient vehicle.
  34. FROST
    FROST 11 March 2012 16: 01
    -3
    the same as the ground forces, artillery and armored vehicles so for interest the picture with the US Army and Iran


    Consider so. Armored vehicles have long been a secondary force. This is already evidenced by the fact that de facto, defeat in the conflict with all its ground power, Iran will receive precisely from the US Air Force (destruction of infrastructure, a significant number of equipment, airfields, nuclear facilities, control and communication centers). And all Iranian armored vehicles, artillery, infantry and MLRS will be completely useless and not involved. In the case of a ground operation by the United States, the introduction of armored vehicles and ground forces will follow only after the enemy has been defeated from the air and his airspace is seized, that is, it will be a "cleansing" force, and not of primary strategic importance.

    This is not my IMHO, but most of the researchers of historians and even the German command during the war


    Feel free to share the results of tankers and others. We get the same efficiency ratios. The Americans fought mainly with the strength of their Air Force and Navy. I think that everyone knows what results have been achieved. The ratio of the killed and the losses in their troops during the Second World War clearly indicates the feasibility of such a concept, which they began to develop after. No one else is going to build a tank armada capture, they without the Air Force are just a bunch of cans in a modern war.
    1. makrus
      makrus 11 March 2012 17: 02
      +1
      Quote: FROST
      I think that everyone knows what results have been achieved. The ratio of killed and losses in their troops during the Second World War clearly indicates the feasibility of such a concept, which they began to develop after

      Frost, this passage is taken from the book of A. Bolnykh "20th century of tanks".
      As we recall, in June 1944 the Allies landed in Normandy. One of the first tasks assigned by Field Marshal Montgomery to the British 2nd Army was the capture of the city of Caen, located about 15 kilometers from the coast. Kahn was an important traffic intersection, and therefore its capture was of great importance for the subsequent development of the operation. However, for a number of reasons, the 3rd Infantry Division, which was supposed to do this, reached only the outskirts of the city, where it got stuck, and seriously and permanently. Further attempts to storm Kahn were completely unsuccessful. Worse, trying to strike the flank of the German training tank division, the British 7th Panzer Division entered the town of Willer-Bockage, which culminated in the extermination of its avant-garde by the "tiger" Michael Wittmann. Despite all the efforts of the British, the only thing they managed to achieve was to occupy the northern part of the city of Caen.

      It was absolutely necessary to capture this point, and Montgomery prepared the largest Allied tank attack for all the time of battles in Western Europe. The attack was supposed to be carried out on July 18 by the forces of the VIII Corps, which consisted of 3 tank divisions in a section just west of Caen. They totaled a total of 759 tanks, but tank divisions were indicated diverging directions of attack. They were supposed to be supported by 2 infantry divisions of the Canadian II Corps, which for some reason received orders to advance only the next day, and directly to the city itself. The attack plan looks strange, but it was completely typical of the British, who stubbornly defended the separate actions of tanks and infantry. The funny thing is, the instructions of 1939 were still valid in the British tank units. This leads to a disappointing conclusion for the British - during the 5 years of the war, they failed to understand the principles of using tanks and reached only the point where the Red Army was in June 1941.

      In the direction of the main strike was the German 16th Airfield Division, the combat effectiveness of which should not be overestimated. Even the Germans themselves were not mistaken in this regard, it is enough to read the memoirs of Major von Luc, who almost accidentally appeared at the scene. But the allies did not even suspect (intelligence worked as always) that the 1st Panzer Division of the Leibstandart, the 12th Panzer Division of the Hitler Youth and the main forces of the 21st Panzer Division were on the attack line behind the front line. However, in terms of the number of tanks, none of them could compete with the English. However, the Germans had other trump cards, which historians often forget. The fact is that these compounds were not listed as part of the ground forces, and most often they are not even shown on the map. However, in the Kan region, the III anti-aircraft corps was deployed as part of 3 anti-aircraft assault regiments. He had almost 100 heavy anti-aircraft guns (88 and 105 mm), which could become a serious obstacle to any tank formation. These guns were outside the reach of the British artillery and could shoot at the tanks quite calmly. In addition, the 200th tank destroyer battalion, armed with 88-mm Cancer 43 guns, was in the attack direction. That is, due to the helplessness of reconnaissance, General Dampsey moved the tanks to where they were expected to die.

      However, the British had no less powerful cards, it was only necessary to play them correctly. The offensive began with a powerful air strike. At 05.26, 1056 “Lancaster” and “Halifaxes” of the Royal Air Force Bomber Command arrived, which dropped 4800 tons of high-explosive bombs to German positions. Quite by accident, except for the 16th airfield, they covered the location of the 21st Panzer Division. At 06.40 the artillery of the British 2nd Army opened fire, and after 20 minutes 318 B-26 “Marauder” bombers of the American 9th Air Army flew in, dropping another 563 tons of bombs to the same 16th airfield division. The last blow was struck by 570 I-24 Libererator bombers of the 8th Air Army, dropping an additional 1340 tons of bombs onto the heads of the Germans. We list all this in such detail, because these raids were completely unprecedented in power. The villages on the supposed path of the advance of the tanks have literally turned into piles of broken bricks.

      At 07.45 the British tanks moved forward, but it immediately became clear that, despite the long and careful development, the plan of operation was drawn up very badly. Before reaching the line of attack, the tank divisions had to cross two water obstacles and a minefield! The Orne River and the Kahn Canal ran parallel to the British positions, and there were only 8000 small bridges for the crossing of more than 6 pieces of equipment (tanks, artillery, armored personnel carriers of motorized infantry, sappers and rear services). As a result, completely impassable congestions formed. And then the commander of the army, General Dempsey, made a fatal decision. He ordered the commander of the VIII Corps, General O'Conor, to move tanks forward, tanks alone. Artillery, infantry and sappers were left behind. As we can see, the bloody experience of the war did not teach the British generals anything at all. Or have they already blotted out the terrible massacres that Rommel had staged in Africa for their tank brigades? But even now it was he who commanded the German troops in Normandy. By the way, it should be noted that, unlike Guderian or Manstein, Dempsey and O'Conor preferred to command from safe rear dugouts and the situation at the scene was rather vague.

      After crossing the bridges, the tanks came out to a minefield recently placed by the 51st Scottish Division. The cleared passages were too narrow, which created additional problems. But all the same, the super-strong bombardment affected, and at first the British troops advanced without much hindrance. But then the plan began to falter. The 7th Panzer Division was stuck on the crossings until dusk, and the Guards Panzer Division did not reach the battlefield at all, having come under heavy flank fire. As a result, the 11th Panzer Division had to fight alone. And then General O'Conor allowed her battalions to operate independently.

      But at about 10.00 the tanks reached the location of one of the anti-aircraft regiments, and it began ... Having suffered losses, the British passed German anti-aircraft guns, with great difficulty crossed the railway embankment and moved further up the slope of the hill ridge. All the events described above led to the fact that instead of a combined strike of 3 divisions, 2 battalions continued the offensive, the rest could not get out of a series of natural obstacles far behind. The commander of the West Tank Group, General Eberbach, ordered the commander of the 21st Panzer Corps, Obergruppenführer Dietrich, to attack the British who had broken through from the north, while the XNUMXst Panzer Division was to attack from the east. Eberbach was not going to fend off the British breakthrough, he intended to surround and destroy the erupted group.

      So, the Germans pulled up mobile reserves and struck from both flanks. At about 15.30 the British, who suffered heavy losses, began to roll back. The English divisions fell apart into brigades, the brigades scattered into battalions, and the Germans dealt with those, although not without difficulty. However, now the “tigers” and “panthers” participated in the battle, with which the “Sherman” and “Cromwelli” could not fight. By the way, it is interesting to note that anti-tank guns Rak 21 on the chassis of the French tank H200 - 40 cm PaK39 (Sf) auf Geschtzwagen 7,5H (f) were actively operating in the 40st Panzer Division and the 39th battalion of assault guns from the German side. But fear has big eyes, and, according to the British, they fought only and exclusively with the "tigers." Indeed, who else could destroy half of the tanks of the 11th division in just one day?

      The next day, the British tried to continue the attack. They managed to pull their tanks out of the trap into which they themselves had driven them, but the artillery and infantry were still hanging out behind. Yes, and tank divisions were able to resume the offensive only in the WTO
  35. Kars
    11 March 2012 16: 59
    +2
    Quote: FROST
    Feel free to share the results of tankers and others
    but what about the account of Wittmann and Barkman with Carius divided.


    And you don’t know how to draw conclusions, and you don’t imagine the modern realities of war (except of course the USA Liechtenstein), but I see that you are not susceptible to information that is not in your cliche.

    And if Iran receives it from the fuel dispenser, and without them aviation is very thin tin.
    And still, the United States does not dare to occupy the territory, all that can ruin this from afar is what it will reach.
    1. FROST
      FROST 11 March 2012 18: 33
      -5
      And you don’t know how to draw conclusions, and you don’t imagine the modern realities of war (except of course the USA Liechtenstein), but I see that you are not susceptible to information that is not in your cliche.

      And if Iran receives it from the fuel dispenser, and without them aviation is very thin tin.


      Smiled. Continuing to troll?) You are completely unaware of either aviation or air defense systems and are still trying to draw any conclusions. To begin with, learn to write without errors, and then breed demagogy) Nobody is going to argue with you, this is useless because of your incompetence, but at least do not mislead others who are not always in-depth into the subject and sometimes young forum participants.
      Iran’s air defense system is completely incapable of confronting the US Air Force, either in quantitative or qualitative terms. By means of electronic and fire suppression, it will be neutralized in a maximum of a week. S-200 complexes are not intended to destroy tactical fighter-bombers at all in view of the restrictions on overloading attacked targets; they are easily destroyed in advance and after launches due to the complete lack of mobility. The obsolete S-75 and MIM-23 hawk systems simply go blind under the conditions of operation of modern electronic warfare systems, are easily destroyed by modern anti-radar missiles at ranges several times greater than the effective range of the complexes themselves, even in the absence of electronic warfare. TOR complexes in the absence of cover by medium- and long-range complexes are more likely to be the frontier of defense against cruise missiles than against the air forces, because having an interception height of 6 km, they can not resist high-altitude targets. Barreled artillery and MANPADS, by themselves, also do not pose a threat, because in view of the absence of counteraction of the Air Force and layered air defense, aircraft will operate from large and medium altitudes. And this is evidenced not only by conclusions in the analysis of technical characteristics, but also by the experience of the last few conflicts that have clearly shown this.
      1. Kars
        11 March 2012 19: 58
        +2
        Quote: FROST
        Keep trolling?)

        A simple statement of facts about you, and you immediately troll.
        Quote: FROST
        You absolutely do not understand either aviation or air defense systems

        Better you
        Quote: FROST
        Iran's air defense system is completely incapable of confronting the US Air Force

        Then it’s strange that they pull

        And mind you, I never said that Iran’s air defense is super.
        this is not talking about the fact that the codes for some Iranian air defense systems are already known to Israel (the entire network already knows)
        Quote: FROST
        Iran’s air defense system is completely incapable of confronting the US Air Force, either in quantitative or qualitative terms. By means of electronic and fire suppression, it will be neutralized in a maximum of a week. C-200 complexes are not designed to destroy tactical fighter-bombers at all in view of the restrictions on overloading attacked targets; they are easily destroyed in advance and after launches in view of the complete lack of mobility. The obsolete C-75 and MIM-23 hawk systems simply go blind under the conditions of operation of modern electronic warfare systems, are easily destroyed by modern anti-radar missiles at ranges several times greater than the effective range of the complexes themselves, even in the absence of electronic warfare. TOR complexes in the absence of cover by medium and long range complexes, rather

        Is it your keyboard incontinence? And now it’s clear that you couldn’t make a conclusion from the picture ---- but you just had to look at the amount of armored vehicles and aviation.
        1. FROST
          FROST 11 March 2012 21: 33
          -3
          Better you


          Well, yes. I remember that your pearls especially smiled at the fact that medium-range complexes that are never placed closer than 20-30 km from the front line can shoot down planes and helicopters at low altitudes 10 km behind the front lines of the advancing tanks and you don’t even know such simple things as the maximum launch range and effective launch range. What can I say, you're just an expert)

          Then it’s strange that they pull


          There are many reasons for this, and they are not related to the threat of Iranian air defense.


          Is it your keyboard incontinence? And now it’s clear that you couldn’t make a conclusion from the picture ---- but you just had to look at the amount of armored vehicles and aviation.


          And what is the key force in the theater of war, you determine by the number?) Then you probably think the infantry is the main striking force, it is definitely the most numerous)

          And mind you, I never said that Iran’s air defense is super


          But what about your statement on NATO Air Force over Iran?
          And if Iran receives it from the fuel dispensers, and without them aviation is very thin cans
          1. Kars
            11 March 2012 22: 57
            +1
            Quote: FROST
            .If you remember your pearls especially smiled about the fact that medium-range complexes never placed closer than 20-30

            And cite the reason, the charter’s provisions that prescribe not to be placed at the distance you mentioned, for example, the KUB
            Weak?
            Quote: FROST
            And what is the key force in the theater of war, you determine by the number?) Then you probably think the infantry is the main striking force, it is definitely the most numerous)

            This is a release about the WWII tank --- you got in with the rudder, that’s understandable --- you got a rebuke, almost without even arguing --- at least I would like to know how you betray the destroyer leader for the cruiser, and without evidence that Rudel got into it .--- then you went on to chant modern aviation, you were given the answer that the air defense systems also did not stand still, and you suffered nonsense --- even though the U.S. Army holds about 20 000 armored units .-- Aren't you a Troll? Yes, and even a dull one.
            Quote: FROST
            But what about your statement on NATO Air Force over Iran?

            And what before the air raids there will be no strike by cruise missiles? Have you recognized? Do you think that one aircraft will suppress Iran’s air defense? Are you not funny.
            1. Kars
              11 March 2012 23: 34
              +4
              And why am I giving you concessions? The cube is already considered a short-range air defense system
              give Buk-M1-2 as I see Wikipedia is close to you
              Target detection range of at least 100 km [4] with digital signal processing
              Maximum range of destruction of aircraft of the type F-15 42 km [6]
              The probability of defeat non-maneuvering aircraft 0,7-0,9
              Chance of hitting a maneuvering aircraft (7-8g) 0,5-0,7
              The maximum range of destruction of a Lance-type BR (at altitudes of 2-16 km) 20 km [2]
              The probability of defeat OTR 0,5-0,7
              The maximum speed of destruction of an approaching rocket of the Lance 1200 type m / s
              The maximum speed of destruction of a moving rocket like Lance 300 m / s
              Maximum range of destruction of the AGM-86 ALCM rocket:
              at an altitude of 30 m - 20 km,
              at an altitude of 6000 m 26 km
              The probability of defeat of the Kyrgyz Republic 0,6-0,8
              The maximum range of destruction of anti-radar missiles of the "HARM" type - 20 km
              * Probability of defeat PRR 0,6-0,8
              The maximum range of destruction of Hugh-Cobra-type helicopters is 42 km (at a target speed greater than 50 m / s)
              The maximum range of hovering helicopters 10-12 km


              Forward and with the song let's
              Quote: FROST
              maximum starting range and effective starting range

              and I'll look at that.
            2. FROST
              FROST 12 March 2012 00: 29
              +1
              And cite the reason, the charter’s provisions that prescribe not to be placed at the distance you mentioned, for example, the KUB

              Forward and with the song let's

              and I'll look at it

              And by the way, we can find another article for your annihilation --- otherwise it is about WWII TANKS.


              You already decide) and then some kind of trollo-lo. Tell toli, let's not do it, otherwise I’m not a troll and all that)) My initial appeal was addressed to another participant. The example of Rudel was considered and a short comment on the words "aviation has now become a formidable force" and that's it. Again, mislead everyone, divert the topic and cook porridge?)

              And what about the air raids there will be no strike by cruise missiles? Have you found out? Do you think that one aircraft will suppress Iran’s air defense?


              Will be. It's just that the Air Force can easily crush those air defense systems on its own and are not helpless tins without cruise missiles, as you claimed.

              Why did you get this? The Japanese could not do this, since the industrial potential was inferior to the USA by several orders of magnitude and the US aircraft carriers in 1944-45 had SEVERAL SOT


              A few hundred ?? The Americans at the end of the war there were about 80 and then, most of the converted civilian courts. Learn the materiel.
              Lagging by several orders of magnitude ?! Is it a thousand times chtoli? Learn math.

              Are you already talking? Or rather, are you talking?


              A thought, the wording of which you did not understand initially, was clarified later.

              How did you calculate this? Look at the losses in Normandy against the German divisions of the second class, and with the overwhelming advantage of the allies IN ALL


              You don’t even know the ratio of losses and troops?)

              and I'll look at that.


              Of course, look if you stop making porridge and offtopic. I will post the data on air defense in one of the articles on relevant topics and leave a link here.
              1. Kars
                12 March 2012 01: 04
                +1
                Quote: FROST
                And cite the reason, the charter’s provisions that prescribe not to be placed at the distance you mentioned, for example, the KUB


                Forward and with the song let's


                and I'll look at it


                And by the way, we can find another article for your annihilation --- otherwise it is about WWII TANKS.


                You already decide)


                And what is being determined, although I should have realized that you weren’t quick-witted ---- they would write an answer at least where there are about thermal imagers and so on, there’s a conversation - and here you would say that that’s all. And you don’t need a trololo


                Quote: FROST
                The example of Rudel was considered and a short comment on the words "aviation has now become a formidable force" and that's all

                Quote: FROST
                Most of the sorties took place on various modifications of the Yu-87 Shtuk dive bomber, which became highly effective for destroying tanks after the installation of two guns in the underwing gondolas at Rudel’s insistence

                Of course, he is an outstanding pilot, an order of magnitude superior to combat pilots, but these data give a complete answer to the question about the combat effectiveness of the Air Force.
                With the advent of aviation, high-precision homing ammunition and the absence of the need to dive directly "over the head of the tank", the effectiveness of destruction of armored vehicles has increased dramatically

                Your brevity smiles at me
                Quote: FROST
                Will be. It's just that the Air Force can easily crush those air defense systems on its own and are not helpless tins without cruise missiles, as you claimed.

                It’s even to your IMHO, but something unrealistically creative — how the Pentagon didn’t think of it and wrecked it on the air defense of the same Yugoslavia (or rather its chopping off of Serbia and Montenegro, after 8 years of civil war and arms embargo) over 1000 tomagaks. Thank you laugh.
                Quote: FROST
                A few hundred ?? The Americans at the end of the war there were about 80 and most of the converted civilian courts. Learn materiel

                I would advise you to read Norman Polmar Aircraft carriers in battle in 2 volumes --- by the way, I specially opened the application - on 118 I’m tired of counting them
                Quote: FROST
                A thought, the wording of which you did not understand initially, was clarified later

                No, they didn’t explain it - I expressed it there below --- with your quotes.
                Quote: FROST
                You don’t even know the ratio of losses and troops?)

                I want to hear your interpretation.
                Quote: FROST
                Lagging by several orders of magnitude ?!

                learn to read
                Quote: Kars
                as the industrial potential inferior to the United States by several orders of magnitude

                You will begin to assert that the Japanese economy was stronger than the United States, can it still be comparable in population and area?
                Quote: FROST
                and leave a link here.

                Waiting for
                1. FROST
                  FROST 12 March 2012 09: 11
                  +1
                  It’s even to your IMHO, but something unrealistically creative — how the Pentagon didn’t think of it and wrecked it on the air defense of the same Yugoslavia (or rather its chopping off of Serbia and Montenegro, after 8 years of civil war and arms embargo) over 1000 tomagaks. Thank you laugh.


                  It's just that simple. This does not mean that the Air Force cannot do this on its own. Learn Operation in Lebanon in '82.

                  I would advise you to read Norman Polmar Aircraft carriers in battle in 2 volumes --- by the way, I specially opened the application - on 118 I’m tired of counting them


                  118 = several hundred?) Then, 118 in the ranks or all issued taking into account losses? What is the range of displacement?

                  And what is being determined, although I should have realized that you weren’t quick-witted ---- they would write an answer at least where there are about thermal imagers and so on, there’s a conversation - and here you would say that that’s all. And you don’t need a trololo

                  No, they didn’t explain it - I expressed it there below --- with your quotes.

                  learn to read

                  Your brevity smiles at me


                  Continuation of trollo)

                  I want to hear your interpretation.


                  We have already heard that the loss rate of the Allies in relation to the killed Germans is much lower than that of the Union. Both during operations in the air and during battles on the continental parts.

                  Quote: Kars
                  as the industrial potential inferior to the United States by several orders of magnitude

                  You will begin to assert that the Japanese economy was stronger than the United States, can it still be comparable in population and area?


                  Well, what is a few? This is not one and not a couple. Multiple is the minimum of 3-4. To lag behind by several orders of magnitude (3-4 at least) - this is lagging behind 1000-10000 times. So, once again, learn math with history.
                  1. Kars
                    12 March 2012 12: 19
                    +3
                    Quote: FROST
                    Just so simple

                    The ingenious answer, which explained the expenses in 1.2 of a billion dollars, excluding the operating costs of the carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic
                    Quote: FROST
                    Learn the operation in Lebanon in the 82 year.
                    They could not even kill Gaddafi, though they drove F 111 across the floor of the planet, and why not study the use of aviation in Italy and Abisinia?
                    Quote: FROST
                    118 = several hundred?) Then, 118 in the ranks or all issued taking into account losses? What is the range of displacement?

                    Okay, here I admit the reservation --- in the 1944-1945, the American tactical groups included up to several hundred ships including battleships and aircraft carriers, and the United States aircraft carriers had about 200, with different displacement.
                    Quote: FROST
                    Your brevity smiles at me

                    Continuation of trollo)


                    You consider it
                    Quote: FROST
                    Most of the sorties took place on various modifications of the Yu-87 Shtuk dive bomber, which became highly effective for destroying tanks after the installation of two guns in the underwing gondolas at Rudel’s insistence

                    Of course, he is an outstanding pilot, an order of magnitude superior to combat pilots, but these data give a complete answer to the question about the combat effectiveness of the Air Force.
                    With the advent of aviation, high-precision homing ammunition and the absence of the need to dive directly "over the head of the tank", the effectiveness of destruction of armored vehicles has increased dramatically.

                    Quote: FROST
                    The example of Rudel was considered and a short comment on the words "aviation has now become a formidable force"

                    Especially to the place of guided missiles or are you talking about Little Red Riding Hood?
                    Quote: FROST
                    We have already heard that the loss rate of the Allies in relation to the killed Germans is much lower than that of the Union. Both during operations in the air and during battles on the continental parts.

                    Well, give the numbers, you can still give the numbers of the superiority of the Allies in the Norman operation in manpower, artillery, tanks.
                    Keep in mind that they fought not in your territory, but on the road (but you don’t understand this)

                    Quote: FROST
                    Well, what is a few? This is not one and not a couple. Multiple is the minimum of 3-4. To lag behind by several orders of magnitude (3-4 at least) - this is lagging behind 1000-10000 times. So, once again, learn math with history.


                    Well, tell me, how much did Japan's gross domestic product exceed US GDP? How many times did the natural resources of the Japanese island exceed the resources of the North American continent?

                    And I look to you aside from the math ... math .. there are no arguments


                    The funny thing is that this is a memory of your comment about trolls, and how consistent you are in your desire to amuse me.
                    1. FROST
                      FROST 13 March 2012 21: 08
                      +1
                      The ingenious answer, which explained the expenses in 1.2 of a billion dollars, excluding the operating costs of the carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic


                      Consumption as an expense. Firstly, which the Americans gladly hung on their NATO allies (they have a very interesting point about joint responsibility for expenses), firing missile ammunition, gaining invaluable combat experience in their use. Secondly, with the use of cruise missiles, the result is achieved much faster in view of the simultaneous salvo covering of targets. Thirdly, for the most part the goals for the tomahawks were control and communication centers, airfields, power plants, and other strategic goals.

                      Quote: FROST
                      Learn the operation in Lebanon in the 82 year.
                      They could not even kill Gaddafi, even though they drove F 111 across the floor of the planet


                      By this you prove not only illiteracy that has long been manifested in technical, historical and elementary spelling aspects, but also in the basics of geography) Lebanon is not Libya. This is a little more than a completely different country)) And Libya was bombed in 1986.

                      and why not study the use of aviation in Italy and Abisinia?


                      Because in the Bekaa valley, the Syrian army’s air defense systems (S-75, S-125, Kub, ZSU Shilka, MANPADS boom) air defense systems operating there were practically identical to Iran’s air defense systems in service today. The Israelis using their Air Force, in a couple of days of very effective use, destroyed a powerful group of air defense forces, inflicted heavy losses on the Syrian Air Force and then capturing airspace, easily defeated ground units.
                      And since then, the capabilities of electronic warfare systems, strike and reconnaissance capabilities of the Air Force have increased many times over. Not to mention the modern capabilities of space reconnaissance and unmanned aircraft.

                      Well, give the numbers, you can still give the numbers of the superiority of the Allies in the Norman operation in manpower, artillery, tanks.


                      But didn’t the Union have significant superiority in manpower, tanks and artillery in 1944 and 45? Armies of heavy bombers capable of carpet bombing not only to create devastated corridors for the Allied forces on sections of the German fronts, but also to wipe entire cities were a special trump card among the allies.

                      Keep in mind that they fought not in your territory, but on the road (but you don’t understand this)


                      Yes, you don’t seem to understand that supplying an army across the ocean (and you need to be able to seize a bridgehead) is more difficult than in your own or nearby territory.

                      Well, tell me, how much did Japan's gross domestic product exceed US GDP? How many times did the natural resources of the Japanese island exceed the resources of the North American continent?


                      Nobody claimed that) Just corrected you in outright stupidity that the gap was thousands of times.

                      Especially to the place of guided missiles or are you talking about Little Red Riding Hood?

                      You consider it

                      And I look to you aside from the math ... math .. there are no arguments
                      The funny thing is that this is a memory of your comment about trolls, and how consistent you are in your desire to amuse me.


                      Another portion of trollo-lo)
                      1. Kars
                        13 March 2012 21: 46
                        0
                        In general, this is all your trollo - the most interesting to me is why you did not move to another Article from the Air Defense Section?

                        And also the answer
                        Quote: Kars
                        Quote: FROST
                        .If you remember your pearls especially smiled about the fact that medium-range complexes never placed closer than 20-30

                        And cite the reason, the charter’s provisions that prescribe not to be placed at the distance you mentioned, for example, the KUB
                        Weak?

                        Only below I decided that the average range, so the average - so a hundred about BEECH

                        So all the same, why cannot the BUK medium-range complex be placed closer than 20-30 km? In what charters are these instructions written?
                        Quote: FROST
                        Consumption as an expense. Firstly, which the Americans gladly hung on their NATO allies (they have a very interesting point about joint responsibility for expenses), firing missile ammunition, gaining invaluable combat experience in their use. Secondly, with the use of cruise missiles, the result is achieved much faster in view of the simultaneous salvo covering of targets. Thirdly, for the most part the goals for the tomahawks were control and communication centers, airfields, power plants, and other strategic goals.


                        It does not follow from all this demagogy that aviation itself, without a missile defense system, can suppress air defense like Iraq, Iran, the remnants of anti-aircraft defense of collapsed Yugoslavia with acceptable losses.
                        Quote: FROST
                        By this you prove not only illiteracy that has long been manifested in technical, historical and elementary spelling aspects, but also in the basics of geography) Lebanon is not Libya. This is a little more than a completely different country)) And Libya was bombed in 1986.


                        Indeed, I re-read LEBANON ----- I couldn’t even imagine that you have the intelligence to bring this terrorist act against the peaceful cities of Lebanon, by the way, if you don’t tell me what opposed the Israeli Air Force from Lebanese air defense means? And for no reason after that .. .brilliant .. the use of aviation, the IDF sent the tanks to battle?
                        And by the way, I have never been particularly interested in Lebanon --- in my memory only the massacre of refugees organized by the Israelis.
                        And the Syrians don’t especially drag in the Bekaa Valley, the Bekaa Valley - nothing special - because 20 batteries are not in the territory of Syria itself, of course a powerful grouping.
                        At 09.06.82 in Lebanon there were 19 air defense systems: 15 “Square” (SA-6 Gainful), 2 С-75М (SA-2 Guideline) and 2 С-125М (SA-3 Goa). 5 "Square", as mentioned above, at 09.06.82 did not have time to join the advanced grouping.

                        However, such impressive forces could not resist the Israeli aviation. The overwhelming majority of anti-aircraft missile brigades were previously "opened" by Israeli intelligence and destroyed already in the first hours of the war (more precisely, in the first hours of the operation that began with 09.06.82 - OG). The rest were unable to conduct effective firing to destroy air targets. The personnel did not have the necessary experience, there was almost complete lack of knowledge about the tactics of enemy aircraft, and the recommendations of Soviet military specialists were not always fully taken into account, which, however, was characteristic of the Syrian side throughout the entire Soviet-Syrian cooperation.

                        In general, Lebanon 82 did not really impress me, all the rather outdated air defense systems
                        Quote: FROST
                        And since then, the capabilities of electronic warfare systems, strike and reconnaissance capabilities of the Air Force have increased many times over. Not to mention the modern capabilities of space reconnaissance and unmanned aircraft.

                        Well, no one says that the United States will not be able to suppress Liechtenstein's air defense.
                        And here you take the current Iranian air defense and crush it with the forces of the Franco / Italian alliance.
                        Quote: FROST
                        But did not the Union have a significant superiority in manpower, tanks and artillery in the 1944 and 45 years?

                        By the way, this is not such a big advantage considering the size of the eastern front, when the Allies worked in a rather narrow corridor, and the strikes of their Air Fleets were not so efekivny --- there is not my comment on this above, and we must also take into account that the Germans themselves did not such fierce resistance to allies, counting on concessions during occupation.
                        Quote: FROST
                        Yes, you don’t seem to understand that supplying an army across the ocean (and you need to be able to seize a bridgehead) is more difficult than in your own or nearby territory.


                        Both on, directly across the ocean and to the beaches of Omaha? Or maybe three years to bring to the territory of the huge island of Great Britain barokhlishko? Can still say that the B-17 worked in Germany from the USA? They fought supplying only through the English Channel with its full control .
                        Quote: FROST
                        Nobody claimed that)

                        Strange corrected without real numbers
                        Quote: FROST
                        Another portion of trollo-lo)

                        For your part, why does the trolley not write on the Panther tank release. But I personally like to feed the trolls.
                      2. Kars
                        13 March 2012 23: 53
                        0
                        yes and by the way
                        Quote: FROST
                        Just corrected you in outright stupidity that the gap was a thousand times

                        several orders starting from one, for example, how much?
                        and how much you can estimate the total gap
                        Quote: Postman
                        The Japanese knew their "production" capabilities but attacked the United States.
                        Ivakuro Hideo, 09.1941 Special Unit to Assess US Military Potential Conclusion:
                        The United States produces 20 times more steel than Japan, produces several hundred times more oil, produces 5 times more aircraft, has five times more labor force, the mobilized military potential of Japan will be only 10% of the US.


                        Huh?
                      3. FROST
                        FROST 14 March 2012 03: 31
                        +1
                        several orders starting from one, for example, how much?


                        You didn’t attend school? Order is ten times. 2 orders - 100 times, 3 - 1000 times ...

                        and how much you can estimate the total gap


                        Within the same order in terms of military-technical potential.
                      4. Kars
                        14 March 2012 12: 02
                        0
                        weird 1 ---- 10 ---- 100
                      5. FROST
                        FROST 14 March 2012 13: 06
                        +1
                        in your opinion, the phrase is superior by one order of magnitude - then it is not superior, but in fact one to one?)) Once again,superiority by one order - ten times, two orders of magnitude - a hundred times, three orders of magnitude - a thousand times So that TO SCHOOL!!!)
                      6. Kars
                        14 March 2012 14: 28
                        0
                        As soon as you prove that it’s a little THREE of the order. And that in some positions, the economic potential of the United States could not exceed Japanese by three orders of magnitude. Do you allow the production of Uranus?
                        Quote: FROST
                        Within the same order in terms of military-technical potential.

                        And this is just wonderful. How low do you value the military-technical potential of the United States - can we compare the production of tanks in Japan and the United States? Or aircraft? Or the production of ammunition? Or fuel resources? Rubber?
                      7. FROST
                        FROST 15 March 2012 11: 52
                        +1
                        As soon as you prove that a few are precisely THREE orders.


                        At least three.How much do you think? A few is a couple?)) It starts to smack of delirium and too frank trollism ...)

                        And this is just wonderful. How low do you value the military-technical potential of the United States - can we compare the production of tanks in Japan and the United States? Or aircraft? Or the production of ammunition? Or fuel resources? Rubber?


                        No one disputes that the United States as a whole was significantly superior to Japan. But to say that in general they excelled thousands of times is nonsense. Perhaps you should admit this if you are not quite a redneck troll.
                      8. Kars
                        15 March 2012 12: 16
                        0
                        Quote: FROST
                        At least three.

                        Or maybe four? Is there a specific indication of exactly how much? For example, a few kilograms is usually 2 (two kg)
                        Quote: FROST
                        No one disputes that the United States as a whole was significantly superior to Japan.

                        In general, and you will be able to assess who is more superior to the USA -Japan or the USSR -Germany (we do not take into account allies)
                        Quote: FROST
                        But to say that in general they excelled thousands of times is nonsense.

                        Bullshit is basically your statements, such as the difficulties of supply across the ocean (and then all of a sudden, it turns out for you that Normandy went through a transit-storage point of a rather large size)
                        Quote: Kars
                        This is the Japanese could not do it, because industrial potential inferior to the United States by several orders of magnitude

                        And you still cannot argue this phrase of mine, no matter how you try ---- this is a well-known fact --- the most striking example of which is the Manhattan Project, and the tons of tunnels for merchant and warships
                        Quote: FROST
                        if you're not quite a redneck troll

                        Of course, I’m still far from you.
                      9. [comment-show]
                        FROST
                        FROST 15 March 2012 13: 07
                        +1
                        [quote for example a few kilograms this is usually 2 (two kg)]


                        Fine. It turns out 2 - it's a few. Rave.

                        Bullshit is basically your statements, such as the difficulties of supply across the ocean (and then all of a sudden, it turns out for you that Normandy went through a transit-storage point of a rather large size)


                        In your opinion, it turns out that it is easier to fight, supplying the group across the ocean and then the Lamansh, than on the ground in its own or nearby territory, right?)

                        And you still cannot argue this phrase of mine, no matter how you try ---- this is a well-known fact --- the most striking example of which is the Manhattan Project, and the tons of tunnels for merchant and warships


                        I can. But what's the point of challenging outright nonsense? Give the numbers of all manufactured military equipment, ships, aircraft, ammunition and indicate where there is a difference of a thousand times)
                        [/ comment-show] [comment-deleted]
                        The comment was deleted.
                        [/ comment-deleted]
  • Kars
    15 March 2012 13: 41
    0
    Quote: FROST
    Fine. It turns out 2 - it's a few. Rave.

    Nonsense? Well, why do you can't prove that the colloquial term somewhat has the strict meaning of 3?
    Quote: FROST
    In your opinion, it turns out that it is easier to fight, supplying the group across the ocean and then the Lamansh, than on the ground in its own or nearby territory, right?)

    If you have such a merchant fleet, a naval, industrial base that is not bombed --- and at the same time accumulate resources for several (how interesting) years, yes.
    They would have accomplished a feat if they had gone straight from the US coast and to the beaches of Amahi and in 1942 -the beginning of 1943. And since Overlord is only a scale (preparation for which cost additional blood of the USSR) but it also doesn’t lie close, for example, with a landing on Crete, Norway, even Kerch.
    Quote: FROST
    Can. But what's the point of challenging outright nonsense

    You will not find it, and then why are you offtopic of the thirtieth comment (expression) with enviable tenacity.

    So, for example, Japan’s trucks 166 thousand US 2 million 400 thousand (you’re certainly a mathematician, and you’ll start calculating the order - well, as the flag is in your hands ---- still you can’t prove that the INDUSTRIAL potential of the USA was several orders of magnitude superior to Japan, elementary even for uranium)
  • FROST
    FROST 15 March 2012 17: 16
    +1
    all the same, do not prove that the INDUSTRIAL potential of the United States was several orders of magnitude superior to Japan, elementary even in uranium)


    You already have some kind of mess. You prove it.

    So for example, Japan trucks 166 thousand US 2 million 400 thousand


    This is much closer to the same order. Which confirms the correctness of my words.

    elementary even on uranium


    And what about uranium? The Japanese did not have the technology of creating an atomic bomb. Inappropriate comparison.

    Nonsense? Well, why do you can't prove that the colloquial term somewhat has the strict meaning of 3?


    Can't you read? I wrote that minimum 3. Maybe four and five ... Only then is it completely nonsense on your part. This would be superior to tens and hundreds of thousands of times.

    If you try to prove such superiority (at least 1000 times)
    Give the figures of tanks, armored vehicles, ships, ammunition.
  • Kars
    15 March 2012 18: 39
    0
    Quote: FROST
    You already have some kind of mess. You prove it.

    But do I need it? Are you trying to compare the losses of the USSR against Germany with the losses of the USA on the Pacific front.
    Quote: FROST
    This is much closer to the same order. Which confirms the correctness of my words.

    This is much more than one order, and when you consider that the United States continued to manufacture civilian goods ---- Well, you’re able to make a conclusion.
    Quote: FROST
    And what about uranium? The Japanese did not have the technology of creating an atomic bomb. Inappropriate comparison.

    and why not? This is precisely the indicator of the Gigantic, Phenomenal, Huge, Grandiose, etc. (will you dispute epithets?) the advantages of the US industry over Japan
    Quote: FROST
    Wrote that at least 3

    And who are you? Give a link to a more competent source.
    Somewhat this is not a mathmatical term meaning more than one, but less than 5
    Quote: FROST
    If you try to prove such superiority (at least 1000 times)
    give the figures of tanks, armored vehicles, ships, ammunition

    Uran
    And if you can realize this, then I wrote about the U.S. GENERAL INDUSTRIAL EXCELLENCE by several orders of magnitude. So how long do you not try to refute me that you don’t get it. One is glad that all that YOU have left is clinging to comparisons and epithets. But here there is no professor --- Fail over trying to save face will not get.
  • FROST
    FROST 15 March 2012 19: 15
    +1
    This is much more than one order, and when you consider that the United States continued to manufacture civilian goods ---- Well, you’re able to make a conclusion.


    Here the superiority is about 14,5 times. Order is ten. 2 orders is a hundred. What is closer? Tight even with math?

    and why not? This is precisely the indicator of the Gigantic, Phenomenal, Huge, Grandiose, etc. (will you dispute epithets?) the advantages of the US industry over Japan


    Not an indicator. Because If we consider the power of an industrial complex influencing a military conflict, then we need to compare the corresponding industries. Because Japan did not have atomic bomb technology, uranium mining did not matter. You would have led the production of slippers and chocolates)

    And who are you? Give a link to a more competent source.
    Somewhat this is not a mathmatical term meaning more than one, but less than 5


    There are already comments are unnecessary)

    So how much you do not pout to refute me you do not get


    Yes, well) Well, where are the numbers on the quantities of military equipment produced confirming your words?

    One is glad that all that you have left is clinging to comparisons and epithets.


    No, it's just that if you are illiterate even in the simplest things, what kind of competency can be discussed.

    But here there is no proffessor --- to fall down trying to save face will not work.


    On the contrary, I want to feed the troll once so that it bursts and no longer bothers others)
  • Kars
    15 March 2012 20: 04
    +1
    Quote: FROST
    There is superiority about 14,5 times. Order is ten. 2 order is a hundred. What is closer? Tight even with math


    As the water looked
    Quote: Kars
    Well, you’re able to make a conclusion.


    Do you want to prove the wretchedness of your thinking?
    1 - Can you prove that the USA produced the maximum of trucks? What if it collapsed civilian goods it could not produce trucks anymore?
    2 --- Why are you sure that one US truck is equal to a Japanese truck?
    Quote: FROST
    Because Japan did not have atomic bomb technology, uranium mining did not matter. You would have led the production of slippers and chocolates)

    Do you want to say that the US received atomic bomb technology from aliens? That huge financial and material resources were not spent on the Manhattan project? Which could go to build the same trucks?
    Quote: FROST
    There are already comments are unnecessary)

    Of course, I'm right, but you have nothing to say, they would have said.
    Quote: FROST
    Yes, well) Well, where are the numbers on the quantities of military equipment produced confirming your words?

    And where is your evidence that the amount of military equipment released is US INDUSTRY - MAXIMUM? That with a given number of the same tanks, the population was starving, digging the ground by pulling a plow by hand?
    Quote: FROST
    No, it's just that if you are illiterate even in the simplest things, what kind of competency can be discussed.

    Well, more competent than you, this is a clear matter - I do not, unlike you, try to compare the losses of the European Front and the Pacific Front using elementary arithmetic. So I’ll have fun with success.
  • FROST
    FROST 15 March 2012 20: 35
    +1
    1 - Can you prove that the USA produced the maximum of trucks? What if it collapsed civilian goods it could not produce trucks anymore?
    2 --- Why are you sure that one US truck is equal to a Japanese truck?


    And where is your evidence that the amount of military equipment released is US INDUSTRY - MAXIMUM? That with a given number of the same tanks, the population was starving, digging the ground by pulling a plow by hand?


    And where is your evidence that the amount of military equipment released is US INDUSTRY - MAXIMUM? That with a given number of the same tanks, the population was starving, digging the ground by pulling a plow by hand?


    Well, you said that superiority was a thousand times. So confirm, prove your words. Give the numbers of industrial potential - factories, number of machines, labor. And I will have fun)

    Do you want to say that the US received atomic bomb technology from aliens? That huge financial and material resources were not spent on the Manhattan project? Which could go to build the same trucks?


    Well, bring the numbers, let's talk) Here, scientific excellence played a big role.

    As the water looked


    As required.
  • Kars
    15 March 2012 21: 04
    0
    Quote: FROST
    Well, you said that superiority was a thousand times. So confirm, prove your words. Give figures of industrial potential - factories, number of machines, labor


    Therefore, you cannot confirm your words that this is a false statement --- The industrial potential of the United States was several orders of magnitude superior to the Japanese. Which was to be proved.
    Quote: FROST
    And I will have fun)

    Nepoluchitsa, I already fed a three-wheeler so that he whimpered
    Quote: FROST
    Well, bring the numbers, let's talk)

    Do you need them? You are not able to interpret them? Let's say 24 billion dollars (at the current rate) of direct cash costs only
    almost the entire war budget of Japan 1942-43
    Quote: FROST
    QED

    and proved
  • FROST
    FROST 15 March 2012 21: 30
    +1
    The industrial potential of the United States was several orders of magnitude superior to the Japanese, which was to be proved.


    On the contrary. If someone calls someone a camel, then he must justify it and prove it would be foolish to give facts and justify himself to a person called a camel) You have not proved anything, you haven’t given the numbers.

    Nepoluchitsa, I already fed a three-wheeler so that he whimpered


    Again, exactly the opposite.

    and proved


    Well, at least they finally admitted here. Data on the insolvency of military air defense, cited in a neighboring branch.
  • Kars
    15 March 2012 22: 35
    +1
    Quote: FROST
    You didn’t prove anything, you didn’t give numbers

    Your problems if you don’t know the common truths, and why should I prove that a camel is a camel to the person with your putats level. I quoted the figures, unlike you.
    Quote: FROST
    Well, at least they finally admitted here

    Of course, I admitted that you are not a boom boom, you only know AriHmetics. And you stupidly compare things, units, etc., and you do not even know that this is not entirely suitable for the products under discussion.
    Quote: FROST
    Again, exactly the opposite

    It is strange to hear this from a whimpering troller, he asked him to bring the figures of Manhattan, they brought him - he wiped his snot further and whimper, and his tongue in a soft place.
  • FROST
    FROST 15 March 2012 23: 30
    +1
    that a camel is a camel. I quoted the numbers, unlike you.


    You have not given any figures for the number of factories, machine tools, or the ratio of labor. Dot.

    Of course, I admitted that you are not a boom boom, you only know AriHmetics. And you stupidly compare things, units, etc., and you do not even know that this is not entirely suitable for the products under discussion.


    That is, they showed that you yourself do not even know arithmetic.

    It is strange to hear this from a whimpering troller, he asked him to bring the figures of Manhattan, they brought him - he wiped his snot further and whimper, and his tongue in a soft place.


    Such a clear transition to personality, a sign of outright trollism. Because you have no more arguments, you don’t give figures and facts on superiority in factories, machines and labor, the discussion in this thread can be considered closed. Regarding the figures of the total GDP of Japan and the correlation of labor, they only confirm my words.
  • Kars
    16 March 2012 00: 38
    0
    Quote: FROST
    Point.

    Comma
    Quote: FROST
    You didn’t give any figures of the number of factories, machine tools and labor force ratio

    Are you so ignorant? Even Japanese estimates gave you
    Quote: Kars
    The Japanese knew their "production" capabilities but attacked the United States.
    Ivakuro Hideo, 09.1941 Special Unit to Assess US Military Potential Conclusion:
    The United States produces 20 times more steel than Japan, produces several hundred times more oil, produces 5 times more aircraft, has five times more labor force, the mobilized military potential of Japan will be only 10% of the US.


    But you are stupidly trying to compare the numbers. It’s stubbornly misunderstanding that each one carries a train of consequences that simply can’t be determined by numbers. For example, if there is little oil, then proportionally less gasoline, less gasoline is more difficult to transport operations and also they are more expensive and so on in effect dominoes. But you do not understand.

    Quote: FROST
    That is, they showed that you yourself do not even know arithmetic.

    Well, unlike you, I will not prove to equip equipment from the calculation of 1 to 1 indiscriminately.
    Quote: FROST
    Such a clear transition to personality, a sign of outright trollism. Because you have no more arguments, you don’t give figures and facts on superiority in factories, machines and labor, the discussion in this thread can be considered closed

    Is it good for you? They answered your question about the Manhattan project, and you start to freeze. So it doesn’t make any sense, you will start to take the same labor force on the head, not taking into account educational levels, food standard, nutrition, qualifications, technical equipment of factories.
    Having already said that anyway you cannot refute my words, but I don’t see any reason to prove to you with your level of ariHmetics, but I will feed the troll with pleasure.
  • FROST
    FROST 14 March 2012 03: 23
    +1
    the most interesting is why you did not switch to another Article from the air defense section?
    Only below I decided that the average range, so the average - so a hundred about BEECH

    So all the same, why cannot the BUK medium-range complex be placed closer than 20-30 km? In what charters are these instructions written?

    It does not follow from all this demagogy that aviation itself, without a missile defense system, can suppress air defense like Iraq, Iran, the remnants of anti-aircraft defense of collapsed Yugoslavia with acceptable losses.

    In general, Lebanon 82 did not really impress me, all the rather outdated air defense systems

    and about the continuation of other offtopic here http://topwar.ru/9353-unikalnyy-zenitnyy-kompleks-buk-2m-sredney-dalnosti.html
  • FROST
    FROST 14 March 2012 04: 14
    +1
    The Allies worked in a rather narrow corridor, and the strikes of their Air Fleets were not so efekivny --- above there is not my comment about this


    First, where is the logic? With narrower corridors, carpet bombing is more effective. The opinion expressed in the above comment is simply winged stupidity. The destruction range during the bombing of the B-52 bomber is from 700 to 1600 meters in length and 100-150 meters in width (20-25t bomb load). B-17 bomb load of about 3 tons (equivalent of 7-8 vehicles), B-29 load of about 10 tons (equivalent of 2-3 vehicles). I think you can remember about how armadas of these machines the Americans raided, as well as imagine what was happening on the ground after their carpet bombing.
  • Kars
    14 March 2012 12: 12
    0
    Quote: FROST
    First, where is the logic?

    Well, for your logic, I’m already not calculating ---- I’ll explain the East front of 2000 km, and the western one near 400 km
    And I will not answer in my own words
    Quote: makrus
    Air Marshal Tedder, who had organized air support during the assault on Kahn, viciously stated that if you spend 1000 tons of bombs per mile, 600 000 tons of bombs would be required to get to Berlin.
  • FROST
    FROST 15 March 2012 21: 48
    +1
    Well, for your logic, I’m already not calculating ---- I’ll explain the East front of 2000 km, and the western one near 400 km
    And I will not answer in my own words


    Well, with a higher concentration of troops that you are hinting at on a narrower front, carpet bombing will be more effective.
    I gave you the figures for the carpet bombardment of 25 tons of bombs. With the simultaneous bombing of hundreds of heavy vehicles, they could create wasteland corridors in the defense lines on the German front, through which allies could break into. Do you have any more powerful arguments than not your poisonous statement?)
  • Kars
    15 March 2012 22: 30
    0
    Quote: FROST
    Well, with a higher concentration of troops that you are hinting at on a narrower front, carpet bombing will be more effective.


    Where is the knowledge of the Second World War? Germans and high density on the Western Front?
    Quote: FROST
    With the simultaneous bombing of hundreds of heavy vehicles, they could create wasteland corridors in the defense lines on the German front, through which the Allies could burst

    Well, maybe they could, even somewhere they did --- but nifiga didn’t work. The same Kang is proof of that. How many months did they escape from the Norman Peninsula?
  • makrus
    makrus 11 March 2012 17: 10
    +1
    As we recall, in June 1944 the Allies landed in Normandy. One of the first tasks assigned by Field Marshal Montgomery to the British 2nd Army was the capture of the city of Caen, located about 15 kilometers from the coast. Kahn was an important traffic intersection, and therefore its capture was of great importance for the subsequent development of the operation. However, for a number of reasons, the 3rd Infantry Division, which was supposed to do this, reached only the outskirts of the city, where it got stuck, and seriously and permanently. Further attempts to storm Kahn were completely unsuccessful. Worse, trying to strike the flank of the German training tank division, the British 7th Panzer Division entered the town of Willer-Bockage, which culminated in the extermination of its avant-garde by the "tiger" Michael Wittmann. Despite all the efforts of the British, the only thing they managed to achieve was to occupy the northern part of the city of Caen.

    It was absolutely necessary to capture this point, and Montgomery prepared the largest Allied tank attack for all the time of battles in Western Europe. The attack was supposed to be carried out on July 18 by the forces of the VIII Corps, which consisted of 3 tank divisions in a section just west of Caen. They totaled a total of 759 tanks, but tank divisions were indicated diverging directions of attack. They were supposed to be supported by 2 infantry divisions of the Canadian II Corps, which for some reason received orders to advance only the next day, and directly to the city itself. The attack plan looks strange, but it was completely typical of the British, who stubbornly defended the separate actions of tanks and infantry. The funny thing is, the instructions of 1939 were still valid in the British tank units. This leads to a disappointing conclusion for the British - during the 5 years of the war, they failed to understand the principles of using tanks and reached only the point where the Red Army was in June 1941.

    In the direction of the main strike was the German 16th Airfield Division, the combat effectiveness of which should not be overestimated. Even the Germans themselves were not mistaken in this regard, it is enough to read the memoirs of Major von Luc, who almost accidentally appeared at the scene. But the allies did not even suspect (intelligence worked as always) that the 1st Panzer Division of the Leibstandart, the 12th Panzer Division of the Hitler Youth and the main forces of the 21st Panzer Division were on the attack line behind the front line. However, in terms of the number of tanks, none of them could compete with the English. However, the Germans had other trump cards, which historians often forget. The fact is that these compounds were not listed as part of the ground forces, and most often they are not even shown on the map. However, in the Kan region, the III anti-aircraft corps was deployed as part of 3 anti-aircraft assault regiments. He had almost 100 heavy anti-aircraft guns (88 and 105 mm), which could become a serious obstacle to any tank formation. These guns were outside the reach of the British artillery and could shoot at the tanks quite calmly. In addition, the 200th tank destroyer battalion, armed with 88-mm Cancer 43 guns, was in the attack direction. That is, due to the helplessness of reconnaissance, General Dampsey moved the tanks to where they were expected to die.

    However, the British had no less powerful cards, it was only necessary to play them correctly. The offensive began with a powerful air strike. At 05.26, 1056 “Lancaster” and “Halifaxes” of the Royal Air Force Bomber Command arrived, which dropped 4800 tons of high-explosive bombs to German positions. Quite by accident, except for the 16th airfield, they covered the location of the 21st Panzer Division. At 06.40 the artillery of the British 2nd Army opened fire, and after 20 minutes 318 B-26 “Marauder” bombers of the American 9th Air Army flew in, dropping another 563 tons of bombs to the same 16th airfield division. The last blow was struck by 570 I-24 Libererator bombers of the 8th Air Army, dropping an additional 1340 tons of bombs onto the heads of the Germans. We list all this in such detail, because these raids were completely unprecedented in power. The villages on the supposed path of the advance of the tanks have literally turned into piles of broken bricks.

    At 07.45 the British tanks moved forward, but it immediately became clear that, despite the long and careful development, the plan of operation was drawn up very badly. Before reaching the line of attack, the tank divisions had to cross two water obstacles and a minefield! The Orne River and the Kahn Canal ran parallel to the British positions, and there were only 8000 small bridges for the crossing of more than 6 pieces of equipment (tanks, artillery, armored personnel carriers of motorized infantry, sappers and rear services). As a result, completely impassable congestions formed. And then the commander of the army, General Dempsey, made a fatal decision. He ordered the commander of the VIII Corps, General O'Conor, to move tanks forward, tanks alone. Artillery, infantry and sappers were left behind. As we can see, the bloody experience of the war did not teach the British generals anything at all. Or have they already blotted out the terrible massacres that Rommel had staged in Africa for their tank brigades? But even now it was he who commanded the German troops in Normandy. By the way, it should be noted that, unlike Guderian or Manstein, Dempsey and O'Conor preferred to command from safe rear dugouts and the situation at the scene was rather vague.

    After crossing the bridges, the tanks came out to a minefield recently placed by the 51st Scottish Division. The cleared passages were too narrow, which created additional problems. But all the same, the super-strong bombardment affected, and at first the British troops advanced without much hindrance. But then the plan began to falter. The 7th Panzer Division was stuck on the crossings until dusk, and the Guards Panzer Division did not reach the battlefield at all, having come under heavy flank fire. As a result, the 11th Panzer Division had to fight alone. And then General O'Conor allowed her battalions to operate independently.

    But at about 10.00 the tanks reached the location of one of the anti-aircraft regiments, and it began ... Having suffered losses, the British passed German anti-aircraft guns, with great difficulty crossed the railway embankment and moved further up the slope of the hill ridge. All the events described above led to the fact that instead of a combined strike of 3 divisions, 2 battalions continued the offensive, the rest could not get out of a series of natural obstacles far behind. The commander of the West Tank Group, General Eberbach, ordered the commander of the 21st Panzer Corps, Obergruppenführer Dietrich, to attack the British who had broken through from the north, while the XNUMXst Panzer Division was to attack from the east. Eberbach was not going to fend off the British breakthrough, he intended to surround and destroy the erupted group.

    So, the Germans pulled up mobile reserves and struck from both flanks. At about 15.30 the British, who suffered heavy losses, began to roll back. The English divisions fell apart into brigades, the brigades scattered into battalions, and the Germans dealt with those, although not without difficulty. However, now the “tigers” and “panthers” participated in the battle, with which the “Sherman” and “Cromwelli” could not fight. By the way, it is interesting to note that anti-tank guns Rak 21 on the chassis of the French tank H200 - 40 cm PaK39 (Sf) auf Geschtzwagen 7,5H (f) were actively operating in the 40st Panzer Division and the 39th battalion of assault guns from the German side. But fear has big eyes, and, according to the British, they fought only and exclusively with the "tigers." Indeed, who else could destroy half of the tanks of the 11th division in just one day?

    The next day, the British tried to continue the attack. They managed to pull their tanks out of the trap into which they themselves had driven them, but the artillery and infantry were still hanging out behind. And the tank divisions were able to resume the offensive only in the afternoon. But the greatest that the British managed was to regain the territory that had been lost the day before. The fighting on July 20 was already purely symbolic.

    In general, enormous efforts were made, and the results were not very impressive. Air Marshal Tedder, organized under
  • r.anoshkin
    r.anoshkin 11 March 2012 17: 24
    +2
    During 1941-1945, the USSR produced about 45 thousand only T-34s. The total number of tanks and self-propelled guns exceeded 100 thousand plus Lend-Lease. In 1939-1945, Germany produced about 45 thousand tanks of all modifications and self-propelled guns combined. The Soviet tank on average participated in 3-4 battles, German at 10-11. Soviet commanders of companies and battles fought with pleasure on captured T-4s. Talking about technical superiority clearly states that the Lada is better than a Mercedes. The war was won exclusively by the heroism and self-sacrifice of people in the rear and on the battlefield.
    1. Kars
      11 March 2012 17: 44
      +7
      Quote: r.anoshkin
      Germany released about 45 of thousands of tanks of all modifications and self-propelled guns combined

      Why is that?

      * The total result of the actual German production (or by orders of Germany) - 75.513 units of armored vehicles.
      * In addition, a large number of command tanks (without cannon armaments), mobile artillery fire adjustment posts, repair and recovery vehicles and other equipment were produced. With their account, the total number of armored vehicles made up 89.266 units.
      * To them should be added the captured equipment received by the Wehrmacht - total 1.577 vehicles.
      * Thus, the German armed forces received and used units of armored vehicles during the Second World War 90.843.

      Apart from heaps of armored personnel carriers and so on and trophies not considered by statistics in part.
  • makrus
    makrus 11 March 2012 17: 25
    0
    Quote: FROST
    The Americans fought mainly with the strength of their Air Force and Navy. I think that everyone knows what results have been achieved. The ratio of killed and losses in their troops during the Second World War clearly indicates the feasibility of such a concept, which they began to develop after

    Similar concept extremely inefficient. And if it were not for the Soviet tank armies, which had become the most powerful tool in that war, it could have lasted another 10 years.
    Frost, if you want to compare something, first of all compare the result.
    Air Marshal Tedder, who had organized air support during the assault on Kahn, viciously stated that if you spend 1000 tons of bombs per mile, 600 000 tons of bombs would be required to get to Berlin.
    1. FROST
      FROST 11 March 2012 21: 51
      +1
      This concept is extremely ineffective. And if it were not for the Soviet tank armies, which had become the most powerful tool in that war, it could have lasted another 10 years.
      Frost, if you want to compare something, first of all compare the result.


      We are talking about the result. It was the Air Force that inflicted the main fire defeat on the Japanese fleet and on the ground units that defended the islands. Regarding the results of fidelity or unfaithfulness of this concept, compare the ratio of those killed and those who died in the US-Japanese confrontation and the confrontations between the Allies and Germans with the ratio of those who were killed and who died in the Soviet-German confrontation. We won due to the unprecedented heroism and huge blood of our soldiers, but not at the expense of fidelity to the concepts.
      1. Kars
        11 March 2012 22: 42
        +2
        Quote: FROST
        compare the ratio of those killed and killed in the US-Japanese confrontation and the confrontation between the Allies and Germans with the ratio of those killed and who died in the Soviet-German confrontation



        No, this is a striking misunderstanding of World War II, it can be said nonsense.
        To compare the Pacific Ocean theater of operations - where GEOGRAPHY itself is given that aviation and the Navy are fighting, and this is also taking into account the fact that BOTH parties did not fight in the METROPOLIY territory. And only at the end when all the resources of Japan were already ground, the fighting was transferred to the Japanese territory --- and see what brutal battles are immediately --- the same as Okinawa.

        Also, the allies themselves did NOT fight in their territory, WHERE TO - Africa, France --- where any destruction and tactical maneuvers did not carry moral consequences.

        But you do not understand this.
        1. FROST
          FROST 11 March 2012 23: 13
          +1
          No, this is a striking misunderstanding of World War II, it can be said nonsense.
          To compare the Pacific Ocean theater of operations - where GEOGRAPHY itself is given that aviation and the Navy are fighting, and this is also taking into account the fact that BOTH parties did not fight in the METROPOLIY territory. And only at the end when all the resources of Japan were already ground, the fighting was transferred to the Japanese territory --- and see what brutal battles are immediately --- the same as Okinawa.


          This was not addressed to you, the incomprehensible one) The Pacific Theater is an example, because it clearly reflects the advantage of aircraft carriers over battleships and the example that in the conditions of island defense, no ground units can provide air defense and oppose the Air Force. This is just one abstract example. No one compared him to the Soviet-German front. It can be compared with the European and African Allied-German theater of operations. Where, again, the Allies made a big bet on the Air Force and lost much fewer soldiers in relation to the killed Germans than the Soviet troops. That’s why Western military thought chose the Air Force and rapidly developing missile technology in the post-war period as the priority area for development. And I must say I was not mistaken.
          1. Kars
            11 March 2012 23: 45
            0
            Quote: FROST
            This was addressed not to you dull) The Pacific Theater is an example, because it clearly reflects the advantage of aircraft carriers over battleships
            And what about battleships? What would I give examples?
            Quote: FROST
            in the conditions of the defense of the islands, no ground units can provide air defense and resist the forces of the air force

            Why did you get this? The Japanese could not do this, since the industrial potential was inferior to the USA by several orders of magnitude and the US aircraft carriers in 1944-45 had SEVERAL SOT
            Quote: FROST
            No one compared it to the Soviet-German front

            You do not know what to write
            Quote: FROST
            Regarding the results of fidelity or unfaithfulness of this concept, compare the ratio of those killed and those who died in the US-Japanese confrontation and the confrontations between the Allies and Germans with the ratio of those who were killed and who died in the Soviet-German confrontation

            Are you already talking? Or rather, are you talking?
            Quote: FROST
            Where, again, the Allies made a big bet on the Air Force and lost much fewer soldiers in relation to the killed Germans than the Soviet troops

            I’m wildly sorry, but they sat on the island for three years and stupidly bombed, and at the same time in 1944 arms production reached its peak.
            Quote: FROST
            lost far fewer soldiers in relation to the killed Germans than the Soviet troops

            How did you calculate this? Look at the losses in Normandy against the German divisions of the second class, and with the overwhelming advantage of the allies IN ALL
            Quote: FROST
            That’s why Western military thought chose the Air Force and rapidly developing missile technology in the post-war period as a priority area of ​​development

            So it was written that the USSR did not build ballistic missiles, OTR, anti-aircraft missile systems, Migi, SU and so on and the United States did not stamp Patton and M-109, Bradley and M-113.
            And to think that you can understand the strategy of nuclear confrontation I can’t get at all.
            And by the way, we can find another article for your annihilation --- otherwise it is about WWII TANKS.
      2. makrus
        makrus 13 March 2012 14: 43
        -1
        Quote: FROST
        Regarding the results of fidelity or unfaithfulness of this concept, compare the ratio of the dead and the dead

        In 1945, the millionth Kwantung Army was completely defeated. According to Soviet data, her casualties amounted to 84 thousand people, about 600 thousand were taken prisoner. Irreversible losses of the Red Army amounted to 12 thousand people.
        WANT TO COMPARE? You are welcome.
  • older
    older 11 March 2012 19: 23
    -1
    As you do not say, considering that I am RUSSIAN, I think that German tanks are something of a masterpiece, and given the modern situation, the Bundes are the most trained and motivated. The Germans (real) have always been pedants and neat, this is their trump card. We passed on the motivation for love of the homeland, they’re on what is supposed to be. Personally, for me this is the most unfortunate enemy. Lord, and we still buy armor for serious equipment from the Germans ... we think
  • Cynic
    Cynic 11 March 2012 20: 13
    +2
    Quote: older
    Gentlemen, we still buy armor for serious equipment from the Germans ... we think

    Cool, for what, if not secret. That's just interesting.
    By the way, as I understand it, I’m completely unaware that for a serious technique we had a cycle from a blast furnace / marten, etc., right at the factory for the production of this very technique.
    Connoisseur damn it.
    Although, what is meant by serious technology, may BMV
  • T1GER_1
    T1GER_1 11 March 2012 21: 37
    0
    Something, I doubt Kars, that only in these parameters. Each crew had a chance to emerge victorious in close combat, because melee is not a tank type at all. Even the turret’s rotation speed will turn such a battle even of medium tanks into a battle tank with a practically fixed tower.
    I would not say that the USSR or the USA had a better situation, let's say the last tank in the USSR was the IS-2, which was also not completely brought up, the Tigers didn’t destroy such units ... Reason? Not breaking through very strong frontal armor 100mm (tigers with high-quality rolled armor) even 122 mm shells of anti-tank guns. Although they really shouldn’t be used under such shells. Yes, they rather ripped off the rollers than pierced the armor. 122mm guns and, of course, optics were not very accurate. Of course, if the crew was enough experienced not to get into close combat, where only a scythe could miss, and any weapon began to pose a threat. By the way, the Germans had created the Royal Tiger by that time, which was supposed to withstand the IS-2. Yes, the quality of the CT was not really, but they didn’t pierce his forehead with just reasonable and not even very distant fighting. I don’t understand why all of a sudden, recently they began to dislike the Wehrmacht technique so much, and they are trying in every possible way to prove which Germans were noobs that kept about 4 years of war against all over the world. I’m talking specifically about technology and craftsmanship, and not some convictions there. German technology and engineers deserve adequate respect that even with the last efforts they didn’t substitute tankers with some inadequate scrap metal.
    1. Kars
      11 March 2012 22: 49
      +1
      Quote: T1GER_1
      By the way, the Germans at that time created the Royal Tiger, which was supposed to withstand the IS-2

      Do you know the story of KING TIGER? And is it to IS-2?
      IT was built for the 88mm gun KwK 43 L / 71
      And I personally doubt that the same tiger had a chance to meet immediately with 11 IS-2 except of course the memory of O. Carius
      Quote: T1GER_1
      but they didn’t pierce his forehead with surely from reasonable and not even very distant combat.

      "1. The quality of the armor of the Tiger-B tank compared to the quality of the armor of the Tigr-N, Panther and Ferdinand SU of the first issues has deteriorated sharply. In the armor of the Tiger-B tank from the first single hits cracks and spalls are formed in the armor from a group of projectile hits (3-4 shells) spalls and large breaks.
      2. For all nodes of the hull and turret of the tank, the weakness of the welds is characteristic. Despite careful execution, the seams during shelling behave significantly worse than what happened in the similar designs of the Tiger-N, Panther and SU Ferdinand tanks.
      3. In the armor of the frontal sheets of a tank from 100 to 190 mm thick, when 3 – 4 armor-piercing or high-explosive shells of artillery shells of the caliber 152, 122 and 100 mm hit them from a distance of 500-1000 m, cracks, fractures, and fractures form entailing disruption of the transmission and the failure of the tank as an irreparable loss.
      4. Armor-piercing shells of the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) guns penetrate when penetrating into the edges or joints of the frontal plates of the Tiger-B tank at 500 – 600 m distances.
      5. Armor-piercing shells of the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) guns penetrate through the frontal sheet of the Tiger-B’s turret at 1000-1500m distances.
      6. Armor-piercing 85-mm shells of D-5 and C-53 cannons do not penetrate the front hull of the tank hull and do not produce any structural damage from the 300 distance.
      7. The side armor plates of the tank differ in sharp unequal strength compared with the front plates and are the most vulnerable part of the armor hull and turret of the tank.
      8. The side sheets of the hull and turret of the tank are pierced by armor-piercing shells of 85-mm domestic and 76-mm American guns from a distance of 800 – 2000 m.


      Simply put, learn the materiel.
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 12 March 2012 18: 29
      0
      Quote: T1GER_1
      I don’t understand why all of a sudden, recently they began to dislike the Wehrmacht technique so much, and they are trying in every possible way to prove which Germans are noobs

      Oh really ?
      Think for yourself, if the Germans are noobs, then the Russians in general whose historical misunderstanding was saved by the heroic USA and England.
      Humiliating the enemy, humiliating / belittling your victory. Therefore, loud cries are heard about the weakness of the Third Reich. Victory over a weak adversary is not something to be proud of.
      Christ sellers.
      1. Kars
        12 March 2012 19: 24
        0
        Or maybe just more information?
        Quote: T1GER_1
        recently, they began to dislike the Wehrmacht technique

        What did you love her before?
        And for example, where in this article is about the weakness of the Reich? It's about a specific model of armored vehicles.
        Here, take and thoroughly prove the advantages of the Pz.Kpfw.V Ausf.G Panther to the Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf H that it had to be put into series production in the middle of the war. This is about the same question as the USSR why the KV-1 fought the whole war with 76 mm a cannon similar to the cannon of the T-34 medium tank

        still say that the book about Panther --- on the basis of which everyone else writes, wrote deliberately that py humiliate the Germans?
  • Zynaps
    Zynaps 11 March 2012 21: 45
    10
    * ABOUT THE DARK TUTONIAN GENIUS IN FIGURES *

    Found on the network with the comments of respected fvl1_01 and litl_bro:

    “Did you know that the Panther (and other Fritz before 1944)
    milled side to install final drives? do you know
    you that the tower under the Panther was cut out by the healers - not that not
    welded? How did you assemble the tower treadmill? Stuffing one at a time
    a ball through a special boot ... And to change the middle track roller,
    had to disassemble half-board, and even the entire board - from half a day to
    two.

    And the torsion bars could be twisted only in the factory ... and
    the fluid in the brake of the gun’s rollback should only be changed in the workshop ... and shells,
    which could only be used in a tank, but not in a field gun
    (however, this is the trouble of all German tank guns). To the Panther assembly
    a mechanic with special education was allowed. Can you imagine such
    tank in production with us? Simplify - we get the same T-34. "

    T-34 could be produced in the USSR, but the Panther could not. No machine tools
    it was enough, and some were not at all. Maybe the Germans need to buy them
    was in 1941-42? Already calculated that the production of one "Panther" in the USSR
    could cost to load the fleet of 35 tanks T-70, 16 T-34,
    or 6 IPs. And this is taking into account the fact that many machines simply did not exist. We have
    for example, there was no milling machine with which it would be possible to mill the sides of the assembled tank in the area of ​​the installation of torsion glasses and side reducers.

    “The reverse picture. T-34 from the Germans. No solariums (for kriegsmarine not
    enough) - gasoline engine (LitlBro). Germans do not know how to pour armor
    (medical fact) - towers have to be welded. The Germans did not master the welded loaded seams - we replace them with a stud with welding. The F-34 cannon is an outrageous dream for them (in the sense of mass production technology -
    LitlBro). The same mold casting and stamping. Replace with
    machining. The case is cramped in German terms. Rubber is not enough.
    Let's go through all the little things and get instead of the T-34 ... Daimler Benz 3002 -
    Panther rival. "

    All Soviet tanks in development were extremely simple - after 3-4
    hours of training an unprepared driver performed all necessary for the battle
    manipulations, except for switching speeds on a four-speed tank
    PPC. Anyone who at least once saw even firing from a gun could shoot
    field guns. German tanks were much more complicated. Even for
    production shots (and it was carried out before the Pz III Ausf LM only
    electrozapalom) gunner and loader was clearly
    in the prescribed manner to perform 4 operations. They also had features with
    the launch of the tank and the operation of electrical appliances, etc. German tanks were
    good only for a trained and well-coordinated crew. But they are at the end
    wars went to the utmost simplification of their combat vehicles, as in
    the conditions of 1945 were thrown into the battle already completely green.

    And from the VIF: “All of our armor-piercing shells were worse than German, English and American. But not because they were manufactured less accurately, but because
    for the manufacture of one German 50-mm round with a welded shell
    head and stamped armor-piercing cap wasted
    approximately 8 times more funds (by standard hours) than ours
    57-mm armor-piercing shot from the ZIS-2. Their shell made 3 people tall
    qualifications (turner, welder, puncher), ours is one (turner), and
    it was enough to have 4 category. "

    fvl1_01: “I, after I saw how, when starting the Panther motor from
    temporary tank (20 liter plastic canister) gasoline in front of
    decreases, this is idling - I understand why German tanks in no way
    can not be called the best in that war ... Guys, 700 liters of 87th gasoline
    for the Panther and 1000 with a little for the royal Tiger per hundred
    kilometers - it’s not cured by anything. ”

    / Materials used: http://fvl1-01.livejournal.com,
    http://litl-bro.livejournal.com,
    http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/archive/997/997900.htm/
  • T1GER_1
    T1GER_1 11 March 2012 22: 10
    -3
    The article above is for those who are again trying to humiliate someone, elevate someone, if so then get the answer-

    Their shell made 3 people tall
    qualifications (turner, welder, puncher), ours is one (turner), and
    it was enough to have 4 category. "
    Well, draw conclusions, it just does mean that it was made worse and less accurately.
    There were no machine tools for production in the USSR.
    If the war was on the territory of Germany, I doubt that the USSR would produce tanks directly in Germany, its own country, its own factory, I do not consider this to be some kind of drawback, everyone has their own equipment and parts ...
    Germany had plenty of 75 mm guns, and again surpassed 76 mm in quality.
    In general, I won’t continue this stupid undertaking, because everyone understands that the quality of mass was opposed, and there is an argument on both sides for every single item and trifle. If one Tiger destroyed 10 IS-2, then it was crushed by the 11th, I see this as an inadequacy of the tank structure but I won’t expose it as an argument anymore, because during the war it was a great feat and a huge need to deliver large quantities of tanks to the front and quality was quite correctly taken care of before the need to repel the enemy at all costs. In modern Russia, the quality of tank production is already exactly equal to all countries, the main thing is that the budget does not rely on great ideas, such as a tank defense vehicle.
    1. Zynaps
      Zynaps 11 March 2012 22: 16
      +1
      and what does the above illiterate stream of consciousness mean? I wanted to say something? clearly, in Russian.
    2. ISO
      ISO 13 March 2012 10: 05
      +3
      I read a lot of tanker memories. Mentioning the meeting of tigers and ISs was. For example, two tigers tried to challenge two ISs to a duel in the head-on, while the Germans survived, our one tiger was gouged from a kilometer distance, the second crawled backwards (1944). Can you give a reference with the arithmetic you mentioned? As far as I remember the Discovery Channel, the Americans lacked 5 Shermans, per tiger, so with 11 ISs it’s too much, if only their shells did not end what
  • T1GER_1
    T1GER_1 12 March 2012 01: 06
    -1
    Zynaps Firstly, this is a response to a post on top of the message, but my mistake is that I didn’t take quotes from there, it all came together. Secondly, are you simpler, is everything written in Russian, can you read it?
    Kars To put it simply, learn materiel <- And what did you want to say that I do not know what it was built for this weapon? Or for some reason hinted at the quality of King Tiger, when I already wrote 2 posts in a row that it is worse in quality? Or that I don’t know that the Russians were targeting it? Yes, the quality has deteriorated noticeably, but during the Second World War I read somewhere that they never punched him in the forehead ... It's one thing test firing, another real military actions, in which he showed himself initially, of course, badly ... I don’t know if it’s true that the King Tigers suffered huge initial losses during the opening, when they were ambushed at them, it was somehow tragic there, everything turned out to be too much for the tigers, but I don’t believe it ... But later it was tested and learned to use, again, they did not go ahead and the tank, not counting the inherent problems of the Reich's gigantomania (excessive weight), again showed itself well.
  • postman
    postman 12 March 2012 13: 16
    -2
    Author: "Tank Panther - the gravedigger of the Third Reich?"
    According to this logic:
    V-1, V-2, Me-262, etc. were helpers to the main grave digger?
    The economy, resources won.
    1.Germany (produced)
    Code Model Year Qty

    101PzKpfw I 1934-1943 7571
    121 PzKpfw II 1935-1944 8558
    (LT35) PzKpfw 35(t) 1935-1939 424
    140 PzKpfw 38(t) 1938-1942 1411
    138/2 Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer 1944-1945 2584
    141 PzKpfw III 1936-1944 5733
    161 PzKpfw IV 1936-1945 8544
    171 PzKpfw V Panther 1942-1945 5976
    173 Panzerjager V Jagdpanther 1944-1945 425
    181 PzKpfw VI Tiger 1942-1944 1355
    184 Panzerjager Ferdinand / Elephant 1943 90
    182 Tiger II Ausf. B "Konigstiger" 1944-1945 489
    186 Jagdpanzer VI Jagdtiger 1944-1945 85

    total: 43225. total, including tank chassis, command vehicles: about 50000
    + captured tanks: 1577
    losses with 1941-32550
    2. In the Soviet Union, 112.472 tanks and self-propelled guns were launched.
    losses: 63 229 tanks and self-propelled guns (up to 96500 according to other sources)
    3.USA-131.577 produced
    4. Canada and the UK-31.534 produced

    GERMANS JUST FROZEN FROM ALL PARTIES
    1. makrus
      makrus 13 March 2012 14: 30
      -3
      Following your logic, it is not clear how you can justify the defeat of the Soviet troops in 1941-1942. Given that the superiority in tanks in the USSR was impressive.
      Quote: Postman
      V-1, V-2, Me-262, etc. were helpers to the main grave digger?
      it is unconditional.
      1. postman
        postman 13 March 2012 20: 56
        0
        Quote: makrus
        Following your logic is unclear

        I did not write anything about 1941-1942, did not say.
        To my logic
        Quote: makrus
        defeat of the Soviet troops in 1941-1942

        not any have no relationship. And the connection is not traced.
        Why and how, it is written in memoirs that the Germans, that Russian.


        Quote: makrus
        it is unconditional.
        , but neither Germans, nor historians / analysts of the USA, England think so.
    2. Kars
      13 March 2012 16: 51
      -3
      Dear, why did you take the tablet with Akhtunpantser - but did not do it completely?
      Germany

      Production of tanks, tank destroyers, assault guns and self-propelled guns in 1934-1945 years.

      * The total result of the actual German production (or by orders of Germany) - 75.513 units of armored vehicles.
      * In addition, a large number of command tanks (without cannon armaments), mobile artillery fire adjustment posts, repair and recovery vehicles and other equipment were produced. With their account, the total number of armored vehicles made up 89.266 units.
      * To them should be added the captured equipment received by the Wehrmacht - total 1.577 vehicles.
      * Thus, the German armed forces received and used units of armored vehicles during the Second World War 90.843.

      Production statistics for some models

      Code
      Model
      Of the year
      Amount


      101
      PzKpfw I 1934-1943 7571
      121 PzKpfw II 1935-1944 8558
      (LT35) PzKpfw 35 (t) 1935-1939 424
      140 PzKpfw 38 (t) 1938-1942 1411
      138 / 2 Jagdpanzer 38 (t) Hetzer 1944-1945 2584
      141 PzKpfw III 1936-1944 5733
      161 PzKpfw IV 1936-1945 8544
      171 PzKpfw V Panther 1942-1945 5976
      173 Panzerjager V Jagdpanther 1944-1945 425
      181 PzKpfw VI Tiger 1942-1944 1355
      184 Panzerjager Ferdinand / Elephant 1943 90
      182 Tiger II Ausf. B "Konigstiger" 1944-1945 489
      186 Jagdpanzer VI Jagdtiger 1944-1945 85

      * In some cases, not all chassis went to the manufacture of tanks, some of them were used for other purposes.



      And the Third Reich, by the way, started the war. He didn’t know his production capabilities? And by the way, why did the German workers work almost the whole war in ONE CHANGE.
      And it’s just as interesting how you explain the fact that when Hungary was an ally of Germany, they wanted to release Panther, did the Germans ask for MONEY for License from them? And this is during the war of attrition.
      1. postman
        postman 13 March 2012 21: 39
        +1
        Quote: Kars
        Dear, why did you take the tablet with Akhtunpantser - but did not do it completely?
        .
        Dear, should I ask you?
        Can you be for me and write comments? and express an opinion?
        For reference, taken not only from there, with
        Quote: Kars
        Ahtunpantser
        only makes, models and release by years. TSY FRA Do not converge. Information from other places. Read carefully

        Quote: Kars
        And the Third Reich began the war by the way

        Which (war)? and with whom?

        Quote: Kars
        The Third Reich. He did not know his production capabilities?

        1941 Colonel Thomas, Head of the Department of Military Economics and Arms, submitted a memorandum to Hitler in which he gave a realistic comparative assessment of the economic and military potential of Germany, Western Europe and the USA, proving that Germany was not ready for war.
        In 1942, Minister of Arms F. Todt warned Hitler that, in the economic sense, Germany had already lost the war. Hitler’s “personal architect,” Albert Speer, agreed.
        May 1944, Speer: Germany was technically defeated on May 12, 1944 when, thanks to the massive bombing of the Allies, 90% of the plants producing synthetic fuel were destroyed.
        The third "did not know" that he would be at war with almost the whole world, except for Europe and Japan. 3rd "did not know" that Japan will not enter the war
        The third "did not know" that Italy would be so wonderful to fight and that Japan, instead of striking in 3 against Malaya and Singapore and Dutch India, ie. attack what was called "England" - get involved in a war with the United States

        The Japanese knew their "production" capabilities but attacked the United States.
        Ivakuro Hideo, 09.1941 Special Unit to Assess US Military Potential Conclusion:
        The United States produces 20 times more steel than Japan, produces several hundred times more oil, produces 5 times more aircraft, has five times more labor force, the mobilized military potential of Japan will be only 10% of the US.

        Churchill on the declaration of war by Japan by Japan:
        It was impossible for a rational person to imagine that Japan went to declare war. I was sure that such a reckless step on her part would ruin the life of an entire generation of the Japanese people, and my opinion was fully confirmed. However, insanity is such a disease that in war gives the advantage of surprise.


        Quote: Kars
        and worked in ONE CHANGE.
        -Does not correspond to reality.
        +
        Statistsches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden: in the 1945 year, from 6 to 7 the millions of soldiers who were used in production were held prisoner and camps

        Quote: Kars
        when Hungary was an ally of Germany, wanted to release Panther

        -who gave such information? Have you thought of it yourself?
        Hungary ORDERED 5 tanks, Japan -1. But they didn’t deliver it, the Germans themselves didn’t have enough. 1 tank sold to Sweden
        There were plans for serial production of "Panther" in Italy

        MAN sold the LICENSE to the companies Daimler-Benz, Henschel, Demag for release. So what?
        They have commodity-money relations, even
        Quote: Kars
        during the war of attrition.
        1. Kars
          13 March 2012 22: 29
          -2
          Quote: Postman
          Dear, should I ask you?

          can not ask
          Quote: Postman
          Information from other places. Read carefully

          What are these, and the numbers you have are very dissimilar, I trust Akhtunpantser (by the way to the German site) more than YOU, otherwise the numbers of the USSR and Allies converge and the Germans for some reason are less by 40 000
          Quote: Postman
          Which (war)? and with whom?
          A strange question, but oh well - for example, from the USSR on 22 on June 1941
          Quote: Postman
          1941 Colonel Thomas, Head of the Department of Military Economics and Arms, submitted a memorandum to Hitler in which he gave a realistic comparative assessment of the economic and military potential of Germany, Western Europe and the USA, proving that Germany was not ready for war.

          You see, they knew, and therefore there is no need to exclaim so pathetically
          Quote: Postman
          GERMANS JUST FROZEN FROM ALL PARTIES

          Quote: Postman
          The Japanese knew their "production" capabilities but attacked the United States

          Did they win?
          Quote: Postman
          Not true.
          +
          Statistsches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden: in the 1945 year, from 6 to 7 the millions of soldiers who were used in production were held prisoner and camps

          Did you say that? And as for the prisoners, there were many skilled locksmiths, healers, casters, and so on? And how did they work on assembling tanks? And what kind of marriage did they do - what did the Germans forget to take that slave labor was not effective.
          Quote: Postman
          who gave such information?
          Well, not Wikipedia.
          Quote: Postman
          Have you thought of it yourself?

          Well, what are you Baryatinsky with pork
          Quote: Postman
          MAN sold the LICENSE to the companies Daimler-Benz, Henschel, Demag for release. So what?
          They have commodity-money relations, even

          Another reason why you lost
    3. Alf
      Alf 3 June 2012 01: 02
      +1
      Loss of the Germans-32550? And where are the remaining 20 pieces? If the Germans have such super-technology, then why did the Red Army enter Berlin and not the Wehrmacht in Moscow?
  • Kars
    13 March 2012 17: 21
    -2
    Quote: Postman
    losses with 1941-32550
    2. In the Soviet Union, 112.472 tanks and self-propelled guns were launched.
    losses: 63 229 tanks and self-propelled guns (up to 96500 according to other sources)




    It’s just interesting, how did you calculate the losses of Germany? Which signed the UNTITLED surrender?
    so sorry germany lost all of its tanks, sau, armored personnel carriers, etc. that is 100%
    And the USSR having lost 96 000 units of armored vehicles during the war, lost 73%
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 13 March 2012 18: 14
      0
      Quote: Kars
      And the USSR having lost 96 000 units of armored vehicles during the war, lost 73%

      What is interesting, the second (big) digit is taken into account. I wonder why .
      Heats the soul?
      Quote: Kars
      And the USSR ... lost 73%

      Yes ?
      By the way, then there was no use of the term for tanks - irretrievable losses
      Just imagine what you need to do with the tank so that it falls into this category.
      bully
      1. postman
        postman 13 March 2012 21: 54
        0
        Quote: Cynic
        then there was no use


        It was...
        TsAMO RF

        Sources: "Encyclopedia of german tanks of world war two", "Arms and Armor", London, 1993; "History of the Second World War. 1939-1945", Military Publishing House of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR, M., vols. 2,4,12; "The classification has been removed: the losses of the USSR Armed Forces in wars, hostilities and military conflicts: a statistical study", Voenizdat, Moscow, 1993.

        Irrevocable The loss of tanks and self-propelled guns of the Red Army was, according to official Soviet data, 96500 combat units. The greatest losses were suffered in 1943 and 1944 - 47200 tanks and self-propelled guns
        The tiger is irretrievably lost:

        KV-1:

        T-34:
        1. Kars
          13 March 2012 22: 34
          -2
          Quote: Postman
          Nothing interesting, calculated nothing, data taken from open sources.

          What is the relationship between "EXCEPTIONAL CAPITULATION" and the COMBAT LOSSES of tanks?

          I will not

          And bring this source? And don’t tell me how many tanks, for example, the Tiger was in service with the Wehrmacht on 10.05.1945?

          And you don’t need enough about YOU that it’s not a tiger. At this place, everything falls into place with your theories.
        2. Kars
          13 March 2012 22: 53
          +1
          And for the future, what would you recognize the Tiger
        3. Cynic
          Cynic 14 March 2012 18: 34
          0
          Quote: Postman
          It was...

          The phrase irrecoverable losses can be interpreted in different ways.
          You can take it literally: capture by the enemy and complete destruction (in my opinion it’s widely used now), but you can also take into account machines that cannot be restored in the field.
          It is clear that technical instructions exist for the definition of this term, but I honestly doubt that the documents of those years and current coincide.
          smile
    2. postman
      postman 13 March 2012 21: 41
      +1
      Quote: Kars
      Just wondering how you calculated Germany’s losses.

      Nothing interesting, calculated nothing, data taken from open sources.

      What is the relationship between "EXCEPTIONAL CAPITULATION" and the COMBAT LOSSES of tanks?

      I will not
      Quote: Kars
      sorry
      .
      You, in my opinion, do not even understand what you are writing about, but simply nihilate, there is nothing to do from it.
      1. Kars
        14 March 2012 17: 15
        0
        Quote: Postman
        Nothing interesting, calculated nothing, data taken from open sources.


        We can never recognize these open sources.
        Quote: Postman
        total: 43225. total, including tank chassis, command vehicles: about 50000
        + captured tanks: 1577
        losses with 1941-32550


        Even if we accept these 51 000 units (although there were more of them 90 000, but okay)
        Who can explain where else the 19 000 tanks of sau, etc. that are not lost? (19 000 is the difference between TOTAL and loss)

        These are such miracles.
  • Kars
    13 March 2012 18: 26
    0
    Quote: Cynic
    What is interesting, the second (big) digit is taken into account. I wonder why

    It looks more like the truth, and it is in good agreement with the data on the USSR armored vehicles remaining in service after May 1945

    And the figures are given according to the General Staff of 96,5 of thousands of tanks and self-propelled guns (taken from Drogovoz) if you can refute this figure, I’m not worried.
    Quote: Cynic
    Heats the soul?

    An attempt to break through to the truth warms the soul
    Quote: Cynic
    By the way, then there was no use of the term for tanks - irretrievable losses

    Where does this information come from?
    Quote: Cynic
    Just imagine what you need to do with a tank so that it falls into this category
    Sometimes a Molotov cocktail, and sometimes a burnt clutch, is enough because of which the tank remained in the territory occupied by the enemy.
    But my personal opinion is --- it’s hard for me to document it that every irretrievable tank comes from 3 to 6 damaged and repaired. Just the numbers on the losses of the Germans in 1941 according to the reports of the sofimforms of the bureau are becoming plausible.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 13 March 2012 19: 00
    -1
    Quote: Kars
    More like the truth

    An honest answer, it really warms the soul.
    Here is just such a nuance, here usually when figures are given, no one rushes to double-check them, but roughly 96 out of 000 is about 85% .
    It is clear that your figure of 73% sounds more plausible, otherwise the state turns out to have lost 85% of armored vehicles in the war and won the war.
    I apologize for checking your calculations, as you probably noticed, I don’t doubt the figures given, here is their interpretation ...
    1. Kars
      13 March 2012 19: 26
      -2
      don’t need any excuses - just add Lend-Lease
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 13 March 2012 19: 33
        0
        Uh-huh.
        There is such a dispute technique:
        Your top, but my top.
        bully
        1. Kars
          13 March 2012 20: 04
          -2
          Quote: Cynic
          Uh-huh.
          There is such a dispute technique:
          Your top but my top


          To say honestly I do not know about the methods of the dispute

          but I was hoping that 12 800 tanks and Sau Len-Lisa would give you something to double-check (those who died during the transportation otminusovat)
  • bistrov.
    bistrov. 14 March 2012 19: 26
    +4
    If you face the truth, the Panther doesn’t look like the best, even a German tank. The best German tank, it is clear, is the P-4, it was not for nothing that 9500 units produced it. In the first "Panther" there are inherent shortcomings characteristic of all German tanks, front-wheel drive, engine in the rear, gearbox in front, secondly, a very high silhouette -3,1m , even the "Tiger" is less than -2,88, in the third it is too overweight, with the combat characteristics of a medium tank, the weight is the same as that of a heavy 45 tons, in the fourth the cruising range is only 160 km, in the fifth it is unnecessarily complicated and low-tech, it has extremely low maintainability. The only advantages of the "Panther" are its 75 mm cannon. With a high muzzle velocity and 80 mm frontal armor, it is a typical tank destroyer; it is clearly not suitable for other roles.
  • ojr
    ojr 16 October 2012 21: 53
    0
    On the poster "Vulnerabilities of the Panther tank" there is a call to hit a tank gun from an ATR. A similar poster on the "Tiger" recommends a distance of 300-400 m. Is it realistic to hit the gun of a moving tank from 400 m, or is the poster intended to inspire?
    1. Antistaks
      Antistaks 5 November 2012 14: 33
      0
      At the firing range, the tenth shot is real, but not in battle. In the sight (heavily littered with all sorts of nets) you see a small box And you try to bring the sighting triangle about under the tower. He aimed from the 55th, I do not think that aiming at the war was easier.