|
Jobbo_Fett posted:T-34 tank production numbers for WW2 Well, the big difference is that by the end the USSR still had some (a fuckload) of tanks. While the Nazi's had zero, iirc. Now I'm not much of a maths guy, but 78% losses is still better than 100% 
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Lol. The soviet union lost about as many combatants as every other western theater force combined. I'm less inclined to say that's because their people were poo poo as I am to say it might have had something to do with the methods by which they pursued the war. Same with tanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Maybe you were thinking of the motor for the traverse on early T-34's would short out and start a fire? I haven't read any actual instance of this happening, only armchair experts theorizing that it would. Jobbo_Fett posted:T-34 tank production numbers for WW2 Read this. The tl;dr is that the Germans and everyone else counted losses differently. A T-34 that could not fight counted as destroyed. If it was sent to the factory and refurbished, it would count as a new tank. On the other side, if the Germans lost a tank it would not be recorded as a loss until there was absolutely, positively no way it could be put back into action. Tanks are listed as in "long term repair" for months on end until they are either written off by the factory that can't fix them or returned to the front lines, while a T-34 in this case would count as two different tanks. For example, only 34,355 F-34 guns were built during the war. Unless you think that every other tank had a gun in some kind of Enemy at the Gates-esque farce, you can safely assume that these aren't all individual tanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:For example, only 34,355 F-34 guns were built during the war. Unless you think that every other tank had a gun in some kind of Enemy at the Gates-esque farce, you can safely assume that these aren't all individual tanks. That would have made an amazing film though. The Soviets also managed to destroy nearly all their lend lease tanks which included about 4 thousand Sherman tanks, so unless the shermans got markedly shittier upon touching Russian soil, I'm again further unconvinced that loss rates indicate an issue with the vehicles. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That would have made an amazing film though. "The tank with the gun fires the gun! When the tank with the gun is destroyed, the crew from the tank without the gun gets the gun!" "How do we attach it?" "Arrest that man for defeatism!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
There is also the usual problem of people focusing on technical issues to the exclusion of (much more significant) strategic and operational factors. i.e. in '41 and '42 German forces were opposed by surprised and disorganized Soviet armies, so their offensives were spectacularly successful. They captured enormous territory at a lower cost than might otherwise be expected, and they were also able to completely destroy many large Soviet formations in encirclement battles. Running up the score, so to speak. By comparison, Soviet forces from '43-'45 were facing an organized defense and paid full price for offensive gains. Consequently, even after adjusting for significant differences in how they measured vehicle losses, we would still expect to see a higher loss rate among the Soviets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Well I mean if you're building tanks without guns you could presumably refit about a quarter of your force as engineering vehicles so it would be more like "the tank with the gun fires the gun, when the tank with the gun is destroyed, the tank with the crane attaches the gun to the tank without the crane or the gun."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:There is also the usual problem of people focusing on technical issues to the exclusion of (much more significant) strategic and operational factors. i.e. in '41 and '42 German forces were opposed by surprised and disorganized Soviet armies, so their offensives were spectacularly successful. They captured enormous territory at a lower cost than might otherwise be expected, and they were also able to completely destroy many large Soviet formations in encirclement battles. Running up the score, so to speak. By comparison, Soviet forces from '43-'45 were facing an organized defense and paid full price for offensive gains. Consequently, even after adjusting for significant differences in how they measured vehicle losses, we would still expect to see a higher loss rate among the Soviets. Yeah, it's unusual when the people on the offensive aren't taking heavier losses. Notably Germany's fabled kill/loss ratio drops dramatically during the Bulge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I haven't read any actual instance of this happening, only armchair experts theorizing that it would. Total loss/irrecoverable seems to imply that these don't count repaired / refurbished tanks. Sure, the Germans over-count just like any other country but what does this matter for "Total Losses" with regards to Medium Tanks for Russia during WW2? We're talking about a Russian number provided by the Russians themselves. quote:According to Grigori F. Krivosheev: "All losses of arms and equipment are counted as irrecoverable losses, i.e. beyond economic repair or no longer serviceable" Or is Krivosheev an untrustworthy source?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
I made another post about warship design. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3731563&pagenumber=47#post464438466 It's about these beauties:  (should I be cross-posting these to this thread or just linking to them?) Jobbo_Fett posted:
A metric by which a tank is improved by simply not using it is a pretty interesting metric. In fact, we could say that Ethiopia had the best tanks of the period by this metric, since the Italians lost tanks to them and they lost none in return  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
"Russian numbers provided by Russians" means little while there is a heap of controversy regarding that book along the entire spectrum of ideological alignment from the "everything Soviet is propaganda, the West rules" to the "Gorbachev was scum, death to neoliberals" crowds. From a purely historical perspective, let's settle on the fact that he could use his rank to reference highly classified sources that are still unavailable to the public, so no one could check his work. Plus, you know, the business with guns and other manufacturing components not adding up. Edit: if your thesis is "a lot of T-34s were lost so they suck", I can point you directly at a report by a German officer after the German defeat at Teploye where he writes that the PzIV with the KwK 40 and T-34 are basically equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 03:34
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Lol. Can you not?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
It's almost as if its not a wonder tank but also not complete garbage  Not quite sure how "Plus, you know, the business with guns and other manufacturing components not adding up." debunks losses when the term seems pretty clear-cut  In any case, it's okay, I read the report that said that after 1942 a T-34 had between 88 and 97 percent chance of being penetrated when hit by any round. B-b-b-but the T-34 was nearing the end of its design lifespan and furthermore
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Do you perhaps mean, 45.9%? If not, I would love to see that report. Meanwhile, in Western Europe, German tanks (and these are Tigers and Panthers only) get penetrated 56% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Do you perhaps mean, 45.9%? If not, I would love to see that report. According to source ‘Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II’ - chapter 1 What's the % of penetrations for German tanks in Eastern Europe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
No such luck, I'm afraid, Soviet operational research focuses chiefly on their own vehicles. Sadly I don't own a copy of Armoured Champion, but there's a certain irony of using the book to argue with someone who is cited in it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:No such luck, I'm afraid, Soviet operational research focuses chiefly on their own vehicles. Sadly I don't own a copy of Armoured Champion, but there's a certain irony of using the book to argue with someone who is cited in it. Cited for which part?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
I'm on page 305.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
At this point I'm pretty sure Jobbo Fett is just a wehraboo/history channel apologist. Nobody is claiming the t34 is a wondertank, you're asserting that it's poo poo and you regularly come out and defend German tanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I haven't read any actual instance of this happening, only armchair experts theorizing that it would. TLDR the Nazis continue to cheat from beyond the grave.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
doesn't matter how dope your tanks are if they're running on syngas TBH
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Splode posted:At this point I'm pretty sure Jobbo Fett is just a wehraboo/history channel apologist. Hahaha, amazing. No, I'm asserting that it had quite a few problems and that people tend to gloss over them for various reasons. Talking about Panther tanks is fun because people only focus on the negatives, none of which I deny or claim didn't exist. And if I did, I'm sure someone has come up with a source to refute me. Ensign Expendable posted:I'm on page 305. Was it a citation on the T-34, its penetrability, or its loss numbers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
I gave you a report on T-34 penetrability. It covers the topic very extensively. What you gave me is a range of numbers outside any context whatsoever. Do you see how maybe some people will consider my claim more reliable than yours?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I gave you a report on T-34 penetrability. It covers the topic very extensively. What you gave me is a range of numbers outside any context whatsoever. Do you see how maybe some people will consider my claim more reliable than yours? I definitely saw the "Can we really trust these Soviet numbers?" and the "Well I'm cited in this book so your source can't be right whatsoever." argument. The T-34 Penetrability report was done in which year? How many tanks were examined?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
being cited in a book on the obscure subject at hand is a pretty dope argument to me, a layman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
The fact that the Soviets lost a lot of T34 doesn't really say much more that they produced a lot of T34s. When 1-2 thousand new tanks are being shipped to the front each month, what exactly is a commander supposed to do? Line them up in neat lines? No, you use them until they are destroyed. Comparisons to German losses are very silly because the Germans simply did not have a comparable number of tanks to lose. Edit: If the T34 was in a nebulous sense 'better' they would still have lost the majority of tanks they produced - that's the nature of attritional warfare on the Eastern Front. The only difference would be that the war might have ended sooner. The same goes for the germans - you'll note that german tank strength stayed roughly constant even as new tanks were being built - because losses almost exactly compensated. Warfare was just such that in general every produced tank, gun, half-track eventually got destroyed. If they didn't, you weren't using them right. The Germans just happened to produce fewer tanks, in a larger number of different models, and proportionately more of the heavier models (I'm counting the Panther as a heavy here). I mean, by this comparison you must think the Maus is the best tank of the war - I mean, they only lost one. Fangz fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The fact that the Soviets lost a lot of T34 doesn't really say much more that they produced a lot of T34s. When 1-2 thousand new tanks are being shipped to the front each month, what exactly is a commander supposed to do? Line them up in neat lines? No, you use them until they are destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
The T-34 is poo poo because it's not the SU-76M. Same goes for all other armored vehicles TBH.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:I definitely saw the "Can we really trust these Soviet numbers?" and the "Well I'm cited in this book so your source can't be right whatsoever." argument. Yes, as opposed to the "Lol." argument and the emptyquote argument, you paragon of debate, you. Cut the sanctimony, pick your ground, and engage someone in good faith. Also, tanks are boring.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
Bring back minechat. Best part of the new thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:Also, tanks are boring. Mods?!?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I made another post about warship design. Hmm. The US built up to the second strongest naval power in terms of battle line strength in the twenty years after 1886' - what, including the High Seas Fleet?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
The question is how many T-34s could a tank destroyer destroy, if it was being reloaded by a bear. Assume that the panther is on fire and japan hasn't been nuked for this question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 12:05
|
|
|
If Soviet tank production in the late war was a flower, and German tank production in the early war was also a flower, would a bouquet composed of just these two flowers, half and half, clash or compliment each other?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:If Soviet tank production in the late war was a flower, and German tank production in the early war was also a flower, would a bouquet composed of just these two flowers, half and half, clash or compliment each other? Well, it'd make a fine arrangement for a funeral at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
no such thing as a bouquet with just two flowers in it, you want some kinda japanese arrangement with that and japanese tanks suck, qed
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:no such thing as a bouquet with just two flowers in it, you want some kinda japanese arrangement with that Hydrangeas go with chrysanthemums, and hydrangeas can be Prussian blue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
1 Tank Love at the first sight. The single Tank, whatever its color, depicts utmost devotion to a single person. "All my deepest affections are concentrated in you". 2 Tanks Mutual feelings, especially if they are red in color speak of two people who are deeply in love and together form their own happy little world. 3 Tanks Stand for the three words in "I Love You", and seek to convey this very simple yet powerful message 5 Tanks I love you very much 6 Tanks I love you, I miss you. Speak of tthe need to be loved and cherished. 7 Tanks I'm infatuated with you 9 Tanks Together as long as we live 10 Tanks You are pretty 11 Tanks You're my treasured one. To assure someone that he or she is truly and deeply loved. 12 Tanks Be my steady 13 Tanks Forever friends. Also indicate that there is a secret admirer waiting to be discovered. 15 Tanks I'm really sorry 20 Tanks I'm sincere towards you 21 Tanks I'm committed to you 24 Tanks You're always on my mind. Stand for the twenty-four hours of the day, and say that the loved one is thought of during every hour of the day. 36 Tanks I'll remember our romantic moments. Speak of a romantic attachment 40 Tanks My love is genuine 44 Tanks Pledge a constant and an unchanging love. 50 Tanks Signify a love that has ripened well, and has never been regretted. 99 Tanks I'll love you till the day I die 100 Tanks I'm totally devoted to you. Signify a happy union of two loving souls till death or till a hundred years. 101 Tanks You're my one and only 108 Tanks Will you marry me? 365 Tanks I love you every single day. Speak of a love that has remained constant and true throughout the year 999 Tanks My love will last till the end of time 1001 Tanks Speak of a faithful love that will live on forever. OTOH in Russia an even number of tanks means that the recipient will die, so I'd be careful with that 2-tank bouquet. It will probably combust spontaneously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Something about roses says more infantry combat, like a trench raid or house to house fighting in a burning city, rather than tank production.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 12:48
|
|