Jump to content

EnsignExpendable

Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About EnsignExpendable

  • Rank
    SerB Worshipper

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Server
    NA
  1. The tables are clear and explicit. You are just interpreting them wrong. Stop twisting my words and answer my question: if your interpretation of the data is correct, where are these thousands of tanks coming from? Also those rations are based on the tables. You can't prove a thing with another thing that's based on it. Seriously, how can you cling to your version of events when it does not stand up to any questioning? Why do you keep bringing up Lend Lease when I pick out tanks and SPGs that were not supplied through Lend Lease? I explained this to you many times. The fact that you keep
  2. Yes, but this indicates a shortage. A shortage that didn't get better. The German plate shattered into tiny pieces after just one shot. I was demonstrating how even early German armour exhibited brittle quantities due to a shortage of materials. If you want evaluations of the Tiger's armour, it's in the paper I linked you to. “shows harness and brittleness, with a strong tendency to crack and flake. The side plate of the turret also flakes badly on the inside” “The armour is of medium hardness... as a result of hits by 57, 85, and 122 mm AP shells, cracking and fragmen
  3. 5500 tanks delivered in both posts. Stop dodging the question. There is nothing wrong with tank production. Zaloga, Forzcyk and Zetterling know what the numbers mean. You don't. You can't explain the discrepancy between what you think exists and actual reality. This is not an opinion. I am using the very source you're shoving in my face at every opportunity. Why can you not accept the numbers when I analyze them? Why is it so hard to admit that if literally thousands of tanks are slipping through your fingers, there is just a slight chance that you are wrong?
  4. How am I giving wrong numbers? Are you not paying attention at all? Heavy tanks received: 4000 in 1944 and 1500 in 1945. The only heavy tank in production at the time was the IS-2. The USSR received no heavy tanks through Lend Lease (with the exception of one Pershing for trials). My table gives 3553 D-25 guns. That means, even if no guns were destroyed, damaged, or worn out, about 2000 IS-2s went into battle with no gun. Do you have an explanation for this? Light tanks. Krivosheev gives 5700 received in 1943, 200 in 1944, and 900 in 1945. That's a huge number of tanks. Except the T-
  5. I just showed you the discrepancy. I explained it very very carefully. When you don't lump all tanks together into one huge number, your numbers make no sense. Can you explain the 2000 extra heavy tanks that just appear in 1944-45? 1100 light tanks? No? Can you explain anything about your numbers at all?
  6. I don't just have my word. I have numbers. Your numbers. You keep ignoring that. I'm not saying your sources are wrong. I'm saying you're wrong in interpreting them.
  7. I keep telling you, those production figures are not new tanks, they include tanks that have been refurbished at every level. Compare Krivosheev's "received" tanks with the tanks recorded as produced. There is a discrepancy of thousands of tanks here. You keep ignoring it and posting the same nonsense over and over and over again. I am pointing out the 1944 and 1945 discrepancies. Pre-war vehicles are not relevant here. Do you seriously not understand this, or are you bringing up irrelevant figures because you have no answer for me?
  8. I already showed you my source. Also you still haven't explained these 7600 tanks. "The war wasn't only in 1944 and 1945" is not an explanation. You have new light tanks coming in 1944 and 1945. Where are they coming from? There are 5500 heavy tanks with only 3500 IS tanks produced. What makes up the rest? Same for medium and light SPG numbers. Do you still have no explanation for this?
  9. I explained this to you using Krivosheev's numbers. How many Lend Lease light tanks came in in 1944 and 1945? His tables show that there were 1100. And yet, there were no light tanks supplied by Lend Lease at the time, no tanks produced at the factories. Where did they come from? Same with heavy tanks. Add KVs and ISes produced, and you still end up about 2000 short. Same with light SPGs, same with medium SPGs. I already told you this before. There is a 7600 tank hole in your logic, but you still cannot see it for some reason. That British view brings up some good points, like the often ig
  10. Historians don't say that Soviet numbers are inflated, because they don't apply arbitrary standards based on nothing to these numbers. I already gave you the source. Here it is again. http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/02/gun-production.htmlSee how the numbers of guns available are much less than the numbers of tanks produced? Did you forget about this discrepancy since the last time I told you about it? You seem to forget once a week or so.
  11. Germany was having problems with alloys before 1943. For instance, helmets manufactured in 1939 have nickel in them, helmets made after 1940 have no nickel at all. Tank armour exhibited similar decline. http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/02/pziii-armour.html http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/05/german-steel-vs-soviet-steel.html http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA954407 http://i.imgur.com/33TlYhK.png http://i.imgur.com/qnLbWtH.png So this armour was okay against undermatching projectiles, but it was still fairly thin (up to 30 mm), so very few things actually undermatched
  12. We already explained to you what these figures mean. The Soviets define "produced" as any tank that came out of a factory functional, regardless of how it went in. Copy-pasted trash with no citations and a poor understanding of basically anything. Tiger armour was not the hardest in the war (that would be Soviet armour), but its poor alloy meant that it was very brittle. Also there is no reason for why this Brinell hardness is "best", despite the author repeating it several times. In order to overmatch a projectile, the armour has to be much thicker than it. The Tiger's side is
  13. Yeah, if a fire was started by an ammunition rack detonation, it's not so much a burning tank as it is a bunch of burning metal chunks. A 203 mm shell would indeed knock out a tank with a near enough miss, but artillery of that caliber isn't used as an anti-tank weapon.
  14. An ammunition rack detonation renders a tank entirely irrecoverable. Few other things do, however, even fires. Like I said, on paper there was no difference between a rebuilt tank and a repaired tank. If you want to see the repair instructions, here you go: http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/11/repairs-instructions.html An American report studying the types of damage to their tanks states that fire did not necessarily mean an irrecoverable loss.
  15. This is a well known problem. The problem is standards. Say, in the Red Army, a shiny new T-34 is built. The T-34 is shipped to its unit, and it almost ready for battle, but alas! it falls through a bridge and is waterlogged. The engine is shot! It must be sent back to the factory for major repairs. A new engine later, new QA proces, and new stamp on all the documents, it's as good as new. It makes it to combat this time, but what sadness! It is shot by a German in the engine and burns up. The hull is still good though, so it comes back to the factory and is equipped with new parts, and re
×
×
  • Create New...