Jump to content


Five worst tanks of WW2


  • Please log in to reply
1737 replies to this topic

ChiefKim #121 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:59

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11503 battles
  • 995
  • [SALTY] SALTY
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010

View PostKrieger_07b, on Jan 28 2014 - 08:55, said:

Simply put, boats are a lot easier to design than tanks. 

 

That explains British tanks then.



amaROenuZ #122 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 07:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 16660 battles
  • 3,557
  • Member since:
    04-04-2012

View PostChiefKim, on Jan 28 2014 - 06:46, said:

 

There may be something I'm missing, but surely if those two countries could make battleships and cruisers, they could make tanks with the same resources? Dockyards can't make tanks, but they sure could've used the steel and labour.

 

 

A shipyard cannot produce tanks. A naval tradition does not produce armored vehicles. You may as well try to make a space shuttle with a metal roofing factory. The engineering theory just isn't there, the manufacturing equipment just doesn't match up, and without the appropriate terrain for their use, neither Japan, nor Italy had any real reason to invest in producing significant armored vehicles.



Krieger_07b #123 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 08:01

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12782 battles
  • 1,896
  • Member since:
    09-30-2011

View PostChiefKim, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:59, said:

That explains British tanks then.

 

The Brits had built boats for so many centuries, they'd forgotten how to make things that weren't buoyant.

 

They would've done great things with the PT-76, though.


Edited by Krieger_07b, Jan 28 2014 - 08:02.


xthetenth #124 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 08:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14695 battles
  • 3,528
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

View Postschaghticokekid, on Jan 28 2014 - 01:53, said:

Admittedly, the only way to survive around here. 

It's been fun, but at this point I've really stopped caring. Right or wrong (from the looks of it, wrong)

 

I've learned a valuable lesson: Without my ilk you lot would have no fun and you know it.

I'm glad to have played my part.

Gonna be honest the side you were arguing is a bad one, it'd have been easier for you if it were totally off the wall rather than the definitive American pop-cultural osmosis version. That one's annoyingly pervasive and it argues the strengths of a really detestable regime that was actually pretty weak there. If you've got time for some not actually light reading, Tooze's Wages of Destruction is pretty excellent at covering what a mess Germany's economics were, van Creveld's Supplying War is a pretty good look at how bad the logistics were for them, how good they were for the US and how much they determine in industrial warfare. I don't actually have that many good books on the subject, I'm more a naval guy, but they're a good look and introduction to scholarly thought on WWII warfare and in the case of Supplying War where it was coming from.

 

Care enough to argue back to see if the other guy's really got good facts behind his argument because it's a great virtue to be able to look frankly at your own beliefs and weigh them properly. A good debate is great because you either find your ideas or find them lacking and both are very valuable.



Zinegata #125 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 08:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostChiefKim, on Jan 28 2014 - 14:46, said:

 

There may be something I'm missing, but surely if those two countries could make battleships and cruisers, they could make tanks with the same resources? Dockyards can't make tanks, but they sure could've used the steel and labour.

 

Automobile technology is not the same as naval technology. You can't make a factory producing one battleship over four years into one that makes 500 tanks annually. The expertise for building powerful ground vehicles simply wasn't there for the most part in Japan or Italy. Toyota was a post-war phenomenon.

 

Besides which, the very fact that these nations had navies is precisely why tank production resources became so scarce. When Japan builds a tank Division, it means they fight with something like two less carriers. Two less carriers means the Pacific War is over at Midway.


Edited by Zinegata, Jan 28 2014 - 08:06.


xthetenth #126 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 08:09

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14695 battles
  • 3,528
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

View PostKrieger_07b, on Jan 28 2014 - 01:55, said:

View PostChiefKim, on Jan 28 2014 - 00:46, said:

There may be something I'm missing, but surely if those two countries could make battleships and cruisers, they could make tanks with the same resources? Dockyards can't make tanks, but they sure could've used the steel and labour.

 

Simply put, boats are a lot easier to make than tanks. You have a lot more space to put stuff, weight is less of an issue, and the ocean is a lot easier to move across than land, and has a lot less variables.

 

There's also the fact that both could pass off shipbuilding as defense spending, since both countries were more at risk of a sea attack than any land attack. Even if you're an expantionist empire or a fascist dictatorship, you still need to save face internationally, and it's quite difficult for two island nations (one real and one that might as well be) to justify tank production to their neighbors.

 

Yes and no. You can work around failings but if your design apparatus is bad then ships are every bit as tricky to design. Compare the Prinz Eugen class to the contemporary Portlands, Counties or Myokos. It's twice the weight and half again the crew for a similar or way smaller (lol Japanese ships in the 30s and topweight) armament. That's every bit as bad as failures in tanks. I think with Italy and Japan it's a lot more thought and a lot more exposure to rivals to compare to and allies to emulate (especially the Japanese and British assistance). And it's every bit as bad if not worse if you mess up detail design. Spontaneous combustion in certain conditions has nothing on fuel vapor explosions or your water mains being entirely knocked out in the majority of battle damage cases because it's only split into port and starboard halves. It also has nothing on the Essexes' uptakes all being routed through the same area (guess how so many of the Franklin's crew died? Anoxia because the fire cut off all air uptakes).



Zinegata #127 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 08:10

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostChiefKim, on Jan 28 2014 - 14:59, said:

 

That explains British tanks then.

 

In part, but there's a whole host of other factors which made British tank design and production a comedy of errors.



xthetenth #128 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 08:13

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14695 battles
  • 3,528
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

View PostChiefKim, on Jan 28 2014 - 01:55, said:

 

We can make 70,000 tonne battleships with 18 inch guns and 26 inches of armour! (not particularly good armour though) But we can't make a decent medium tank! Can't blame them I suppose, they are a group of islands after all.

 

 

There were serious (non-conceptual) flaws with the Yamato. The torpedo defense system was breached by aerial torpedoes it should have stopped if it worked as advertised and the belt had to be built in two parts and connected, which significantly reduced effective thickness. It's pretty comparable to their failure to make an engine much more powerful than what they had in the Zero or their tanks. Industrial limits showed in all Japanese designs.

 

Their engineers were pretty much top notch though, they reverse engineered a German jet from photos, which is kind of nuts.



ChiefKim #129 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 08:18

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11503 battles
  • 995
  • [SALTY] SALTY
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010

View Postxthetenth, on Jan 28 2014 - 09:13, said:

 

There were serious (non-conceptual) flaws with the Yamato. The torpedo defense system was breached by aerial torpedoes it should have stopped if it worked as advertised and the belt had to be built in two parts and connected, which significantly reduced effective thickness. It's pretty comparable to their failure to make an engine much more powerful than what they had in the Zero or their tanks. Industrial limits showed in all Japanese designs.

 

Yes it was a bad ship, luckily I didn't fall for the 'biggest guns ever = number 1' argument.  It's AA defences were pretty terrible as well.



Krieger_07b #130 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 08:22

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12782 battles
  • 1,896
  • Member since:
    09-30-2011

View Postxthetenth, on Jan 28 2014 - 01:09, said:

Yes and no. You can work around failings but if your design apparatus is bad then ships are every bit as tricky to design. Compare the Prinz Eugen class to the contemporary Portlands, Counties or Myokos. It's twice the weight and half again the crew for a similar or way smaller (lol Japanese ships in the 30s and topweight) armament. That's every bit as bad as failures in tanks. I think with Italy and Japan it's a lot more thought and a lot more exposure to rivals to compare to and allies to emulate (especially the Japanese and British assistance). And it's every bit as bad if not worse if you mess up detail design. Spontaneous combustion in certain conditions has nothing on fuel vapor explosions or your water mains being entirely knocked out in the majority of battle damage cases because it's only split into port and starboard halves. It also has nothing on the Essexes' uptakes all being routed through the same area (guess how so many of the Franklin's crew died? Anoxia because the fire cut off all air uptakes).

 

The extent of my knowledge on warships is 1. Sometimes they float and 2. They have big guns, but I'd always assumed that there was more wiggle room in ship design than tank design in terms of putting things in places they need to go. Of course, a monumentally stupid decision will cripple your ship (like putting all your air holes in the same place, which is dumb in every conceivable way of looking at it), but I never had any knowledge of the intricacies of ship design. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

 

Would you happen to have a recommended reading list on this kind of stuff? I just remembered that I live in the 21st century and that ignorance is inexcusable.



Zinegata #131 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 08:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View Postxthetenth, on Jan 28 2014 - 15:13, said:

 

There were serious (non-conceptual) flaws with the Yamato. The torpedo defense system was breached by aerial torpedoes it should have stopped if it worked as advertised and the belt had to be built in two parts and connected, which significantly reduced effective thickness. It's pretty comparable to their failure to make an engine much more powerful than what they had in the Zero or their tanks. Industrial limits showed in all Japanese designs.

 

Their engineers were pretty much top notch though, they reverse engineered a German jet from photos, which is kind of nuts.

 

I still question the sanity of Japanese engineers who packed every gun and torpedo that they could fit on every cruiser hull they put into the war.


Edited by Zinegata, Jan 28 2014 - 08:25.


hobowankenobi #132 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 08:39

    Captain

  • Players
  • 47435 battles
  • 1,799
  • [ANTI] ANTI
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012

View PostamaROenuZ, on Jan 27 2014 - 22:59, said:

A shipyard cannot produce tanks. A naval tradition does not produce armored vehicles. You may as well try to make a space shuttle with a metal roofing factory. The engineering theory just isn't there, the manufacturing equipment just doesn't match up, and without the appropriate terrain for their use, neither Japan, nor Italy had any real reason to invest in producing significant armored vehicles.

 

 

Ah....that's not right.  Engineering has little to do with production.  In this case, the engineering would not happen at the ship yard.  Examples:

 

Singer sewing machine company

During World War II, the company suspended sewing machine production to take on government contracts for weapons manufacturing. Factories in the US supplied the American forces with Norden bomb sights and M1 Garand rifle receivers, while factories in Germany provided their armed forces with weapons.[6]

 

Chrysler

As America's manned space flight plans became more ambitious, Wernher von Braun's team designed the Saturn family of launch vehicles. With Chrysler's Huntsville operation then designated the Space Division, Chrysler became Marshall Space Flight Center’s prime contractor for the first (booster) stage of the Saturn I and Saturn IB vehicles. The Saturn I booster stage was designated S-I, which was upgraded to the S-IB for the Saturn IB. Chrysler based its fuel tank design on a cluster of its Redstone and Jupiter tanks, using four Redstone tanks to hold the RP-1 fuel and four to hold the liquid oxygen(LOX) oxidizer, around a central Jupiter LOX tank. Chrysler built these for the Apollo program in the Michoud Assembly Facility in East New Orleans, one of the largest manufacturing plants in the world.

 

Ford

Production of B-24s increased at an astonishing rate throughout 1942 and 1943. Consolidated Aircraft tripled the size of its plant in San Diego and built a large new plant outside Fort Worth, Texas. More B-24s were built by Douglas Aircraft in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The North American plant B in the city of Grand Prairie, Texas started production of B-24Gs and B-24J in 1942.[citation needed] None of these were minor operations, but they were dwarfed by the vast new purpose-built factory constructed by the Ford Motor Company at Willow Run near Detroit, Michigan. Ford broke ground on Willow Run in the spring of 1941, with the first plane coming off the line in October 1942. It had the largest assembly line in the world (3,500,000 ft²/330,000 m²). At its peak, the Willow Run plant produced 650 B-24s per month in 1944. By 1945, Ford made 70% of all B-24s in two nine-hour shifts. Pilots and crews slept on 1,300 cots at Willow Run waiting for their B-24s to roll off the assembly line. At Willow Run, Ford produced half of 18,000 total B-24s.[15]

 

Let's not confuse production capability with design or engineering capability....  This list goes on a long while.


Edited by hobowankenobi, Jan 28 2014 - 08:43.


xthetenth #133 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 08:41

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14695 battles
  • 3,528
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

View PostKrieger_07b, on Jan 28 2014 - 02:22, said:

 

Would you happen to have a recommended reading list on this kind of stuff? I just remembered that I live in the 21st century and that ignorance is inexcusable.

Kaigun by Evans and Peattie, Shattered Sword by Parshall and Tully, http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.htm, and http://www.combinedfleet.com/. Navweaps is especially focused and a grab-bag of stuff, Kaigun is a history of the doctrinal development and construction of the Imperial Japanese Navy from the very start to the middle of 1943 when they stop fighting the war they planned and start just trying too little too late. If you have access to a good library any of Norman Friedman's Illustrated Design Histories, his Carrier Air Power and The Postwar Naval Revolution are all phenomenal but tricky to get and  (the last was written in the last days of the Cold War and doubles as a primary source in some respects).

 

View PostChiefKim, on Jan 28 2014 - 02:18, said:

Yes it was a bad ship, luckily I didn't fall for the 'biggest guns ever = number 1' argument.  It's AA defences were pretty terrible as well.

I wonder what they could've done with four ships that were closer to an enhanced Nagato with modern equipment. The Nagatos actually scared the US a good bit before WWII because of their speed compared to the Standards. Also there's a chance the tail two would end up as fleet carriers better than the Shinano.

 

The really fun thing is that given hit rates in combat, the Yamatos didn't have close to enough ammunition for their main guns to have a prayer of killing enough US battleships.



xthetenth #134 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 08:44

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14695 battles
  • 3,528
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

View PostZinegata, on Jan 28 2014 - 02:25, said:

I still question the sanity of Japanese engineers who packed every gun and torpedo that they could fit on every cruiser hull they put into the war.

So do gravity and metacentric height.

 

View Posthobowankenobi, on Jan 28 2014 - 02:39, said:

 

Ah....that's not right.  Engineering has little to do with production.  In this case, the engineering would not happen at the ship yard.  Let's not confuse production capability with design or engineering capability....  This list goes on a long while.

 

Actually there is a dialog between dockyards and engineers. There's sometimes differences between what is designed and what is possible both in the good sense (huzzah for innovative construction techniques) and in the bad sense (we can't build that in the way you designed it and have it work right...). Ships are assemblies of assemblies to a degree that most things aren't so there's a lot of back and forth between the chief designer and the various bureaus handling the various components.

 

For a pretty good overview of ship design see here: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-035.htm.



xthetenth #135 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 08:56

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14695 battles
  • 3,528
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

I am too tired and keep forgetting to edit on to posts already written
.


Edited by xthetenth, Jan 28 2014 - 08:57.


WarTorn87 #136 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 10:10

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9130 battles
  • 20
  • [REJEX] REJEX
  • Member since:
    08-30-2012
I honestly don't understand why some people on this forum can't seem to debate a subject without including callous and unnecessary personal attacks.  And that includes insulting someone for being wrong about the facts - just because someone gets their facts wrong doesn't mean you need to call them ignorant, idiot, etc.  Take the opportunity to share your knowledge, respectfully.  Even if someone insults you first, please don't follow suit and continue the problem.

CV_Rework_is_Fine #137 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 10:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 18,850
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostChiefKim, on Jan 28 2014 - 07:18, said:

 

Yes it was a bad ship, luckily I didn't fall for the 'biggest guns ever = number 1' argument.  It's AA defences were pretty terrible as well.

I would love to know where you get this info from. 

 

While I agree that the Yammy was a mistake due to poor doctrine ( both the Yamato and Musashi should have been carriers ) , it was FAR from a bad ship, the AA defenses on it were some of THE best of any ship in the war, and if i remember correctly it took 9 torpedos to sink it.



ZYKLOP_ #138 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 10:17

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 27865 battles
  • 946
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    08-27-2011

'Wehraboos'.

 

I have seen this a couple of times now but I have no clear idea what it means.

 

From the context in this post I get the idea it is a German fan. Am I right?



BabyOlifant #139 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 10:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 10719 battles
  • 6,135
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011
The official definition can be found on my profile.

CV_Rework_is_Fine #140 Posted Jan 28 2014 - 10:20

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 18,850
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostAllanR, on Jan 28 2014 - 09:17, said:

'Wehraboos'.

 

I have seen this a couple of times now but I have no clear idea what it means.

 

From the context in this post I get the idea it is a German fan. Am I right?

Yea basically it means German superfanboy. They think that the German tanks/planes/ships were the best despite all the facts saying otherwise. 






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users