Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Lend-Lease Aid

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 Mar 2005, 18:30
.......

You dont seem to know that Germans didnt know about T-34/76.


In 1941 it was already too late to add sloped armor on Tiger, as it had already reached prototype stage.

Source, Tiger Tanks by Michael Green.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 09 Mar 2005, 18:37
Beowulf wrote:
Quote:
In 1941 it was already too late to add sloped armor on Tiger, as it had already reached prototype stage.


Ok even if it was to late for the Tiger tank (which i still don't think it was) what about the Tiger II tank?
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 Mar 2005, 18:38
Erh....

Tiger II had sloped armor.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 09 Mar 2005, 18:42
The picture I was looking at was of the Tiger I, sorry. But in further research I did not find anything about Tiger II having sloped armour.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 Mar 2005, 18:46
Quote:
But in further research I did not find anything about Tiger II having sloped armour.


Are you sure....

Front and side plates were to be sloped and interlocked, resulting in a design similar to the then-new PzKpfw V Panther (Sd.Kfz.171).

Tiger II had sloped armor.

Cant you see the slope?


Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 09 Mar 2005, 18:49
The picture comes up as a red x (this is a crapy public computer). It must have been the site I was on.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 Mar 2005, 18:53
Image


Tiger I.

Notice the box like shape.


Image


Tiger II.

Notice the sloped armor.

Assuming that you know what sloped means, you should clearly see that Tiger II has sloped armor.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 10 Mar 2005, 01:10
I saw it the first time.

Still I read somewhere that Hitler wanted nothing to do with Russian tech.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 10 Mar 2005, 01:14
Then you need to find more reliable sources.

By the way, Soviets didnt discover sloped armor.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 793
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Nov 2005, 08:18
Komsomol
Post 04 Jul 2006, 04:50
Quote:
Tiger could destroy T-34/76 and 85 from range where its maingun was ineffective agaisnt Tigers frontal armor.

76 - yes, 85 - no, Tiger could destroy T-34s from range of 1000m while T-34/85 could also penetrate frontal armour of Tiger from 1000m. When a tank is comming towards you (and you are moving yourself) it is very hard to hit the other tank (unless you stop). This is where the T-34s mobility gave it large advantage over Tiger. It didn't move in a straight line towards the enemy tank, but at angle and changed directions.

Shermans were generally inferior to T-34-85s (especially the ones shipped through lend-lease). Some tankers of that time even joked, saying that it was safer to be outside a Sherman in battle....but there was a discussions about this in a different thread.


Lend-lease helped, but by far not as much as some people here like to believe.
Image

"Art belongs to the people!" - V.I. Lenin
Soviet cogitations: 7
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Sep 2006, 22:32
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 11 Sep 2006, 19:43
Lend-Lease production is vital for the Allied victory. It does not matter that the Sherman was not as good as the T34 when fighting tanks. The Sherman was still a fine infantry support vehicle and was useful for that. Sadly, the Soviets tried to use it like a T34 and there were many losses as a result. (The Germans called the T34 "best tank in the world" and the Sherman "Ronson". This says a lot.)

The Shermans have been major source of hard feelings between the Soviets and Americans since that. The Soviets, at least at that time, had great respect for the Americans and couldn't believe that the Sherman was their best tank. It was thought that the U.S. was witholding the best tanks for themselves. Even though this was not true it created bad feelings because of the huge losses that the Soviets had suffered from the war. (The only Sherman that was reasonably effective against mid-war tanks was the Firefly and it was a British converstion.)

The trucks also matter because in every war logistics are as important as tactics. What good is a Stalin tank without fuel or ammunition?

It seems to me that if any one of the three main Allied powers, Britain, U.S.A. or U.S.S.R. had lost or even remained neutral then the war would have been lost. Lend-Lease remains a essential part of the war effort even if it was mostly Studebakers and Sherman tanks.
Soviet cogitations: 1
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Nov 2013, 22:14
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 27 Nov 2013, 21:03
Nikita wrote:

Don't tell me you believe that the Allies 'supplied' the Soviet Union with 12,230 planes, 9214 tanks and 116 ships? They are obviously exagerated numberss, you would only need half a brain to work that out.

Tank Production

Soviet Tank Production from 1939-45:
1939: 3,000
1940: 2,800

Aircraft Production

Soviet aircraft Production from 1939-45:
1939: 10,000
1940: 10,200

Ship Production

Soviet ship Production from 1939-45:
1939: 0~
1940: 300
1941: 500
1942: 1,100

With production levels such as these, the Soviet Union would not have needed to aquire such vast amounts of weaponry.

Soruce: History of War - The times


I have tried looking for History of War - The Times. Can someone provide me with more details on the ISBN#, Publisher, Year and any other good resource (preferably unbiased) on the Soviet Military and Industrial production throughout the WWII?
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.