Shiny new British Army tank unable to reverse over 20 cm high sleeping plods!

[adolf hamster]

I'm struggling to think of any British designed weaponry in ww2 that was super effective, sajs the firefly but that was simply a bodge ...

The navy says hi....

There's a reason the kreigsmarine had to resort to u boats

 

[The Running Man]

The navy says hi....

There's a reason the kreigsmarine had to resort to u boats

Tell that to HMS Hood.

The reason that the bismark was sunk was primarily due to air superiority and weight of numbers not outright quality.

Don't tell me that quantity has s quality of its own, had the germans not been fighting a battle to the death on the Eastern front we would all be freunds right now.

 

[alchal]

Really?

All the British tanks in ww2 were terrible compared to the german and Russian designs.

I'm struggling to think of any British designed weaponry in ww2 that was super effective, sajs the firefly but that was simply a bodge ...

Spitfire and hurricane were okay, but the hurricane first flew in 1935 and spitfire in '36

Mosquito
Spitfire
Lancaster
Typhoon
Tempest
17pdr gun
Armoured decked aircraft carriers
Firefly
Bren gun
Churchill
Various sub hunting weapons
Tall boy
Grand slam
Hobart's funnies


List goes on.

German tanks outside the panther and tigers were not brilliant and were equally matched by the allies, also the bigger cats were unbelievably unreliable and hard to maintain.

Russian tanks were just thrown out, the t-34 tank was only good due to the numbers in service and the early days before the Germans up gunned , they got eaten up like flies in battle afterwards with a massive K/D ratio against them.

Apples and oranges, the best tank was of course the centurion, but came a tad too late unfortunately but was well in the design stages mid war I believe and held back to concentrate on existing manufacturing.

 

[alchal]

Tell that to HMS Hood.

The reason that the bismark was sunk was primarily due to air superiority and weight of numbers not outright quality.

Don't tell me that quantity has s quality of its own, had the germans not been fighting a battle to the death on the Eastern front we would all be freunds right now.

Hood was a bad design that had know defects, Bismarck was a cut above indeed.

Outside of that the kreigsmarine was poor in comparison

No denying that operation Barbarossa was a wtf moment in history.

 

[Tefal]

Hood was a bad design that had know defects, Bismarck was a cut above indeed.

Outside of that the kreigsmarine was poor in comparison

No denying that operation Barbarossa was a wtf moment in history.

But wasn't that because there was lots of legal limits on ship size/capabilities that the Germans were able to ignore as they broke them in secret

 

[Tefal]

Problem is you need everyone at every stage of designing and iterating on the design to understand and work with the ethos. Hence what happened to stuff like the Boxer.

In theory it really shouldn't be hard to have a modular barebones chassis, engine and power plant/drive train which could be used as the basis for a large variety of light to medium armoured vehicles.

Oh yeah, qithout modern cad software I'd agree it would be impossible.

With it maybe possible but as you say an entire new program ground up integrated with partners for each element it would be hard but we are reaching thw point where doable

 

[adolf hamster]

Tell that to HMS Hood.

you mean the ww1 battleship that was sunk by a lucky hit from a ship 20 years her junior?

The reason that the bismark was sunk was primarily due to air superiority and weight of numbers not outright quality.

bismark was sunk by british battleships, think you're getting confused with Tirpitz....

But wasn't that because there was lots of legal limits on ship size/capabilities that the Germans were able to ignore as they broke them in secret

hood pre-dates the treaties that were in-place between ww1 and ww2.

 

[Tefal]

Ah my bad am I thinking of the asian conflictor is this Just all in my head

 

[The Running Man]

Mosquito
Spitfire
Lancaster
Typhoon
Tempest
17pdr gun
Armoured decked aircraft carriers
Firefly
Bren gun
Churchill
Various sub hunting weapons
Tall boy
Grand slam
Hobart's funnies


List goes on.

German tanks outside the panther and tigers were not brilliant and were equally matched by the allies, also the bigger cats were unbelievably unreliable and hard to maintain.

Russian tanks were just thrown out, the t-34 tank was only good due to the numbers in service and the early days before the Germans up gunned , they got eaten up like flies in battle afterwards with a massive K/D ratio against them.

Apples and oranges, the best tank was of course the centurion, but came a tad too late unfortunately but was well in the design stages mid war I believe and held back to concentrate on existing manufacturing.

Arguably the mustang was better than the spitfire in virtually every aspect.

The b17 was better than the Lancaster, difference being the us dud day raids so lost a lot of planes.

Fj42, mg42 etc all better than the British guns.

I dont think there is any Churchill tank worshipping anywhere in the world either.

you mean the ww1 battleship that was sunk by a lucky hit from a ship 20 years her junior?



bismark was sunk by british battleships, think you're getting confused with Tirpitz....



hood pre-dates the treaties that were in-place between ww1 and ww2.

The bismark was crippled by planes it had a jammed rudder etc so had to stand and fight vs 3+ ships and Ariel bombardment.

 

[arknor]

didn't bismark have some problem with it's guns? the vibrations taking out it's range finding or whatever

 

[Terminal_Boy]

I dont think there is any Churchill tank worshipping anywhere in the world either.

After some early design issues (rushed into service), the later marks proved very effective in the role that they were designed for: providing mobile, close quarters direct fire artillery support for the infantry when assaulting fixed positions.

The howitzer armed AVRE version proved particularly devastating against the German’s concrete defences during the allies push into Germany. The Americans were equally impressed by the Churchills in Korea as they could (albeit slowly) traverse extreme terrain to support UN troops where their Shermans and Pershings could not.

 

[adolf hamster]

didn't bismark have some problem with it's guns? the vibrations taking out it's range finding or whatever

that and some of the major comms systems weren't armoured.

however given how long the germans had gone since building a proper battleship it's understandable they made mistakes.

The bismark was crippled by planes it had a jammed rudder etc so had to stand and fight vs 3+ ships and Ariel bombardment.

so when she wasn't running scared she got blown away the moment a modern british ship turned up.....

 

[The Running Man]

After some early design issues (rushed into service), the later marks proved very effective in the role that they were designed for: providing mobile, close quarters direct fire artillery support for the infantry when assaulting fixed positions.

The howitzer armed AVRE version proved particularly devastating against the German’s concrete defences during the allies push into Germany. The Americans were equally impressed by the Churchills in Korea as they could (albeit slowly) traverse extreme terrain to support UN troops where their Shermans and Pershings could not.

I didnt say we built entirely useless things but I know the su152 and the sturmtiger probably outdid the Churchill at bumker busting!

 

[alchal]

Arguably the mustang was better than the spitfire in virtually every aspect.

The b17 was better than the Lancaster, difference being the us dud day raids so lost a lot of planes.

Fj42, mg42 etc all better than the British guns.

I dont think there is any Churchill tank worshipping anywhere in the world either.




The bismark was crippled by planes it had a jammed rudder etc so had to stand and fight vs 3+ ships and Ariel bombardment.

How was the B17 better? More guns?
It carried a smaller bomb load for starters, it's main objective and had a much less varied arsenal also, could travel much further as well with that payload.

B-17 had a slightly higher operational ceiling ( payload/size) and more guns.

Both good but to say the b-17 is the better....

What was wrong with the Churchill?

Mustang was designed and destined for the RAF using merlin engine before the USAF got on board with it at a later date.


You failed to mention the other equipment I mentioned?

 

[alchal]

But wasn't that because there was lots of legal limits on ship size/capabilities that the Germans were able to ignore as they broke them in secret

No hood was a battlecruiser and had thin as hell top deck armour that was no good against long range plunging shell fire, they knew about it and I believe they only did the back end of the ship in a refit to rectify this , costly mistake.

 

[I_M_Weasel]

that and some of the major comms systems weren't armoured.

however given how long the germans had gone since building a proper battleship it's understandable they made mistakes.



so when she wasn't running scared she got blown away the moment a modern british ship turned up.....

HMS Rodney wasn't that modern,15 years old and a very compramised design to make treaty limits, desperatly in need of a refit (which she was on her way to the US for) at the time of the battle. Bismark was newer - 8000 tons heavier and was still made completly combat ineffective in half an hour by Rodney.

 

[adolf hamster]

HMS Rodney wasn't that modern,15 years old and a very compramised design to make treaty limits, desperatly in need of a refit (which she was on her way to the US for) at the time of the battle. Bismark was newer - 8000 tons heavier and was still made completly combat ineffective in half an hour by Rodney.

I was thinking king george v when i made that statement.

 

[Conscript]

so when she wasn't running scared she got blown away the moment a modern british ship turned up.....

I was thinking king george v when i made that statement.

She'd already encountered a modern British battleship...HMS Prince of Wales was a KGV class. And she gave it a pretty bloody nose apparently (according to my granddad who was on board at the time ). PoW had to break off due to problems with her main battery.

 

[I_M_Weasel]

I was thinking king george v when i made that statement.

KGV left Rodney to get on with it - which made sense really, 9x16" guns were more damaging than her 10x14" and the quad turrets in the KGV were always problamatic - not as bad as PoW's in the battle of Denmark strait admitadly.

I've always imagined Admiral Tovey must have felt much better one joined by Rodney - 10x14 v 8x15 seems a close match - add in the 9x16 and it becomes more comfortable.

Don't get me wrong, KGV threw plenty of rounds at Bismarck, but Rodney did the significant damage.

PoW if anything was too new - still had dock workers on board trying to fix her, she did damage her and cause a fuel leak, but was a risk sending her like that - losing Hood was bad, losing both would have been a disaster.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
I remember exactly the same thing happening on an army procurement drive a long time ago there was a trial of tanks on offer the best on test was the german panzer but which one did they go for... the american one. They couldn't bring themselves to buy a geman tank no reason stated but the only conclusion you could draw is because... it was german. Either that or the americans host a better drinks party.

American military equipment manufacturers and government officials certainly wouldn't employ bribery and/or apply political pressure to get sales. That would never happen. Oh no, never, not at all. Well...they have been caught doing it in the past, yes, but each time was an isolated incident and a scapegoat rogue employee. Or maybe an honest mistake. Yes, that was it. An honest mistake.

You'd think at this point they'd design a base chassis, engine, PowerPoint and drive drain.

With a fixed space for a container style module to be put in and locked into the chassis, troop compartment, drop it in, turret compartment with ammunition drop it in.

If they wanted multi role rather than these take a design for A then slap everything else on it to do b,c and d

I've watched some detailed documentaries on failed military hardware projects. Often a major part of the cause has been to specify a thing to do A and then after it's designed to do A and is in development to do A as effectively as possible the requirement to do b,c and d has been added even when one or more of those things directly conflicts with doing A. So the issue becomes one of taking something designed for A and cobbling together stuff to make it do b,c and d, which is almost guaranteed to make it worse at all of them.

If you want something that's multi-role it should be designed for those roles from the start and the required roles have to specified before the design and integrated into the design and development at all stages. Adding extras in during the process is a recipe for an expensive failure to be good at anything. It might work, but if it does it will work despite the bad approach rather than because of it.