View Single Post
Old October 23, 2010, 06:51 AM   #59
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,091
They really feared our trucks and jeeps even more.
A good point that is often overlooked. Our logistics and production capacity brought material where it was needed. The most dangerous Allied aircraft was the C-47, speaking strategically!

But I feel that this:

even though their equipment was superior to ours
Is a generalization based on superlatives, not overall ability. Yes, their Panther was better than a Sherman in a one on one duel. Shermans had better overall build quality, and panthers had suspension problem If I recall. Tigers were better than Shermans, but Tigers were so heavy they were defensive weapons used by an Army that was made famous for it's offense. The Mauser was a fine rifle that served well as a main battle rifle. The M1 rifle was a marked improvement for a battle rifle and did the same job better overall. The kubelwagen was a good light command truck; the jeep was better. The MG 42 was a fearsome machine gun. The M2 was it's superior in all but portability. The bf109 was a great design that was actually versatile enough to be re-designed during the war. It was also a pre-war obsolescent design that necessitated that redesign. The FW-190 was a great plane. The Spitfire traded superiority back and forth with it as each was up-revved. By comparison, the P-51 was a better design than the bf109 in almost any category. i suppose that will prompt a "Schmued was a German" comment but I have parried that one easily many times! Schmued was an American and merely the chief designer. The list goes on

So it really depends on what aspect of the 'thing's' design you're talking about. It rankles a little that it's so accepted that Germany made superior things just because they were German, but it's a common perception. In some things yes, the German item was superior. In other, it was the American item. The Soviets felt that the best thing to ever come from America was the Studebaker truck!

back on topic, I am very curious now about testing one shot from a BMG (and at what range) versus what the US military expects in terms of how many strikes the weapon is expected to make against that same target: do they assume one bullet hits, or three? Ten?

In the aircraft application, the guns were angled inboard slightly to converge the bullet paths, chewing up even an armored aircraft target with multiple hits from multiple guns. Documented instances of P-51s with only one MG firing exist, with the result of a downed bf109. At the same time, the Germans relied on cannon. While it would be foolish for me to suggest that means one BMG does the job of one cannon, it does illustrate the potential of the BMG against an aerial target

This is a pretty interesting discussion
Chris_B is offline  
Page generated in 0.03164 seconds with 7 queries