[Watermoon]

US or Germany?

[Noelnada]

I would say Germany. But i'm not a specialist of the question

[Thunderhawk]

Better in what regard?

It was pointed out that many of the German made bearings they used in their vehicle are still in working condition today - decades after the war. Conversely, most American and almost all Soviet bearings would have siezed, rusted or fallen apart long ago - possibly as short as 1-2 years.

Considering the above and the high rate of material and equipment turn around during the war, the Germans had the best idea for producing equipment before the war, as it allowed a large build up of equipment which stayed functional. But it was a horrible idea during the war and one they continued. Pouring time and resources into making bearings that can last decades is idiotic when those bearing will have a useful shelf life of less then 2 years - the vehicle or component will be destroyed during the war or made obsolete and on secondary duties.

The Americans sacrificed specificity and optimization of parts for more generic parts that were easily interchangable on their vehicles. Having equipment use generic parts generally meant worse ability (making things less "efficient") but it meant less models of parts were needed. Repeairs and replacements were easier - and easy is important in times of war. Ironcically, the Americans could have gone for more specified production but they didnt need to, where as the Germans should have but they didnt want to.

[Potemkin]

The Americans sacrificed specificity and optimization of parts for more generic parts that were easily interchangable on their vehicles. Having equipment use generic parts generally meant worse ability (making things less "efficient") but it meant less models of parts were needed. Repeairs and replacements were easier - and easy is important in times of war. Ironcically, the Americans could have gone for more specified production but they didnt need to, where as the Germans should have but they didnt want to.

German equipment and weaponry in WWII was far superior to Allied equipment and weaponry. The German Wehrmacht in the 1940s was the best equipped, best trained and, man for man, the most effective army that had ever existed up to that point in history. This was actually a problem for them, however - the Allies could churn out huge quantities of their inferior equipment, whereas the Germans had trouble maintaining parity of numbers with their high quality, difficult to manufacture weaponry. Numbers won in the end. As Stalin once said, "Quantity has a quality all of its own."

[guzzipat]

In general German equiptment although technically superior, was more difficult to produce, unreliable and less likely to be battlefield repairable.
They also tended to produce too many variations and had too low an interchangeability of parts.

People are often blinded by superb technical specifications, but you have to be able to make it and use it. That is the most important thing in weaponry, not the most technically accomplished, but the best technical specs that you can mass produce and are reliable in use.
At Kursk the Germans lost more Tigers to breakdowns than enemy action, that means that although technically a superb tank, they were always going to be too short on runners to be fully effective. Much of the potential of tanks like the Tiger was lost through these factors.

[Huck]

U.S. Had the P 51 Mustang and the Thompson sub-machine gun. Other than those two items with few exceptions, the Germans had better designs IMO.

In general German equiptment although technically superior, was more difficult to produce, unreliable and less likely to be battlefield repairable.
They also tended to produce too many variations and had too low an interchangeability of parts.

I agree

Allies could churn out huge quantities of their inferior equipment, whereas the Germans had trouble maintaining parity of numbers with their high quality, difficult to manufacture weaponry.

I agree with that, as well. Quality is relative. A ferrari is an automobile with superior quality when compared to a Subaru. That does not hold true if they are side by side in a muddy field racing to see who gets out first. America made some high quality firearms in that period that were simple and practical. Those attributes do not necessarily lend themselves to the quality argument until you have to use them in extreme conditions and manufacture them in large numbers quickly. The proof is in the pudding.

[Watermoon]

I know you love them. P 51 Mustang has a cute pregnant belly.
Btw, flying tigers you mentioned I know, yeah, they are excellent and did a great job for China!

U.S. Had the P 51 Mustang and the Thompson sub-machine gun.

[Vigil of Reason]

Btw, flying tigers you mentioned I know, yeah, they are excellent and did a great job for China!

He was referring to a tank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I

[Watermoon]

Vigil of Reason, well, last time he gave me one PM and mentioned his friends' friend was a pilot of flying tiger. Not many people know about flying tiger had ever helped us, so I think at least I should thank them.

[Thunderhawk]

The p-51 was an unimpressive aircraft destined for recon and patrol until the British put a Merlin Engine into one.

[Brio]

As most have said in this thread, the German equipment was usually technically superior to Allied equipment, but with the drawback that much less of them could be produced. Thus, even if a Tiger tank had a much larger gun and much thicker armour to its Western front counterpart, the Sherman, it didn't seem to matter when one Tiger had to take on 5 Shermans or more in an engagement. In a one on one duel the Tiger/King Tiger would mop the floor with a Sherman (as long as it didn't break down/run out of fuel).

It must be mentioned that the Soviets T-34 tank, with its robust nature (i.e. sloped armour) yet mass manufacturing capability, struck a good balance between quality and quantity and is thought by many to have been the best tank of WW II.

[guzzipat]

It must be mentioned that the Soviets T-34 tank, with its robust nature (i.e. sloped armour) yet mass manufacturing capability, struck a good balance between quality and quantity and is thought by many to have been the best tank of WW II.

I would agree with that, the T34 was the best combination of technical specs with ease of production. It was also reliable and easy to repair in the field.

[Oxymoron]

The US had superior Infantry weapons.

[R_G]

[youtube]HZnVy3mMUQI[/youtube]





Germany though in seriousness.

The equipment was largely reliable during the war, and more efficient.

Although as mentioned took longer to produce, it comes back to quality vs. quantity and I always take quality.

[Huck]

He was referring to a tank.

As watermoon said, I have a pilot friend who knows one of the surviving flying tigers personally. They were a civilian air crew who trained and flew with Chinese pilots in older P-36 and P-40's attacking all Japanese aircraft they encountered. In their larger, slower, but tougher planes they produced ace after ace. They have some great stories to tell and are largely unknown.

The p-51 was an unimpressive aircraft destined for recon and patrol until the British put a Merlin Engine into one.

Well, you are partially correct. The original was actually built to British specs the first time, but with the original Allison engine, did not perform well at high altitudes. The British then sugested a packard engine and the American designers listened. Here's a link to the "pregnant fish" as watermoon put it, lol.

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p51_mustang.html

[Huck]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuhQdvkORu4

[Thunderhawk]

I didnt know the Americans were running a parallel testing program with a merlin engine.

[Cartertonian]

Interesting observation from a commentator who once upon a time was highly regarded in certain circles, taken from the RAF's 'Air Power Review', Vol 12 No 1 Spring 2009...

The British nation can be counted upon to carry through to victory any struggle that it once enters upon no matter how long such a struggle may last or however great the sacrifices that may be necessary or whatever the means that have to be employed; and all this even though the actual military equipment at hand may be utterly inadequate when compared with that of other nations

And the author of such a contemporary and incisive summation of our current and historic military procurement and equipment maintenance difficulties...?


Chap called Hitler. (From Mein Kampf)

[Potemkin]

That Hitler guy certainly knew a thing or two. I wonder whatever happened to him?

[pugsville]

I think the packard engine was fully licenced clone of the rolls royce merlin engine. The mustang was a good plane with US designed engines a great one with the merlin.

There was a you tube video going around of a t-34 pulled up out of a lativian lake, the actually started and ran after they pulled it up, dont know the details. The soviet red army might not have produced great equipment but churned out volumes of highly effective , very robust equipment.