5 ms·

These were my thoughts also. During WW II German tanks were technologically superior to Russian tanks. However Russian tanks were easy to repair in the field an

These were my thoughts also. During WW II German tanks were technologically superior to Russian tanks. However Russian tanks were easy to repair in the field and that was one of the reasons why Russian armour prevailed over German armour.

binarray2000 8y ago
Due to simplicity Russian tanks were also cheaper and easier ti build. Which is why they outnumbered the Germans.
- contingencies 8y ago
  I can get another if I break it, so a clay cup trumps a grail. - Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib, classical Urdu and Persian poet from the Mughal Empire ... from http://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup http://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
- masklinn 8y ago
  OTOH Germany didn't have the resources (raw materials or crews) to field that many tanks, so focusing on fewer but better tanks made sense. Not that it panned out, but it made sense.
Marazan 8y ago
Define technically superior? The German tanks had massive reliability problems, not just ease of repair they broke down under non-striker's situations. They were technical nightmares.
- Pica_soO 8y ago
  You can be a technological nightmare if you get to shoot a kilometer before the enemy.
Theodores 8y ago
No, no, no, the comedy tank of the era was the Sherman Tank. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-m-4-sherman-tank-was-hell-on-wheels-and-a-death-trap-502b0d99e744 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-m-4-sherman-tank-was-he... Favourite quote: Hence, the Sherman’s grim nickname—Ronson, like the cigarette lighter, because “it lights up the first time, every time.” Everything was wrong about it and the Russians that got given these on Lend Lease knew that they had been given a death sentence. Aforementioned article just touches the surface, the barrel was too short, the 'tech' for being able to shoot on the move did not work and you needed five of the things to take out one German tank, four as cannon fodder (complete with the guys inside) and one to sneak around the back to get that German tank whilst it was busy taking out the other four. The 5 Shermans vs 1 Panzer myth is much disputed however where there is smoke there is fire and I would not want to be in one. Plus, by the time that the Americans rocked up to fight WW2 - which was late to the party - the Germans had run out of oil so their tanks were running on recycled coal dust extract rather than the diesel fuel required. The shoddy design of the Sherman Tank was no matter though, the 'allies' were expected to pay for these useless behemoths after the war so this was the military-industrial-complex and built-in-obsolescence at its finest. Meanwhile the Soviets had a much more serious war on their hands so their hardware wasn't about making a quick buck. It had to be fit for purpose. The same thinking happens today hence we have toy planes like the F-35 where everyone and his pet congressman is getting a backhander vs. the fit for purpose planes of Russia, as advertised over the skies of Syria and doing much better in the global arms trade.
- evgen 8y ago
  This is the sort BS stories that capture the imagination of people who don’t know what they are talking about but are trivially disproven by actual facts and statistics. At US entry to the war the Sherman has equivalent tank and crew losses due to fire as similar tanks from other countries and by the end of the war The Sherman was the _least_ likely tank to suffer an ammunition fire of all the major tanks fielded in the war by a very large margin. The biggest tell for this if you look at the stats is to compare vehicle losses and crew losses (e.g. a penetrated Sherman frequently lost one crew member while a T-34 with a similar hit that causes a loss of the tank frequently only had one survivor.) Oh, and the erroneous derogatory term popularized by Belton Cooper's widely discredited book was "Tommy Cooker" and not Ronson. The T-34 was fit for purpose for certain, as long as the purpose was to leave a trail of broken-down tanks from factory to battlefield. Prior to 1944 more T-34s were lost to mechanical problems than to enemy action.
return2sender 8y ago
It's also the reason why Finland successfully defended its independence.
- arto 8y ago
  Indeed. http://ar.to/2010/08/red-blood-white-snow http://ar.to/2010/08/red-blood-white-snow
oftenwrong 8y ago
This talks about this a bit, and many other examples of Russian military equipment simplicity: http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/06.html http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/06.html I have heard the book this is from is somewhat inaccurate, but it makes for a good read.

binarray2000 8y ago

Due to simplicity Russian tanks were also cheaper and easier ti build. Which is why they outnumbered the Germans.

contingencies 8y ago
I can get another if I break it, so a clay cup trumps a grail. - Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib, classical Urdu and Persian poet from the Mughal Empire ... from http://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup http://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
masklinn 8y ago
OTOH Germany didn't have the resources (raw materials or crews) to field that many tanks, so focusing on fewer but better tanks made sense. Not that it panned out, but it made sense.

Marazan 8y ago

Define technically superior? The German tanks had massive reliability problems, not just ease of repair they broke down under non-striker's situations. They were technical nightmares.

Pica_soO 8y ago
You can be a technological nightmare if you get to shoot a kilometer before the enemy.

Theodores 8y ago

No, no, no, the comedy tank of the era was the Sherman Tank. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-m-4-sherman-tank-was-hell-on-wheels-and-a-death-trap-502b0d99e744 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-m-4-sherman-tank-was-he... Favourite quote: Hence, the Sherman’s grim nickname—Ronson, like the cigarette lighter, because “it lights up the first time, every time.” Everything was wrong about it and the Russians that got given these on Lend Lease knew that they had been given a death sentence. Aforementioned article just touches the surface, the barrel was too short, the 'tech' for being able to shoot on the move did not work and you needed five of the things to take out one German tank, four as cannon fodder (complete with the guys inside) and one to sneak around the back to get that German tank whilst it was busy taking out the other four. The 5 Shermans vs 1 Panzer myth is much disputed however where there is smoke there is fire and I would not want to be in one. Plus, by the time that the Americans rocked up to fight WW2 - which was late to the party - the Germans had run out of oil so their tanks were running on recycled coal dust extract rather than the diesel fuel required. The shoddy design of the Sherman Tank was no matter though, the 'allies' were expected to pay for these useless behemoths after the war so this was the military-industrial-complex and built-in-obsolescence at its finest. Meanwhile the Soviets had a much more serious war on their hands so their hardware wasn't about making a quick buck. It had to be fit for purpose. The same thinking happens today hence we have toy planes like the F-35 where everyone and his pet congressman is getting a backhander vs. the fit for purpose planes of Russia, as advertised over the skies of Syria and doing much better in the global arms trade.

evgen 8y ago
This is the sort BS stories that capture the imagination of people who don’t know what they are talking about but are trivially disproven by actual facts and statistics. At US entry to the war the Sherman has equivalent tank and crew losses due to fire as similar tanks from other countries and by the end of the war The Sherman was the _least_ likely tank to suffer an ammunition fire of all the major tanks fielded in the war by a very large margin. The biggest tell for this if you look at the stats is to compare vehicle losses and crew losses (e.g. a penetrated Sherman frequently lost one crew member while a T-34 with a similar hit that causes a loss of the tank frequently only had one survivor.) Oh, and the erroneous derogatory term popularized by Belton Cooper's widely discredited book was "Tommy Cooker" and not Ronson. The T-34 was fit for purpose for certain, as long as the purpose was to leave a trail of broken-down tanks from factory to battlefield. Prior to 1944 more T-34s were lost to mechanical problems than to enemy action.

return2sender 8y ago

It's also the reason why Finland successfully defended its independence.

arto 8y ago
Indeed. http://ar.to/2010/08/red-blood-white-snow http://ar.to/2010/08/red-blood-white-snow

oftenwrong 8y ago

This talks about this a bit, and many other examples of Russian military equipment simplicity: http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/06.html http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/06.html I have heard the book this is from is somewhat inaccurate, but it makes for a good read.