@Putin: I would have thought it obviously ludocris to argue the t-34 was a superior tank to the german tiger. And you say the US & UK had the best fighters? Have you heard of the Me-262? or even the FW190? Clearly this isn't your field of expertise, stick to commie propaganda! :)

@ fiedler: The Tiger was certainly a powerfully-armed tank, but it suffered from a number of serious design flaws. It was massively over-engineered and broke down almost constantly, and it was also way, way too expensive to build, and took the factories over twice as long to build as any other comparable tank. On paper, therefore, a fully-functional Tiger would probably defeat a T-34 in single combat. However in practice, the Tiger would probably break down.

More importantly, the Soviets could build T-34s in much larger numbers, making the T-34 the more effective design from a strategic perspective. If you design the world's greatest ever weapon, but it costs so much to build that you would have to bankrupt your country twice over to build it, that's a *bad* design, not a good one.

The Me-262 was irrelevant, as it wasn't operational until very late in the war and few were used. Hard to have an impact in a war if the plane only was being used in late 1944, early 1945. The Fw-190 was a good fighter, but had limited range and ended up being dominated by the American P-51 and P-47s, namely because it could not compete with the P-51s and P47s at altitude, nor did it have the range.

And we cannot forget the Corsair either, especially the F4u-4. A great plane that the Japanese certainly thought was the best American fighter and saw activity after WWII. If the Corsair had been employed in Europe, it would have outperformed the German planes.

Of course Fiedler doesn't touch the point about bombers. Maybe he'll say the Germans had better bombers too?

@Putin

Sure the T-34 is a fine tank, but as far as innovation goes there isn't that much. It isn't a next generation tank with regard to the others of the day. The Gloster, Komet, and Me 262 were all jet figher rather than piston driven propellor planes and did represent a significant leap forward. In England it was in spite of the government rather than with their aid for the most part. The Air command did come around finally and invest 6,000 pounds in Power Jets Ltd. when they got the idea that a jet engine was feasible. The irrelevant advance for the war became one of the most significant for the century. Piston driven prop planes aren't the standard for commercial or military aviation anymore. The USSR, while they made a great tank, didn't really make significant changes in the design of a tank the way that the Germans and British did in the design of an airplane.

For that matter rocket technology was a big deal too, and the Germans had the lock on that during the war. The USA and the USSR both benefited from the emigration of German physicists like Wernher von Braun.

The T-34 was highly innovative with its use of sloped armor, and it completely changed the Christie suspension system by individually mounting each road wheel.

Furthermore it was due to Soviet tank innovations that the Panther and Tiger tank were developed. Nothing the Germans had could do damage to the heavy armor of the Soviet KV tanks. A single KV held down a sizable chunk of the entire 6th Panzer division at the Battle of Raaseiniai, and the only reason it did not hold out longer was because the crew abandoned it after running out of ammo. The KV-1 was the first modern heavy tank tank, first tank to have torsion bar suspension, and the Soviet heavy tanks (IS-1s and IS-2s) were the best in the world for a decade after the war.

And German rockets/ballistic missiles performed dismally in WWII. The V-1s were obliterated by the British and V-2s never really got off the ground.

Yes they were innovative, but the ultimate point of weapons is effectiveness, is it not?

German superiority in rocket technology has more to do with the prohibitions of the Versailles Treaty against heavy artillery than National Socialism's technological innovativeness.

I make no claim as to National Socialism's superiority in providing a backdrop for technoligical innovations. THat's precisely the opposite of my point. These innovations came about in the private sector and were put to use by the government. You point was that governments provide the impetus for technologial change. That's not true. Necessity is the mother of invention and inventors will prosper when they see that they can. That's the strength of capitalism over communism. People are willing to go the extra mile when they see that they'll get something out of it. That's why we're talking about the great T-34. People saw that they could get something out of mass producing that tank. They could have a chance at survival. When the war was over that went on for a time in the Cold War, but Russians could keep up in the race for technological supremacy. A society that claims everyone is equal has no upward mobility by definition.

**The Russian could not keep up**

"Necessity is the mother of invention and inventors will prosper when they see that they can. That's the strength of capitalism over communism. People are willing to go the extra mile when they see that they'll get something out of it. That's why we're talking about the great T-34. People saw that they could get something out of mass producing that tank. They could have a chance at survival."

Your argument seems to go in two different directions. On one hand, survival is the impetus behind innovation. On the other, "getting something out of it" is the mother of innovation. If profit motivated invention, one wonders then how on earth Nikola Tesla ever came up with alternating current, radio, wireless, and his many other revolutionary inventions. He died broke and got no credit during his lifetime for his achievements. The capitalist - Edison, and Marconi, stole everything from him.

This common argument of needing massive profits in order to work hard doesn't match up with reality. Once again, Cuba produces more doctors than anywhere else in the world. Training to be a doctor is long and difficult and requires high skill and intelligence. Most people under capitalism are never rewarded for their toil and hard work. They are overworked and paid little. The money goes to the owners, the people who do no labor whatsoever. This idea of social mobility under capitalism is a nice story, but isn't the reality for the millions who labor under global capitalism. Real wages have stagnated or gone down, yet productivity has increased. People are working harder than ever and for less.

@Putin and Jamiet99uk:

Quotes an responses (nice an brief):

"More importantly, the Soviets could build T-34s in much larger numbers, making the T-34 the more effective design from a strategic perspective."
- that argument is irrelevant to the quality of the weapon on the battlefield.

"The Me-262 was irrelevant, as it wasn't operational until very late in the war and few were used."
- that argument is irrelevant to the quality of the weapon on the battlefield. BTW the ME262 claimed over 500 kills for the loss of about 100.

"Furthermore it was due to Soviet tank innovations that the Panther and Tiger tank were developed."
- that argument is irrelevant to the quality of the weapon on the battlefield.

"And German rockets/ballistic missiles performed dismally in WWII. The V-1s were obliterated by the British and V-2s never really got off the ground."
- LOL this is laughably misinformed.

"German superiority in rocket technology has more to do with the prohibitions of the Versailles Treaty against heavy artillery than National Socialism's technological innovativeness."
- more irrelevance.

"Of course Fiedler doesn't touch the point about bombers. Maybe he'll say the Germans had better bombers too?"
- no, I agree the allies had better bombers. How pathetic that you try and put words in my mouth.

"On paper, therefore, a fully-functional Tiger would probably defeat a T-34 in single combat."
- LOL, would it? see the combat example below.


Combat example from wikipedia:
On 7 July 1943, a single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharführer Franz Staudegger from the 2nd Platoon, 13th Panzer Company, 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler engaged a group of about 50 T-34s around Psyolknee (the southern sector of the German salient in the Battle of Kursk). Staudegger used all his ammunition and claimed the destruction of 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For this, he was awarded the Knight's Cross.[22]

hmmm, that T-34 is AWESOME. I'd sure like to be in one up against a Tiger.

Over 10 Tiger tank commanders claimed over 100 vehicle kills each, including Kurt Knispel with 168, Walter Schroif with 161, Otto Carius with 150+, Johannes Bölter with 139+, and Michael Wittmann with 138.


Generally your arguments propose that the germans are stupid. Have you met many germans?
In my opinion, praise for the t-34 and other soviet weapons all fit neatly into the category of justifications of 'why the soviets won the war'. Halfwitted justifications that overlook 20 million plus corpses. Insulting to their memory, really.

Some light entertainment...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWKfpOtFtBc

oh, and assertions that the Tiger was hopelessly unreliable are COMPLETELY condraticted by the fact that Tiger crews LOVED their Tigers and would rather part with their left nut than fight with lesser equipment.

Wow, out of context quotes, triumphal exclamations of "irrelevant!" or "wrong!" and then to top it off, a wikipedia citation. Brilliant.

yep, so you concede you were wrong :) sweeeet

"- that argument is irrelevant to the quality of the weapon on the battlefield. "

No it's not. If you have to spent a large amount of your resources building a handful of weapons, it's not a good design. Even if on a one-to-one basis, the weapon might prevail.

"that argument is irrelevant to the quality of the weapon on the battlefield. BTW the ME262 claimed over 500 kills for the loss of about 100."

The time period in service is irrelevant? Really? Ok, so by that logic some plane made on May 7, 1945 can be deemed the best of the war even if it was only in service one day. Great argument.

"that argument is irrelevant to the quality of the weapon on the battlefield."

That argument wasn't directed to the quality of the weapon on the battlefield. I was responding to the claim that Soviet designs weren't innovative. Stop quoting people out of context and then deeming their arguments irrelevant.

"LOL this is laughably misinformed."

Because you say so, right? How many V-1s either missed their target or were destroyed?

"more irrelevance."

It's not irrelevant, it's related to a completely different argument. Your debating style is ridiculous.

"no, I agree the allies had better bombers. How pathetic that you try and put words in my mouth. "

I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was clearly speculating, hence the word "maybe". There's one thing you don't think the Germans did better, bravo!

"Combat example from wikipedia:"

Amazing. And yet the Tigers cost a ridiculous amount, so few were produced. 1350 total. You can't win a war if you can't produce weapons in sufficient numbers. The lighter, faster Panther was a better investment than the Tiger, and helped the Germans much more.

Ok, this whole bit started because I was responding to the assertion that the t-34 was the best tank of the war. Clearly at the technical level, the Tiger was the best tank of the war, and yes I would count it even if it only served 1 day in the war.

Perhaps you meant to say: 'Soviet tank production policy in ww2 was pretty good and played to their strength in numbers' ?

"There's one thing you don't think the Germans did better, bravo!"
- ok, biased much? :) (I know I know).

"And yet the Tigers cost a ridiculous amount, so few were produced. 1350 total. You can't win a war if you can't produce weapons in sufficient numbers."
- well again you assume the germans are stupid. Whilst I agree the t-34 was a good basic design and soviet tank 'grand strategy' did the job, you display your ignorance by assuming the germans didnt know what they were doing.

What is the point of building thousands of tanks when you don't have the petrol to operate them? Moreover, it's hard to build huge numbers of tanks when you can't get sufficient amounts of necessary metal alloys . THAT's why the germans concentrated on quality rather than quantity - to maximise the limited resources at their disposal. It was the correct choice given their circumstances.

The scarcity of resources is the whole reason for the blitzkrieg style of war, because germany could not win an attritional war. Learning much yet? No? please continue to pontificate like you have a clue :)

"Your argument seems to go in two different directions. On one hand, survival is the impetus behind innovation. On the other, "getting something out of it" is the mother of innovation"

It matches up with reality quite well. The people in the factories and the inventors of the T-34 did get something out of it. They survived the war against the Nazis. There is no dichotomy; they are perfectly reasoned statements that agree. Most people are at their most creative when they have something to gain. Which two directions did you suppose I was moving in? It must have been a misunderstanding on your part.


“If profit motivated invention, one wonders then how on earth Nikola Tesla ever came up with alternating current, radio, wireless, and his many other revolutionary inventions. He died broke and got no credit during his lifetime for his achievements.”


Dying broke and getting no credit for inventions doesn’t necessarily mean that your aim wasn’t personal gain at the outset, does it? Come now, neither of us is privy to Nikola Tesla’s motives and the example proves nothing whatsoever.


“This common argument of needing massive profits in order to work hard doesn't match up with reality. Once again, Cuba produces more doctors than anywhere else in the world. Training to be a doctor is long and difficult and requires high skill and intelligence. Most people under capitalism are never rewarded for their toil and hard work. They are overworked and paid little. The money goes to the owners, the people who do no labor whatsoever. This idea of social mobility under capitalism is a nice story, but isn't the reality for the millions who labor under global capitalism. Real wages have stagnated or gone down, yet productivity has increased. People are working harder than ever and for less.”

Again with doctors in Cuba. One would think all we need to do to become a utopia is to step up recruitment to Medical schools. Seriously though, Which reality would that be? The one in which the USSR, PRC, North Korea, or Cuba established the highest standard of living that the world had ever seen? Where these nations were the ones people flocked to when they had a chance to emigrate from their homelands? No? because the none of those countries have done any of those things. It's the nations that provide opportunity that attract people to them. All you need to do is look at immigration statistics from about 1917 on.

Sure everyone feels underappreciated from time to time. Especially when times are tough as they are now. Fact are facts though, nine out of ten people have jobs. Even at our worst three out of four did. Poverty exists and socialism hasn’t stamped it out anywhere. At best it insures that everyone is uncomfortable except the privileged few that have political and planning authority.

"I gave my answers - to the extent that they 'exist', they are bestowed by the government (but there are no absolute rights which exist independent of government). I'm interested in other answers."

Taking that literally, if you were somehow transported to an alien world you would have no right to grow food or settle. If all rights come from governments then in the absence of government one has no rights. The right to life and the pursuit of happiness, etc. These are given by a man made institution? How did people ever live to make those governments in the first place?

I'm sure that I'll get something in reply about "independent" rights as that was the qualifier you used. I'll guess by that you mean any right you can possibly attribute to a government and still come off sounding like governments are the source of rights, not the people who form those governments and agree to the codification of laws under them.

and...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Assessment

"Taking that literally, if you were somehow transported to an alien world you would have no right to grow food or settle. If all rights come from governments then in the absence of government one has no rights. The right to life and the pursuit of happiness, etc. These are given by a man made institution? How did people ever live to make those governments in the first place? "

Who guarantees rights in a state of nature? People can have wishes - like wishes to have food and shelter - but no they have no rights. The aliens aren't going to recognize any 'rights'. The jungle doesn't recognize any 'rights'. They aren't going to have a trial to punish someone who kills you, thus enforcing your right to life. They're going to eat you alive and throw away your bones. People's capacity to have food and shelter is due to completely to their ability to survive.

How did people live to make governments in the first place? Governments are ancient. Prior to formal "government" there were clans who operated like government. Families and clans protected people from outside threats. In primitive societies this still occurs. Prominent clans eventually extended their influence across larger and larger territories and formed kingships. Modern government evolved from that point.

Rights are a societal construct. Rights are a function of law which is necessary to protect society from the state of nature in which any person is relatively equal with everyone else, and has no reason or restriction from killing or harming others for their own gain. (See Leviathan by Hobbes) Laws can only exist justly when they are agreed to be in the mutual interest of the majority, and not out of rule by force. However these laws must be upheld, and can't be circumvented if conditions warrant, i.e Utilitarianism, because the majority's view has changed, and the law is no longer in their interest. Rather the law must be struck down by the process originally defined by the majority. This basically is Social Contract Theory. The theory would therefore argue that property rights if agreed to exist by the society as evidenced by existing laws do exist, and will continue to exist until society strikes down all laws protecting property rights.

KReilly's argument is identical to mine, for the most part, minus the Social Contract angle. Essentially once again the argument is that rights are only granted/guaranteed by government and even goes as far as to say that the process of changing those laws must be a legal one (as defined by the state). I think the latter point is a step further than many Social Contract theorists take the argument, since many are subscribers to the idea of so-called 'natural law' (ie - you can choose not to uphold so-called "unjust laws"). In essence KReilly's argument is a utilitarian one, and not a natural law based one.

"Ok, this whole bit started because I was responding to the assertion that the t-34 was the best tank of the war. Clearly at the technical level, the Tiger was the best tank of the war, and yes I would count it even if it only served 1 day in the war."

The war was longer than one day or one week. The war between the Soviets and Germans lasted four years. To say "best X of the war" when the weapon was only operational at the end when it was irrelevant to determining the outcome of the war renders the 'war' itself irrelevant.

"THAT's why the germans concentrated on quality rather than quantity - to maximise the limited resources at their disposal."

This argument makes no sense. The Germans had limited resources, so the solution then is to build tanks that use up an inefficient amount of time, fuel, resources and manpower. Since Tigers took forever to build, lots of them broke down when they first put into combat because Hitler rushed the process. Mechanical failures more often than not kept Tigers from seeing any action. They were also logistical nightmares to use. Their complicatedness made them that much more difficult to supply due to the shortage of materials.

Since you seem to think wikipedia is the final arbiter of truth -

"The Tiger had reliability problems throughout its service life; Tiger units frequently entered combat understrength due to breakdowns. It was rare for any Tiger unit to complete a road march without losing vehicles due to breakdown. The tank also had poor radius of action (distance a combat vehicle can travel and return, in normal battle conditions, without refuelling)."

I know you want to defend the honor of the Germans, but investing in a standard tank would have been a smarter move. They wanted a wonder weapon that would win them the war instead of investing in the essentials. Blitzkrieg requires reliable weapons that have long range and are accompanied by a mobile fleet of support vehicles of all types, which the Germans neglected, dooming their strategy.

"Learning much yet? No? please continue to pontificate like you have a clue :)"

You're much better at claiming victory and patting yourself on the back for your brilliance than making any actual points. Typical insufferable Kiwi.

Pot, calling kettle. Still black over there? Yep. Me too! Just checking!

@Putin: So just to be clear, you still maintain the T-34 was the best tank of ww2? - and don't forget thats a quote.

Quote: "This argument makes no sense. The Germans had limited resources, so the solution then is to build tanks that use up an inefficient amount of time, fuel, resources and manpower."
- I think you fail to understand the concept of efficiency. If you were to build say 3 cheap shit-heaps like the t-34 instead of 1 Tiger, you would need 3x the crews, 2 or 3x the petrol to operate, plus there is even more logistics and maintenance required, everything multiplies the more tanks you have. Obviously.

I find insufferable people who can't admit when they are clearly wrong. I'm done. :)

Efficiency is investing in over-engineered, overly complicated, resource-eating machines that couldn't be properly deployed due to mechanical failure or got stuck whenever they encountered difficult terrain, rather than investing in a larger number of tanks which are actually reliable. That's your concept of efficiency.

"everything multiplies the more tanks you have. Obviously. "

Including chances of victory.

"everything multiplies the more tanks you have. Obviously. "

Including fuel costs. There is the law of diminishing returns that you typically forget. Fiedler clearly and correctly stated It didn't matter how many tanks the Germans produced when they wouldn't have had the fuel reserves to put them in the field. They subscribed to a different strategy than the Russians (who in some cases put men into the field without a rifle reasoning that if they made it a few minutes into combat they'd be able to pick up the rifle of a fallen comrade).