Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Using "borrowed" technology

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Using "borrowed" technology

    The Panther is to have sloped armour because the Germans saw how effective it was on the T-34.

    Presumably this wasn't the only time during WWII that an idea or technology was "borrowed" from an opponent.

    What other examples can people come up with.

    Thanks

  • #2
    Originally posted by Mechashef View Post
    The Panther is to have sloped armour because the Germans saw how effective it was on the T-34.
    This statement is not completely correct. Look at a German half track, armored car, or a turret on most Panzers. They all have sloped armor, often in radical forms long before the T-34. Clearly, they understood the advantages of sloped armor early on. Futhermore, they also understood the disadvantages of sloped armor when it came to difficulties and limitations in construction and design.

    On the other hand, the reason the T-34 had a 76.2mm gun was because the Germans were building Panzer IV's with a 75 mm gun even before the war (as an infantry support vehicle). At the time, the standard AT gun was a 37mm for most countries. The Russians found out about the German 75 mm (not realizing it was a low velocity gun made to lob HE rounds, not an AT gun) and they didn't want to be left behind.

    So, the Russian T-34 owed it's big gun to the German designs! Kind of a "borrowed" technology...





    http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm
    Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
      This statement is not completely correct. Look at a German half track, armored car, or a turret on most Panzers. They all have sloped armor, often in radical forms long before the T-34. Clearly, they understood the advantages of sloped armor early on. Futhermore, they also understood the disadvantages of sloped armor when it came to difficulties and limitations in construction and design.
      I don't know if this is necessarily true since German armor was produced using vertical armor until the Panther was put out. Even the Tiger used vertical armor while other countries such as France and the USSR had discovered the advantages of sloped armor.

      I think the armor was sloped on your above examples to allow more space for crew and storage, not to deflect incoming rounds.
      If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk
        This statement is not completely correct. Look at a German half track, armored car, or a turret on most Panzers. They all have sloped armor, often in radical forms long before the T-34. Clearly, they understood the advantages of sloped armor early on. Futhermore, they also understood the disadvantages of sloped armor when it came to difficulties and limitations in construction and design.
        As per FS above but I would add that the design of the turret of the Pz III and Pz IV hardly bestows the term "sloped armour" and there is next to none at all on on the Pz I and Pz II. Besides, sloped armour is only of value if the opponents guns cannot penetrate the armour (Pz V vs T-34,...sloped armour on a T-34 didn't really help). The German armoured cars and HTs had "sloped" armour in a manner of speaking but not so that it improved protection against more than an ATR. The front of both were still somewhat blunt as was the turret on the German heavy ACs.
        Last edited by The Purist; 20 Aug 07, 22:49.
        The Purist

        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

        Comment


        • #5
          The Japanese built DC 2's and used some American engine technology in their aircraft. The US used technology the bought from Germany to make synthetic rubber. The 20mm Oerlikon cannon was used by just about all the major warring countries except the Soviet Union. The Soviets clearly copied the B-29.

          Pruitt
          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

          Comment


          • #6
            American Christie suspension was used by USSR, UK and Italy but not by the US.

            Wolster

            Comment


            • #7
              The Soviet Tu-4 design was not so much borrowed from the B29 but completely stolen!
              Wolster

              Comment


              • #8
                This isn't really "borrowed technology" but more like "borrowed equipment". The Brits used the Thompson and the Sherman tank. Did the Germans and Russians borrow the M1s semi automatic capability for the gewehr and the russian equivalent?
                "We Will Stay Here, If We Must All Go to Hell Together"
                -Col. John R. Cooke, 27th NC

                Avatar: My Grandfather on the right. His twin on the left. Their older brother in the middle. In their Navy Blues

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                  As per FS above but I would add that the design of the turret of the Pz III and Pz IV hardly bestows the term "sloped armour" and there is next to none at all on on the Pz I and Pz II.
                  I guess if you want to redefine "slope" as something other than what it is, you might be correct. Just like if you call blue, red, then the sky is "red" not blue. This is a common method used by people to prove an invalid point instead of addressing the reality of the situation.

                  Like this picture. There is no sloping on this Panzer I? I see slopes on the front armor, side armor of the hull, and all over the turret. Are we talking about the same war or a private definition of "slope"?

                  For more pics:
                  http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm

                  And this Panzer IV turret is not "sloped"? Your credibility is waning....




                  Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                  Besides, sloped armour is only of value if the opponents guns cannot penetrate the armour (Pz V vs T-34,...sloped armour on a T-34 didn't really help). The German armoured cars and HTs had "sloped" armour in a manner of speaking but not so that it improved protection against more than an ATR. The front of both were still somewhat blunt as was the turret on the German heavy ACs.

                  No slopes here, look away "blunt" from all angles.



                  I guess the "sloping" hood, front, back, and sides, doesn't count as sloped armor either....


                  So, you imply that the sloped armor on the half tracks and armored cars were just for good looks? Hardly, it was to improve protection. Sure it was only good against ATRs, but that was the threat they were designed to overcome. Why didn't the Germans just make their halftracks slab sided like the USA? Why did they chop the corners of their turrets and slope the sides of their turrets just like modern tanks? More cosmetics? They didn't understand the concept? I think not....

                  Even most modern MBTs have flat sides on the hull, unlike the T-34. If that was such a great inovation why doesn't the M1 Abrams use it on the side hull?

                  http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...&ct=image&cd=1

                  Or the Challenger?
                  http://www.militarypictures.info/arm...enger.jpg.html

                  Or the Merkava?
                  http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...erkavaMk4.html

                  Or the Leopard?
                  http://www.armyrecognition.com/europ...y_pictures.htm

                  Or the LeClerc?
                  http://www.militarypictures.info/arm...c_001.jpg.html

                  All these tanks have sloped armor on the turrets, just like the Germans, and on the front hull, but not sloped side armor on the hull, just like the Germans. Because just like the Germans, tank designers for generations learned that sloped armor has advantages, but is not always the best option for every surface. Was the Tiger I a useless hunk of metal because of it's flat sides? Uh....No....it was highly feared throughout the war because it was properly designed for what it need to do. Carry a big gun, and lots of armor. Sloping wouldn't have made it better, it would have made it a different vehicle with different design criteria.

                  Sloped armor increases weight, and reduces interior space. It also complicates construction, especially in WWII when welding technology was primitive and many tanks were still being made with rivets.

                  The Russian learned much of what they knew about armor design and armor tactics by secretly training with the Germans before WWII. Germany got a hidden place to test tanks and tactics, and the Russians got to be trained by the Germans in tactics and technology. That was a benefit for both sides.

                  If anything, the T-34 tank owes it's orgins to prewar German armor design (with the exception of the Christie suspension).

                  This is what the Russians were doing for "sloped" armor before the Germans showed them a few things. Gotta luv the innovative T-28....



                  Yah, the Germans were clueless about sloped armor until the T-34 came along....
                  Last edited by Pirate-Drakk; 21 Aug 07, 20:38.
                  Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mechashef View Post
                    Presumably this wasn't the only time during WWII that an idea or technology was "borrowed" from an opponent.

                    What other examples can people come up with.

                    Thanks
                    The Bazooka!! The Germans got some from the captured Americans in Africa and they transformed it into the Panzershreck by giving it a greater range and greater penetration power, and they also added a blast shield so their troops wouldn't have their faces burned.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Conlin View Post
                      The Bazooka!! The Germans got some from the captured Americans in Africa and they transformed it into the Panzershreck by giving it a greater range and greater penetration power, and they also added a blast shield so their troops wouldn't have their faces burned.
                      Good one!
                      Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Little Willie in WW1:

                        Notice the sloped armor on it front hull



                        Notice these French St Chamond tanks also had sloped frontal armor



                        How about this American armored car:



                        Having vehicles with sloped armor does not mean that it was designed with the purpose of deflecting shots.
                        Last edited by Salinator; 22 Aug 07, 03:13.
                        Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                        Prayers.

                        BoRG

                        http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The Red Army's semi-automatic Tokarev SVT was copied to make Germany's Gew.-43.

                          I'm a little surprised that the Allies didn't reverse-engineer the 88 flak/AT gun early on and put it into production.
                          "There are only two professions in the world in which the amateur excels the professional. One, military strategy, and, two, prostitution."
                          -- Maj. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

                          (Avatar: Commodore Edwin Ward Moore, Republic of Texas Navy)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by AIrchallenged View Post
                            This isn't really "borrowed technology" but more like "borrowed equipment". The Brits used the Thompson and the Sherman tank. Did the Germans and Russians borrow the M1s semi automatic capability for the gewehr and the russian equivalent?
                            The Germans IIRC put captured arms plants into production, e.g., Polish Radom and Browning Hi-Power, and used French tanks (I think - others would know chapter and verse on this).
                            "There are only two professions in the world in which the amateur excels the professional. One, military strategy, and, two, prostitution."
                            -- Maj. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

                            (Avatar: Commodore Edwin Ward Moore, Republic of Texas Navy)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jon Jordan View Post
                              I'm a little surprised that the Allies didn't reverse-engineer the 88 flak/AT gun early on and put it into production.
                              That has always surprised me too.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X