Tweet
Why does everybody hate the Zumwalt? I thought it was a quantum leap for USN. Revolutionary design, energy efficient, all quiet, cutting age weapon systems, capacity for emerging technologies aka railguns and all, what could be better :(?
-
-
People regularly ask, seriously, not facetiously...if a Tiger or Tiger II could beat an Abrams. 1v1. Not 40v1, in which the Tigers might at least be able to disable the Abrams before it kills them all.Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View PostComment
-
Seems easy enough. The M1 crew laughs itself to death...Originally posted by Pacfanweb View PostComment
-
I don't hate it. I just thought a revolutionary design with so many unproven tech and concept should not be ordered in large quantities. Two or three hulls to at least test them out, verify the design, work out the bugs, maybe make some real world improvements before ordering 35 of them.Originally posted by Zinja View Post"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.Comment
-
Does the Tiger or Tiger II need to move? That 690hp engine will have some trouble trying to move 75 tons of steel at a useful combat speed.Originally posted by Pacfanweb View Post
Seriously, M1's 120mm HE round could crack open a Tiger's armor just by sheer brute force of the explosion. No AP needed.
I don't agree with Belton Cooper often, but he said something right, "Germans built monuments; we built weapons.""Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.Comment
-
People hate because it's a serious departure from it's predecessors and change sucks (at least until it becomes the status quo and something newer comes along) because it is a boatload of money being spent on unproven technologies that many feel should have been spent else where, because it doesn't have a robust AAW capability, because it doesn't have a robust ASW capability, because it was used to justify the retirement of the battleships, because the Spruances were all scrapped to protect it, and mostly because it has been cut back so much from it's original intent that people feel oversold and underdelivered.Originally posted by Zinja View Post
The best thing is that these ships will probably serve more as operational test platforms for some of these technologies and even if the class itself isn't very successful, the lessons learned may be incorporated into newer classes of warships. They utilize a lot of automated systems and manpower is going to be critical in the future as the cost of training and caring for personnel from bootcamp through retirement is going to continue to rise and the cost of maintaining and operating a large fleet is going to rise with it.Comment
-
Bit of an exageration, I think. German tanks were very good, per se; afaik, no Tiger II was ever killed in tank v tank combat. The problem was the industrial part of the whole thing that sucked. Every one of them was too complicated for mass production. The germans did try to improve that part, but far too late...Originally posted by gunnut View PostComment
-
The best German tank in WW2 was Panzer IV.Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
No Tiger II was killed in combat with another tank because they could never make it to the front line. It was a giant pill box with a powerful gun that sometimes moved on its own. The frontline came to them. And then Americans just called in massive artillery if the Tiger II offered any resistance.
Tanks rarely fought other tanks. Tanks were, and are part of a combined force used to help the infantry to take ground. Wehrmacht achieved its greatest success using Panzer IIIs, Pz 35(t)s, and Pz 38(t)s. All 3 were totally outmatched by their opponents in every possible category, except one: tactics.
Wehrmacht started to lose when they drifted away from maneuver warfare."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.Comment
-
That I'll agree. The venerable IV lasted the whole war and even fought in Syria. Great tank.Originally posted by gunnut View Post
The Zumwalt is the USN's Tiger II: massive beast, expensive, takes up resources & money of multiple ships, high risk!
Comment
-
They are only going to build 3 of them now, I thought?Originally posted by gunnut View PostComment
-
Pretty sure that's not true. Almost positive they faced Soviet T-34's and lost some.Originally posted by jlvfr View PostComment
-
Might have been the Tiger 1. I do remember reading about a Sherman with the 76mm that holed and killed a Tiger 2, though. They lost lots of them, and certainly tanks and tank destroyers were the main killers.Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
Now, their kill/death ratio was really high....but they still got killed, and killed by other tanks.
I did find this quote from a guy who did an analysis of the Tiger tanks. He is an unabashed German equipment fanboy, but his analysis did include this:
I suppose his source for that is in those sites in the quote.• In Dec 1944, in a forest in France, 1 King Tiger met 2 Sherman 76mm. The Tiger fired first and destroyed 1 Sherman, but in the mean time, the second Sherman scored 2 penetrating hits, which set the Tiger aflame. The engagement was fought at about 500m and the shells penetrated the lateral turret armor.
[Schneider, Jentz, Fprado.com, achtungpanzer.com ]Comment
-
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.Comment
-
I think it'll be great as a technology demonstrator. Hopefully they will lead to a sizable follow on class of ships after the Zumwalts get put through their paces.Originally posted by Zinja View Post
Essentially, the Zumwalts fell victim to politics. Congress didn't want the navy to retire the battleships without a replacement for shore bombardment duties. The navy didn't like big manpower and part intensive ships from the 1940s cutting a swath through their budgets.
The Zumwalts were the compromise. Lots of new tech and radical designs in a huge destroyer designed to provide naval fire support.Comment
Comment