T34 Vs Tiger Download Full Version 19 __FULL__ Ⓜ
T34 Vs Tiger Download Full Version 19
after 1975 no new patterns of technical change are observed. table 4 reports the evolution of differences in the principal components, and indicates which technical changes most strongly affected the pattern of technological change. the most significant differences between the configurations are the reworking of the hull on t-34/76 and t-34/85 (pc2), the reworking of the hull and lower turret on t-34/85 (pc2), and the lower turret of t-34/85 (pc1). after 1975 no new patterns of technical change are observed.
as regards pc2, the evolution of the difference between the configurations shows a double-humped pattern, with a sharp increase between 1970 and 1975. this pattern is interpreted as the emergence of the hull reworking (pc2 =−3.54 in the first half of the 1970s) followed by an increase in the contribution of the lower turret (pc2 =+5.11), and the hull and lower turret reworking (pc2 =+9.22). after 1975 no new patterns of technical change are observed.
the panther had several advantages over the sherman that you failed to acknowledge. the panther and its k43 were generally, more reliable than shermans. this meant it did not require same crew manning, both the gun and armor were more reliable, and the gun had greater fire power. the panther, the second german wwii tank, could penetrate the thickest armor. this made it even more deadly than the t34. the panther did not have problems with overheating like the sherman did and could sometimes penetrate thick armor when fired at a high angle. the panther was the king of heavy tanks, and even at times it was matched up against the t-34/85. the third advantage is that when the panther did get bogged down, the armor could absorb much of the hits, which often meant it was possible to stay fighting.
the verities of the things not documented only need to be confronted in the context of all info you present in your post. the discussion here is about the introduction of a new tank onto the stage at the time and how it was “better” than the alternatives. all this argument gets into semantics of use of the word “better” is pointless. they had virtues and defects. they may have been more of a “neopatagonic” design that everything else. whether good or bad i could be open to it. it does not matter what they did or did not do, it is what they were and what they proved in war what matters. the one thing i know for sure is that the us side did not field a single panther model in the war and never had a chance to. they could not see them in action until after the war. the uk side had the same experience. the french did not have the chance. neither did the italy, germany, sweden or russia. it matters that they survived and that they were relevant vehicles in the war. if they were not relevant, the war would have ended very differently. that being said, their role in the world after the war was an incredible boon to all those countries they were stationed in. the german people was very proud of these tanks, even to this day. by comparison look at the post war ww2 panzers in usage today.
they were light. they were (sometimes) faster. they were better at destroying other tanks. (in the short term, do not forget that the tiger and panther were “tanks” that had a secondary purpose of destroying tanks. these were not completely different from the heavy tanks that had close range, and higher firepower.) the tiger and the panther had more armor, they were better than many of the tanks that had already been fielded (including most of the tanks that the allies fielded). the tiger and the panther were better than any of the tanks fielded by the germans, they were also better than any of the tanks fielded by the japanese and the americans.