Yuri Pasholok on Tiger II roadwheel design

Posted on by

Source: http://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/2648975.html

Hello everyone,

as continuation of the “chat” I referred to in the morning, Yuri Pasholok posted a comparison of the drawings of a Tiger II roadwheel, that are supposed to prove the inferiority of the German drawing school. Of course, he couldn’t have done it without insults (he does mention we (FTR readers) “masturbate to nazi Hugo Boss uniforms”), but that is his way I suppose. Sorry for having two posts on the same topic, but I generally use his stuff as “fluff” (when there is nothing more important to write about) and apart from the next Hall of Shame, I have nothing in the queue right now (still have to read a few mails though).

On the left side is the German drawing of the Tiger II roadwheel by Henschel (dated 2.7.1944), on the right side a part of a drawing of the same roadwheel by a Soviet engineer from February 1945 (he admits there are minor mistakes in the Soviet version, “unavoidable in the absence of factory plans”). Apparently this comparison proves the superiority of the Soviet drawing school.

246093_original

Is that so indeed? I can’t tell, I am not an engineer (however, I actually happen to know some of you guys who read it ARE engineers, so – opinion, please?).

Yuri Pasholok also states, that apparently, judging on these pictures, the German tanks were drawn by university first-grade students (and not even the good ones, but the average ones). As a proof, he offers this drawing, which admittedly isn’t the best thing I’ve seen.

246421_original

Either way, both these pictures allegedly come from Bundesarchiv (hence the English text, Bundesarchiv got them back from USA or UK).

123 thoughts on “Yuri Pasholok on Tiger II roadwheel design”

    • I am a mechanical engineering student, and to me the only difference is the hatch on the German (ugh), the cutaway (doesn’t really matter), and the dimensions (Russian one does look better). Also, the last drawing is terrible.

      • The cutaway is done on both sides as it should not be done, as it’s symmetric. The drawer has drawn the cutaway of the same part four times, which is completely silly. The rightmost drawing is more correct.

        • Not quite, when there are a lot of areas of the same drawing you want to show the size of then you do what the guy on the left did, cut out the whole thing so you’ll have enough space on the drawing to write details.

          The wheel is simetrical (obviously), so there is no real need to show the exterior of it unless you want to point out details on the surface of the item, stuff like surface finish or details on welding points.

          Any engineer would be able to use either drawing honestly, it’s mostly a matter of personal preference at that point. I would pick the one of the left because of what I said already (and yes, I’m a mechanical engineer).

          • Having worked with German engineering drawings myself I’d guess that the German drawing is merely an assembly drawing and has many other drawings paired with it. The Russian drawing on the other hand seems to be an amalgamation of an assembly drawing and a dimensioned manufacturing drawing. From a draughtsman’s standpoint the German drawing is superior as it is subdivided to make everything clear (if my guess is correct which I would be surprised if it wasn’t). From a manufacturing standpoint (the “real” engineering here) either could be better; it depends all on which one works better for the manufacturing process and has the tolerances worked out better. Historically wise, I’d again guess at the Germans doing better but it’s not certain.

  2. I’m not a mechanical engineer, I’m civil engineer. Russian one has certain obvious mistakes but other than that, I think both drawings are okay. The Russian one may seem prettier cause of tighter hatching, other than that they are both fine. Yuri must be high again.

    Ok other one looks worse, but top one comparison-only hatching makes the difference. Today everything is drawn on computers, AutoCAD, ArchiCAD and shit, but we had courses during which we had to draw by hand. Goddamn that hatching is killing business. I understand Germans not wanting to spend time on that really.

    Yuri is a giant cunt.

    • I`ve done one semester of “technical drawing” and that hatching was killing me.”Each line must be 2mm away from the next one at an angle of 45 degrees”.

        • It takes a very meticulous person to love that job. My grandfather was a draftsman and he always wanted everything to be “just so”. In his view, there was an established right way to do each and every thing, a person simply had to put in the time to learn what it was. To fail to do so was pure laziness and sloppiness which is inexcusable.

          I, for one, could not live that way and I actually am much less efficient and productive when held to such standards but some people thrive with that approach to life. Some people even enjoy it: my grand father apparently didn’t get enough precise, detailed work at his job because he took up watchmaking as a hobby. That’s excruciatingly delicate work.

          • The bottom looks like a machinists layout or a draft, the differences between German and Russian is just a matter of technique/style, also the German entry has an English annotation?

    • As a Architect and a draftsman i know that pain :P

      For the drawings, there are some mistakes in the soviet drawing but besides that its ok, the german seems to be missing some detail, and there are also some lines that look like to have been drawn by hand.

      The German drawing is indeed inferior and sloppy, BUT, the drawing seems rushed, and taking in fact the date (2.7.1944), i guess it was rushed, a) by the need of production of the Tiger II before it was to late, b) Hitler’s orders or c) Due to the constant bombing of germany, I don’t believe russians engineers ad this problems.

      My conclusion, yap Yuri is a giant cunt

      • Russian drawing is completely different type. German is detailed cross section and Russian is an assembly drawing showing semi scross section. I believe normally you would make dozens of those to perfect the design (now you use AutoCad or Solidworks and print the shit later). BTW why the fuck does this guy evaluate skill of engineers by technical drawings only? Can somebody explain to me how does this make someone shitty engineer? Is it even sure that those were original production drawings?

        • What this person does not realise that in those days, the best engineers did not do their own drawings, they employed draftsmen. The design engineer would sketch out what he wanted (back of fag packet) explain it to the draftsmen, who would draw it up. Why would you burden your best design engineers with hours and hours of drafting? In a small company perhaps, but not in a major manufacturer. Its a bad use of skill.

    • The Guy is an arse, Looking at those two the German one looks to be at a section from general assembly drawing. The kind of drawing you would use on the factory floor to identify different parts. The dimensions are just provided as information. Additionally the German one also looks to be at a different scale again implying a smaller part of a GA drawing rather than a scaled up detail drawing.

      Neither drawing is particularly bad or good for what each one represents, just a draughtsmans best effort on the day.

      The final one just looks to be a sketch/scrap drawing perhaps from a manual..(note the text thats visable at the top)

      Again it means nothing.

      Again the guy is an arse.

      • While I will not judge Signor Pasholok, as he might be a student of the SerB school of customer service, I believe the correct response to Guthy’s comments is, “thank you”.
        As an engineer and draftsman myself, it is clear to me you know what you are on about. +1

  3. Isn’t the Russian design a redraw of the German one? If so and if it’s true the German was one inferior based on the new drawing – then the conclusion makes no sense whatsoever because the redraw could correct the mistakes of the original one…

    It’s like releasing a version of 2.0 of something but then done by another company based on version 1.0. It’s rather a patch then.

  4. I`m not an engineer (yet) but from what I can see the German drawing is more “precise”,it would be very hard to me to explain which part of the drawing I`m talking about but some small details on the Russian image looks like they have been drawn simply by hand and not using a ruler i.e. they are asymmetric.

  6. The big difference I can see is the German drawing indicates that the internal housing has blades in it’s structure (above inner wheel) to make it lighter while the Russian one shows the internal housing as a single thickness (no blades). If it is not all one thickness then the Russian drawing is wrong.

  7. If Soviet technology is so mauch superior why did a Soviet nuclear plant explode instead of a German one?
    Funny guy, he pulls out drawings of unknown source and purpose and judges about he abilities of thousands of people.
    This guy only shows how brainwashed people in his country are.

  9. Why even give him so much attention, just ignore him. It’s not like he has anything meaningful to say, just copy the cold hard facts for info, and edit his name out everywhere.

    People like that live for attention, and that would really anger him.

    • Well, it’s not like I write about him every day :) He posts interesting stuff from time to time, really. With WG money, he has access where others would never get to. That is useful. Of course, his personality is obviously another matter, but I guess that’s the price to pay.

  10. Wow… one (im talking about the second picture) picture is proof of the “inferior” engineers? So example is now proof for a theory? Let me find a picture of a destroyed Soviet tank so i can proof that every Soviet tank is destroyed. I bet if you dig through some archives you will find bad Soviet drawings, too. That is so pathetic.
    I have to admit im no engineer so my opinion might not be worth a damn but in my opinion the German one looks better. The Soviet one may show the outer parts but therefor the German one is more detailed and shows some parts the first one doesnt show. But i like at the Soviet one that you can see the radius at which the different parts are mounted (the numbers on the left side of the wheel).

  11. I think Yuri might need to find himself a psychologist. I almost feel like hating Russian tanks (even though they are great) and shouting out BS like “German tanks are always superior to Russian tanks” (which we all know isn’t true) just because he irritates me so much. Why does he have to be such a scumbag? He sounds like one of those people who have no friends and act as though they don’t need friends and pretend they are superior to everyone else even though we all know he is just a loner who has no life.

  12. Why did the German Engineer in 1944 used English words? (Elastic Stop)

    Edit: Ups, forgot to read the last sentence xD (hence the English text, Bundesarchiv got them back from USA or UK).

    Edit²: Mhm stupid Edit function..

  13. my opinion is:
    look at the german drawing … there are already the DIN numbers in there and much more details
    in the soviet one hmmm… nop no DIN numbers or something similar
    so i think the german engineers in that time are much much better than the soviets the that time (and today i think they are even better than the today “russian” ones)
    just my opinion

    greets from germany
    crashy

  14. I’m sure there are plenty of sketches in pretty much all design portfolios for projects like this, even if a ‘full’ design is done afterwards. These things have to be kept.

    About the first image. Is his opinion based on the German design documents not having all those measurements on it?
    Now, if I am wrong here, let me know, but wasn’t it common practice for measurement lines and annotations to be drawn on a semi-transparancy over the top in order to keep the drawing itself uncluttered and clean?

    • “first generation nuclear submarine”

      Yeah, I guess you expected Soviet engineering to be so good they make everything perfect the first time.

      And lets just forget that “Over its service life, it ran 332,396 miles during 20,223 working hours.”
      Yeah, oh what is that? Oh yeah, “HOUSTON WE GOT A PROBLEM”

      • USS Nautilus never had those problems, and it was the first nuclear submarine to ever enter service anywhere in the world. :/

        Then again, the US isn’t without its own spectacular failures. USS Thresher comes to mind.

        • Shure, everyone fails at some point. Otherwise we would not be humans.
          But seriously, saying that soviet engineering is superior is a fools errand. If anyone here is from what used to be 2nd world-eastern block than you know what soviet enginnering meant.
          From cars through fridges radios TVs washing “machines” up until military equipment it all sucked major ass with few good things (like AKMS that we used to shoot during enlistment duty).

          Hell, maybe the projects and engineering plans themselves weren`t so bad-only production was royally screwing everyone that ever had a “chance” to use soviet produced stuff.

          • Funny considering Lada never breaks down unless you seriously abuse it, of course it breaks down today because its either used for 50 years without maintenance or its made by Capitalist factories in the Russian Federation.

            Fridges, radios, televisions, washing machines all lasts till today. In fact there was a Eastern German company making fridges and they were so good that after the collapse of Eastern Germany this company became independent they continued to roll out their reliable fridges but they went bankrupt, you know why? Because they were so good people did not have to buy new ones.

            So much for Socialism, makes stuff last forever does it not? Guess that is why Capitalist factories you apparently endorse so much makes stuff fail couple of years forcing people to buy new stuff so they earn more money.

            • If there is nothing to break down (try the brakes, try to accelerate in less than one era/3rd gen Moskvitch would be perfect example). Soviet factories had low standards as far as 1980s IIRC. Can`t blame them-all workers got more only if more than a 100% of quantity norm was met for one day. Of course these house machinery works! I just in july sold a washing machine from USSR-crank operated, perfectly designed around women working hard. DDR isn`t really soviet now is it? But hell, i`ll bite-it is obvious that Jerries did stuff a lot better than any average commie factory worker. They have a mind installed quality control. That went offline when they made atrocities like “wartburg” or these funny all-steel sewing machines that broke every needle in 50mile radious on usage.

              I don`t really care about your economic POV-that has nothing to do with engineering and quality of products made in USSR. Keep your anti capitalist propaganda away. And just to be clear-i am nowhere near supporting capitalism. I just don`t get how anyone that had soviet stuff can say with clear conscience that it was superior to western made things (apart from obvious things like AKMS, Igla and so on). And just for pure fun-soviet economy engineers made whole countries collapse money-wise.

  16. So, what’s the point of that? I see no major faults or differences. By the way, Yuri concludes by a single drawing that the German engineers as a whole were stupid idiots and the soviet designers were vastly superior to the rest of the world. That’s ridiculous.

    Even nowadays in 2014, that’s 25 years after the breakup of the soviet empire, Russia has nothing to offer but basic materials like oil and gas. They have no thriving industry or strong service industries. They have achieved nothing special, they only created a very efficient police state. Yes Yuri, you can be proud of that!

    Sorry Yuri, but you are a racist and neo-fascist nationalist. Shame on you!

    • Very well said, as usual! Modern Russia has no achievements in any field: their art is nonexistent (at least USSR had Tarkovsky), same with philosophy, their science is underfunded and means nothing compared to USA, EU or Japan (many Russian scientists left for the USA, where their intellect is actually valued), society is torn apart by crime, alcoholism and drug addictions. Truly, a sad place to live. The only thing they have going for them is bloated military, which is still a fucking joke compared to American army – and USA manages to have powerful military without impoverishing their own citizens (though things look worse and worse when it comes to individual freedoms, thanks Obama).

      Russian nationalists are similar to radical feminists in some ways – they hate everyone because they believe everyone hates them, while in reality civilized world merely laughs at them and their paranoias.

    • They also have the world’s largest Uranium and Titanium deposits, much of that Titanium being traded to the US during the 1960s in exchange for grain shipments (and used for various aerospace projects, like the Apollo Program), but of course that was never brought up during the Cold War.

      And they still have quite a strong industry relating to weapons manufacturing.

  17. In my country we have a joke about superiority of the ussr industry:
    In the ussr the fist microchip was created at last. The comrades were really proud.. till realized. The gate of the factory too small the bring it out…

  18. Lol it’s been ages since I looked at a hand drawn diagram

    I think what Mr Pashlockvich refers to is the dimensioning of the parts. The German dimensioning is much less complete, although that might have been due to the necessary sections having been cropped out. It should also be noted that the German diagram is an assembly drawing, with focus on how the parts are assembled. This is why all the bolts are referred to with exact terms. Dimensions are not important on this type of a drawing as you already have produced the parts, and this tells you how to put them together. In particular this one tells you how to bolt it all together.

    • Basically what mister Pishface refers to is the extra dimensioning detail on the Russian plans, although that is what you’d expect if they were copying it, as won’t bother with the individual part drawings, and so will just try to get everything onto one drawing. The Germans would have needed several, as you can’t expect the design and manufacture team to hand the same drawing around, so they will each have there own. This is for the people who put the thing together.

      • Actually, it may be interesting (or maybe not), but when I was working part time job at one factory during summer (mostly car components, “point welding” or how is it in English, but not only that sort of work), we had not so much different schemes that are on the left. Even some of those numbers look familiar, is it perhaps that screw dimensions were unified even back then and still are basically the same? I do not know, maybe I am wrong, it was some time ago and for only about two months.

        Btw, little sidenote; I was mostly working on parts for Volkswagen and their group (Škoda, Audi, Porsche IIRC), few times on parts for Mercedes and Suzuki IIRC and maybe others I do not even know about.

        • If we were to ensure that our dimensions are in correspondence with what was desired, we used “calibers” (I am not sure if that is its official name or not), which ranged from small screw-like to quite big, where we put whole parts of products. It was quite fast and efficient process. My point is, I hardly remember that we ever used or needed precise dimensions and yet we produced crucial parts for one of the finest cars out there. I do not even think I ever used ruler or anything like that in there. We were given numbers such as on the left picture and with them we easily found each and every part we needed for operations we were to do. Exact numbers, while being provided if needed, were mostly used by quality control which periodically picked few products, measured them and tested their strength and what not. There were also other people who maintained tools and other things and they got the finest equipment and they did everything precisely, so they were provided with much better sources, but we did not need that kind of things for our work.

  20. Looking at the two drawings, the German one looks much more detailed. If the two images are suppost to be of the same item, the Soviet drawing has either modified or purposely incorrectly drawn parts of the diagram. These can be seen on left had side where the German diagram shows the ‘stepped’ end cap whereas the Soviet has it as a curve, whether this is intentional or not I do not know.

  21. Feel free to read about WoWS and write something about that, it would be rather beneficial

    The amount of people moaning about the lack of release is too damn high!

    • That’s because we don’t have much to work with other than one trailer that WG themselves stated showcases a lot of things that will likely not be in the final release (such as submarines, which I’m rather disappointed about tbh, since they would basically be the glass-cannon TDs of WoWS)

  22. What this “Informed” Russian is overlooking, is this: Q. What is the purpose of a drawing? A. To communicate information, in order to achieve a goal. On the Tiger road wheel it is an assembly drawing showing only the location of other parts. Those parts will have their own separate drawings. The Russian assembly drawing has dimensions on it, that are probably needed to check that the parts supplied are fitted correctly and are of the required quality in terms of dimensions. The Germans parts, being of superior manufacturing quality would not need such dimensions. The last drawing showing the weld, and tow hook are mostly likely a drawing required only by a welder/junior QA technician, and nothing more. On drawings you only put on the information that is required in order for that to be clear and not mis-interpreted. Engineer with 35years in the business.

    The more he talks the dafter he appears

  23. I study mechanical engineering and i say you can’t judge this drawing to be good or bad, if you just have this one drawing. The question is, what is intended to be shown with this drawing. It shows an assembly group on the first drawing, where you not necessarily need dimensions. I think the intention of this drawing is to show, how the assembly gruop is build. The lines look good, the hatchings seem to be correckt, too. I don’t see a problem with this drawing.
    The second german drawing is somewhat incomplete so i can’t say much about it. Again the question is, what was this drawing good for? It is again an assembly group more or less, so hard to say what they needed it for.
    If this “historian” woold show a very bad part drawing i would agree, but these assembly group drawings are different and have to be seen in the way they were supposed to be used, which i don’t know.
    Can he be a bit more precise, what should be so bad with this drawing?
    And by the way does he know, who made this, for which reason and what was the job and age of the guy drawing this?

  24. That’s really funny.
    German drawing is an “assembly”, so there are no dimensions aside from general ones (major diameter) and that IS correct. The only “overengineered” thing is that it is a full cut-through where there is no real technical need to do so – but it is the way assemblies are commonly made, to show the full module in detail (still, they could save a bit of work there). The only thing it misses is wheel axle but that probably was due to decision not to make drawing more obscure.
    Russian drawing is what you expect from “we looted that thing and tried to document as much as possible in one drawing” – it’s an assembly, but dimensions are unnecessary, they are probably meant for future reference if someone is to make any copy-production drawings without having the real module. So, this is the one i would label wrong if we are to judge by “classic engineering” rules. Still, each served their purpose. And, there are a few differences, maybe because of errors in measuring some details from real parts, that made someone draw their incorrectly (or without attention to details), or some were because of alterations in production process.

    Ah, and German hatching looks more clear to me, the rasters fit better parts sizes – but Russian is not bad either, just my personal preference.

    As for the other drawing, taken out of context i cannot be a judge on it. It shows what it needs to show and somebody was probably in a rush or it was just preeliminary drawing (kind of a sketch), based on how dimensions were altered.

    His “proof” is as correct as the whole Loewe proof…

  25. I am not an engineer but an Industrial designer, or that was what I studied in university, and all the drawings have their own intended purposes. Personally, either of those drawings are fine.

    If I go into detail, the German one on the left shows the entire cross section. If you were to send plans to a factory, you’d have for just that roadwheel, two plans. The cross sectional drawing as seen and the normal outside view drawing of the roadwheel.

    For the Russian one on the right, those are not the plans you would send to the factory but plans to show a detailed view of the item without having to refer to two different drawings.

    But looking at the way the method in which the dimensions are listed on the drawings, the Russian one is the same as how I was taught to provide dimensions in my plan drawing.

    Depending on when those drawings were drafted, I would say the Russian one is more recent and has conformed to or at least close to international standards. If the German plans were during WW2, then those plans just may conform to WW2 German standards and anyone in manufacturing would be taught to be able to read those plans.

    My 2 cents and theory on this matter.

  26. “he couldn’t have done it without insults (he does mention we (FTR readers) “masturbate to nazi Hugo Boss uniforms”)
    Good ol’ Soviet butthurt. Always cheers one up.
    Anyway, anyone up to some another nerf for Germans?

  27. The left drawing is a cataloge drawing, usually found in Repair Manuals, it’s purpose is to show how is it assambaled (what size bearings to use, what bolts go where- things like that), it isn’t meant to be to accurate. It isn’t used to make parts for wheel assambely, it just shows how its assambled.

    Right drawing is half-cocked manufacturing drawing, it has all the measurement to machine something by turning (process), but wheel assambely is actually assambaled from parts stamped or milled so you don’t need such drawing. In other words it’s just fancy drawing with no real purpoce.

    • Yup, the Soviet one is construction assembly, but with too many unnecessary dimensions. There should be only Dimensional dimensions (wheel diameter and hub height). Besides, the Soviet one has no axial lines on bearings’ rollers.

  28. i bet there is a drawing of every single part. some drawings for assempley, for every case for every use.
    he’s just a dumb cunt who got a russian booty painting in his hands.

  32. Okay, and whats next, second german balancing making the tiger II which has the 2nd worst WR of all tenks even more “accurate” (nerfed).

  33. Yuri went too far, but the amount of stupidity in these comments does not really justify anything.

    I understand why Yuri acts like he does when there are bunch of kids in the comment section just doing the opposite, when Yuri hates on German(Europeans) Whatever then all the Europeans just go hate on USSR/Russia for some reasons. Not sure but what exactly does that even justify? Its just stupid, its the kind of stuff that kindergarten kids hate on each others favourite Pokemon.

  36. I studied technical drawing, and I see those tiny differences, but I feel Yuri’s argument is completely misleading. As we know, Russian engineers were not lacking, TBH they had some really good ideas in tank design (sloped armour and such) which were later followed by Germans. Te main difference between Soviet and German machinery were the precision of implementation of those drawings. And as I see, this difference remained the same since then.

    • Sloping of the armor was not russian idea, it’s actually french idea, even during WW1 some french desing had heavily sloping armor. During interwar period many desings from many nations had sloping armor.- like France, Sweden, Soviet Russia/Union, Germany. For example, german Grosstractor had well sloped armor. German engineers knew about sloping, they just decided not do use it (sloping offers advantages, but also has drawbacks)

  37. Oh no, this one german picture isnt as good as this one russian picture. Clearly russians are much better in making pictures. Just like, you know, that one time where my tier X medium bounced on an amx scout? Clearly amx scouts have insane armor! Much generalise, such whine.

    At the end of the day its old tank drawings, dug up from a dusty libary basement. Who gives a? All that these russian articles are telling us is that this Yuri character is a major jackass, even by WG standards.

    ;-)

  38. “Of course, he couldn’t have done it without insults (he does mention we (FTR readers) “masturbate to nazi Hugo Boss uniforms”..”

    Sorry, but there is no competition in style – those uniforms are sexy as hell. He is just jealous :)

  39. Student in mechanical engineering here.

    Conclusion from a quick look over those drawings, I see nothing that would mark the soviet drawing as superior over the german one. The engineer saved himself some needless extra work by doing only a partial cut-away, but that’s it.

    Yuri is either trying to troll people, or he actually believes what he writes and is just one of the countless russians who drank too much of the old propaganda Kool-aid.

  40. Yuri is obviously trolling.

    What mass produced consumer items is Russia known for? I mean the good ones, not the goods produced as part of an X-year plan. They make good tanks? Israelis put plenty of holes in Russian tanks with their own WW2 tanks. Or what about Gulf War I? T72 is not even useful as a speed-bump.

    What can Russia actually produce with competence and in quantity? Bullshit comes to mind…

    • An old slogan from soviet era childrens book (i think it was Alphabet book) comes in mind “Soviet micro electric motors, biggest in the world”.

    • Depending on your definition of a “consumer” (and the gun control laws where you live), the Kalashnikov series of assault rifles counts (as well as all of the various SMGs, sniper rifles, machine guns and other specialist weapons that are derived from the basic mechanism used in the original AK-47.)

  41. my dad can beat your dad up? childish nonsens from a man that clearly schould be able to be more mature….

  42. The german drawing is better.

    I say this because during the time mentioned factory were being bombed and drawings were being lost. The technical drawings alone for the Maus Turret were lost at least once to bombing and had to be redrawn from scratch. The Maus wooden mock up was lost twice. The wooden mock up for the turret at least once.

    The german drawing has the important info needed to do the work related to the part. Anything that fits to that part is likely on another drawing and is thus not important. Plus half drawings have been the way to do things since before the turn of the 20th century so there is no problems there.

    Yuri has “issues” and I will leave it at that.

    PS I collect historical engineering related books from 1900-50.

  43. Next time Yuri Pasholok will say, that German government is total crap compring to Russian, as Vladimir Putin could easily beat Angela Merkel in yudo.

  47. Yuri drew the bottom one himself I assume.
    After reading about WGs false flag actions and sock puppets and his communism fetish I don’t believe any “historical info” by that person anymore.

  48. The numeration of scales on the first [ German ] plan shouldn’t be written like that.. at least I think it shouldn’t xD

    The drawings look good, both of them.. third is a bit messy, but the information about the drawing are better on the ussr drawing imo :P

  50. I am not engineer….

    but honestly those two isnt much different in term of quality of drawing.
    In term of design functionality: no idea the soviet may or may not be better

    The thrid one is obviously a sketch what do you expect?

    Im pretty sure the German would try to destroy this kind of documents when their factory was captured
    dont you the so called historian have consider this fact, that the real complete one is already lost forever

    • 100% agree with you. When a factory is about captured by enemy, they will try to destroy all important documents, leave behind the less one. So normally when they capture the factory, they only found trashs, raw drawings… And he use that to compare with some “re-drawing” by soviet engineers after the war, when they have time and a real tank to mesure?

  51. The russian drawing is a half-section, and regarding that the roadwheel obviously isn’t fully symmetrical, it is incomplete (or flat out wrong for that reason if you wat to be precise)
    Also both drawings serve different puposes. The german one is intended for assembly, while the russian one shows overall dimensions.

    And then of course it begs the question how does one judge the quality of engineering solely based on one technical drawing? This Pasholok guy obviously never visited a university and completely lacks the understanding of academic work. Obviously just an average joe who tries to be super important, because he happened to read some books and stumbled upon some technical drawings, without having any background knowledge whatsoever.

    And the third one is just a sketch. Doing these is common practice when engineering new parts. Don’t know what he’s up to (But again a proof that he doesn’t even remotely understand how engineering works in real life).

    • as a time-served mechanical design engineer, I agree with reuters above.

      Neither drawing indicates anything to do with the quality of the design, only the draftsperson at that time. As you can see, the German draftsperson has used DIN standards to detail tolerancing – the russian version has no mention of such.

      Neither drawing indicates material to be used, or specifies the quality and fit of the bearings. These are ASSEMBLY aids – it’s what (we call) the spanner swingers use to put something together. If you want to see the difference in quality of design, then you really do need detailed piece part drawings, with machining finish details, along with material quality details.

      The final drawing shows “approximate” dimensions to the (what I think is a) towing eye. big deal! Rolled, heat treated, armour plate can (and still is these days) be subject to fairly wide tolerancing, due to the manufacturing process – i.e. the hot rolling. To say that this items’ position is important, is a lie – it mates with nothing else that is produced for the final assembly – it is just a hook.

      This chap is obviously a retarded ttroll of the worst kind – a bluffer that throws information that he neither understands or could replicate in real world conditions. I’ve been inside the Tiger at Bovington. I’ve been inside a T34 there too. The difference in fit-and-finish, and overall Engineering prowess when comparing one to the other is like night and day, to the German’s benefit.

      • Can I also add that the German version looks like it uses a labyrinth-seal to keep dirt out of the bearings – a major factor in bearing life is keeping them clean and greased. The russian version does not seem to have such an advanced system – just rubber seals.

        SS if you need a qualified Mechanical Design Engineer who has worked in aerospace, automation and agricultural industries, please let me know – always happy to check over drawings if need be,

        • We might be able to use you in a research capacity. Send him a msg via the contact button at the top of the page.

          A lot of research on tanks is often buried in old engineering journals.

    • “But again a proof that he doesn’t even remotely understand how engineering works in real life.”

      Which is scary as hell as WG uses him as a “go-to” guy on tanks.

  52. On the one hand we have a nation which is the world leader in automotive industry and has given us brands like BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, etc. On the other hand we have the nation whose best designed and built automobile is a LADA.

    I think we all know which country had the best engineers and designers.

  54. SilentStalker insults him, he insults SS back. I think there is a balance in the force. I like it.

  55. So, comparing the drawing ability of engineers and using that to tell who is better is absolute bullshit.

    Engineering isn’t about how good something looks, it’s about how well something works.

    Basically, if you take two tanks from the same time period, one German, and one Soviet, you would then have to compare them against each other point by point. The most well engineered vehicle would be whichever one does what it was designed to do better than the other.

    Notice that I did not say which one outperforms the other. What you want to look at is what, exactly, the engineers were trying to make, and how close to that goal they came. If both designs perform at a higher level than what the engineers were trying to design, then you would have to look at how much each design exceeded it’s designers purpose.

    Engineering is all about solving problems. So, lets take a problem where two engineers are given a caliber of shell that their design has to be able to bounce, and a weight limit, and both engineers are given a different shell caliber and a different weight limit. Lets say that one engineer has to bounce an 88 mm shell without exceeding 50 tons, and the other has to bounce a 75 mm shell without exceeding 40 tons.

    If both designs bounce the shells they are required to, and the first design weighs 45 tons, while the second weighs 30 tons, the second engineer is better. The reason is because the solution he came up with to the problem that he was given, is better than the solution that the other engineer gave to his problem.

    Lets say, however that the engineers were told that the ability to bounce shells is more important than weight, and the first design can bounce 105 mm shells, while the second can only bounce 90 mm shells. The first engineer would be better, this is because the problem is different, and his design can bounce shells that are 17 mm larger than what he was given, while the second design can only bounce shells 15 mm larger than given.

    Of course, an actual comparison of German engineers and Soviet engineers would be significantly more difficult, and much more complicated, and time consuming, than the hypothetical example I gave above. It would require an awful lot of research, as you would have to find all kinds of documentation regarding the tiniest little details of each design requirement, and you would have to find information regarding those same tiny details with regards to the actual tank that was built, so that a detailed (and accurate) comparison can be made.

  56. From reading all of the expert opinions above I can see that certainly the main question at hand has been comprehensively determined – Yuri is a giant cunt.

  57. I was not aware Yuri the Cunt was a fake engineer on top of being a fake historian (famous mother of the fail Lowe). And since he is neither, how can he tell whether a drawing is of sound quality, or whether it is a legit drawing, to begin with?

    I do not see any identification details on those drawings, and I am not going to take Mr Yuri’s word for it. After all, he is the same guy who concocted stuff like the VK 70.02, WTE-100, and who promotes them as historically accurate.

  58. Intelligent people do not compare apples (German assembly drawing) with oranges (Russian “let us copy this wheel” drawing). If somebody do so… he can end with opposite effect. You will not show up superiority but… your own stupidity.