Sounds like an over-simplification and stereotyping.

Yet broadly true.

You can go look into it yourself if you want.

Problem with applying sloppy production standards and tolerances is that it reduces the operating life of the machine produced, and usually reduces reliability.

Trade that against expected machine life and against the number of machines you pump out.

It was also heavier than most panzers, but I’m not sure the T-34 was so mechanically simpler than a typical panzer?

Yeah, there was significantly less precision used in its build.

Here is an example – in the cold Russian winter, the German Panzer engines froze solid while the Soviet ones could start.

Why?

Because of the tolerance of the pistons within the cylinder block. The Germans had such small gaps, so freezing moisture could lock it solid. The Soviets pistons were so much looser fitting (due to lower manufacturing tolerances) that they didn’t freeze.

Of course, the downside is less power (due to less compression) from the Soviet engine when both are running… but a running engine beats a frozen one any day.

Cost was certainly part of it.

You say this.

The Soviets supposedly realised they could produce far more T-34s than the IS, which was one reason why such a small (tiny) proportion of their fleet were heavy tanks.

Then this.

The basic philosophy, attributed to Stalin: “quantity has a quality all its own”.

Followed by this.

Now; the first comment may be true. The second is almost certainly true – but not for the reasons you infer – they could produce more in the same time.

The 3rd comment is a bit of a mis-representation. The T34 could go toe-to-toe with any Nazi tank. It was not as if they were pumping out sh!tty Shermans and (therefore) giving their troops inadequate tools for the job.

But, as the F-35 will be cheaper (on a puchasing power parity basis for the air forces involved)

Can this be said with any certainty? :confused:

To achieve a demanded level of system-integration all the related software has to be written new, tested and certificated in the end.

Not necessarily.

It depends how good they were when they did the system interfaces on the Su-35.

If they defined a common standard (which is an incredibly hard thing to do), with consistent parameters, then the same sensor software can work with a different controller (and visa versa).

Also, the Swedish model is an excellent one to follow – decouple weapons systems from safety critical flight systems. So you can upgrade one without having to re-certify the other.

There is no need for your radar controller to exist on the same network as your oyxgen controller (to pick one example).

So this is an unreasonable thread?

Nah – just don’t expect much of substance to come out of it! 🙂

But the speculation and arguments that result should be good fun 😀

Switzerland is very unlikely to find itself in a scenario where the Americans are going to block parts.

Indeed.

Even aside from that.

How many murmurings of Swiss banks stopping dealing with and freezing the assets of US businesses and individuals would it take before any US resistance to a particular Swiss action (given it’s hardly going to be an invasion of Florida or similar) dries up?

Not long I would think.