He's arguing that "mistakes" in a creation (as represented by German armour) are not proof that it was NOT designed?
I don't know, maybe God could have though of a better use for prototype Tiger tank hulls than to mount an 88 on them and use them as ersatz giant tank-hunters rather than throwing them away. Seems Mr Sarfati isn't as familiar with his subject as he needs to be to use the analogies he does.
The Elefant or Ferdinand wasn't originally designed at all, it was simply a case of recycling the parts left over from another project: 100 spare Porsche prototypes for the Tiger 1. The Porsche Tiger was longer than the Henschel variant, and had the turret situated so far forward that it had difficulty operating in enclosed areas. The long barrel had a tendency to get jammed into the floor when negotiating ditches, and was so displaced because the engine took up so much room in the hull. Only one saw combat, as a command tank for its converted brethen. The conversion was mostly an armoured superstructure containing a long-barrelled 88, and extra 100mm plates bolted on to various key points. The Ferdinand became the Elefant after certain extras were added ( a machine gun for example)
"Functionality" problems due to increased weight didn't seem to prevent Ferdinands and Elefants from getting one of the highest kill ratios of the war either. Likewise, increased armour weight wasn't the reason it broke down so often (an over-complex engine was), so its a little disingenuous for Sarfati to imply as much. In fact the Elefant is just a bigger take on the Stug or "assault guns" he mentions. Whilst the Sturmgeschutz (Stug) did exist as a deliberately designed item, they were designed to be cheap and cheerful. The fact that they happened to be so effective due to low profile, crew comforts etc was merely a side-effect of that cost-cutting. The Germans were proficient at taking any armoured hull and finding a use for it (21st panzer was almost entirely equipped with knocked-off french armour) but most, if not all of the advantages of these conversions were unplanned. "Design Flaws" were not neccesarily mistakes but merely unavoidable occurences based on what was being used. (For example, the long 88 is HUGE and so the Elefant HAD to have a HUGE superstructure to hold it.
Vertical armour plates are not a "design flaw". Welding sloped armor plate is MUCH harder than dovetailing flat plates.. Mass producing flame cut beveled armor plate is a difficult process, and requires advanced tooling and weld electrodes that will penetrate the armor plate and fuse the base metal. The Russians had a breakthrough with this concept first, and only after studying Russian armour was Germany able to replicate it in the Panther/Tiger 11. The "flaw" is not in the design on vertically armoured vehicles, many of which were outstanding designs of that type, but in the woeful lack of research and development in most powers between the wars.
Ironically, Germans tanks (especially the Panther variants) became cheaper and less technical, as the T-34 became MORE complex and technical to overcome its own not inconsiderable design flaws (one or two of which WERE deliberate, such as the terrible crew comfort.)
Inaccuracy aside, I'm not sure how trying to prove that people design stuff that doesn't work very well proves that there is a god. An infallible creator would surely KNOW that sloped armour on ducks is fail before he designs it?
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
06 Jun 2010, 5:26 am
