In message , robert
arndt writes
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

Hence the way it won the war...?

If it's too heavy, too unreliable, too thirsty and too hard to produce,
it's a loser even if the handful that make it into combat are
individually dangerous.

Key weakness for the Tiger series was engine hp and transmission
problems; even so, they were introduced at at time of round-the-clock
Allied bombing, fuel shortages, lack of properly trained crews, and
outnumbered 11-to-1 in armor.

A *good* design would have taken more account of those problems, rather
than merely wishing them away. Indeed, the Tiger II comes under the
heading of "losing" or "failed" designs precisely because it failed to
cope with the reality of its situation.

There is NO DOUBT that if they had sufficient
numbers even at that late stage of the war the Tigers (along with the
equally impressive Panther) would have decimated Allied armor.

And if a bull had an udder it would be a cow. But precisely because the
Tiger II was a heavy, complex, expensive and thirsty beast, it couldn't
be built in numbers, moved to the fight, or kept in fuel and ammo while
fighting.

You guys that keep attacking German technology conveniently "forget"
how one nation layed Europe and Russia to waste and built incredible
machines under the harshest conditions at a time when everyone knew
the war was lost.

And despite those incredible machines, they still lost the war. Funny,
that.

IMO, Germany has continued the fine tradition with the Leo I and II
series. They are highly successful and increasingly the choice as
Europe's premiere MBT. Get over it.

Oh, please. Your next paragraph suggests that these German tanks are
barely superior to Soviet-era armour.

And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.

I'll take that fight if I have to. I'll certainly take proven equipment
in experienced hands over a force that can't afford to buy new kit,
can't afford to pay its troops and can't maintain what it has.

And if you want a real test of Russian armour, send them to take
Washington DC and see if *that* passes the giggle test. If you rely on
"well, the Russian tanks might be okay when they're on home ground
fighting outside their capital city with total air supremacy" then they
aren't really that good, are they?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk