The Superior King Tiger

In message , Eunometic
writes
Chad Irby wrote in message news:5XCnc.137
...
Especially when that mean ground pressure can be
*twice* that of lighter tanks, or similar tanks with wider tracks.

As I recollect it was not quite that big a difference: maybe 30%. The
T34 was champion of all tanks.

Nonsense: the Panther was designed tracks-up as a T-34 killer and
one-for-one was much superior. Trouble was, the Soviets could produce,
field, maintain and supply many more T-34s than the Germans could
Panthers.

And in terms of armour and firepower the T-34 was utterly outmatched by
the Tigers... it was an excellent if austere medium tank, but even the
Soviets felt the need to augment it with the KVs and then the Josef
Stalins.

For shorter distances, due to (once again) higher fuel consumption.
High speed doesn't help if you end up parked waiting for the fuel
trucks. With the lousy German fuel situation by 1945, higher
consumption was the *last* thing they needed.

The Germans were massively outnumbered. In that situation quality is
usually your only hope.

They were outnumbered from choice - they dug the hole and kept on
digging.

A sherman would have been roast chicken to the Soviet armour despite
its relibility since it only approximated the Pzkfw IV.

Which explains why the Soviets rejected the large numbers of Shermans
they were supplied...?

For that matter, they accepted and used significant supplies of
Valentines, which were no great shakes in the armour or armament shakes
but were at least agile and reliable.

In fact the
shermans absurd shape was a result of it having been designed for a
horizontal radial engine: itself a signe of neglecting engine
development.

You realise the Sherman was four inches lower-slung than the Panther?

AFAIK see the air superiority spared the allies lighter armour from
having to deal with the German armour.

Air superiority was hugely overrated as a tank-killer (though effective
at denying them supply and scaring crews into flight).

German armour died when it met Allied armour, or when it met Allied
anti-tank guns. Sometimes it gave good account of itself, occasionally
it managed spectacular results, but mostly the recollection of an
Achilles commander held for stopping counterattacks: you got into
position covering the approaches and camouflaged properly, you let the
Germans get within a thousand yards so the 17pdr was firing battlesight,
and then you could be sure that the first or second shot would be
enough: and you displaced quickly not for fear of return fire, but
because they'd be calling artillery on you.

Defence is always easier than attack and the Germans spent most of the
war being pushed out of defensive position after defensive position.
Their few counterattacks were generally disasters.

Higher reliability with simpler and lower-performing engines gave them a
much more effective force than they would have been able to field.
Really neat tanks that don't work will generally lose to "good" tanks
that run under most conditions and are easier to fix.

Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages.

In other words, yet again failure to cope with the reality of their
situation. If you're short of key strategic materials, do *not* design
vehicles dependent on them. If you're short of POL, don't design
gas-guzzling tanks. If you're outnumbered, remember that quantity is as
important as quality and make sure you have *enough* tanks as well as
*better* tanks.

I don't know how mobile the Sherman was compared to a Tiger or Panther
in rougth tersin.

Better than the Tiger, slightly outmatched by the Panther.

--
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