Replies

I was thinking along those same lines. In WW II the Germans had great tanks. But they were expensive, and complicated. The US and Soviet tanks were simpler and cheaper, and so were much easier to mass-produce. Allied quantity beat Axis quality.

It seems that the US has gone over to the old German model. Produce only a few high-quality, expensive toys. Better not lose even one of those toys.

In WW II the Germans had great tanks. But they were expensive, and complicated.

The German tanks had great guns & crew space. Some had good mobility. Some had good armor arrangements. But by the end of the war the quality of the engines and transmissions was crap. Many of their heavy tanks had gotten so overweight that they’d break down or throw a track if maneuvered too aggressively (which is kind of what a tank is for).

Turns out the “Best Tank” is the one you have.

Another questionable stat was “It takes 5 Shermans to knock out a Tiger”. Leaving aside how many times US Shermans actually were confronted by a Tiger tank (there weren’t very many of them) the reason the number is 5 is because Shermans operated in Platoons whereas a lone German tank might be dug into an ambush position without other supporting tanks. Hence, 5 to 1.

“The US and Soviet tanks were simpler and cheaper, and so were much easier to mass-produce. Allied quantity beat Axis quality.”

The US tanks had to be designed to load onto a ship, cross the stormy Atlantic and be unloaded. Logistics demanded a smaller, lighter tank that ended up being more nimble than anything the Germans had.

The Russians had to design their tanks so the average uneducated peasant could be trained to not only drive and fight one but also repair one. Simplicity was the key for the Russians.