Doesn't work like that. They designed (or rather under-designed) the gearbox. It wasn't "top of the line" at all, it was shoddy and designed badly. Rushed into production and manufactured without regard to the capabilities they had. They knew it wasn't up to the job and weren't prepared to spend the time/ resources to get it right.
Kill to loss ratio is a poor indicator of efficiency, and one no engineer would accept. As shown: for the price, i.e. resources spent, of one Tiger they could have bought 4 StuGs and got twice as many kills plus a hell of a lot more tactical (and strategic) flexibility.
German King Tiger Tank The German King Tiger Tank was introduced in early 1944 and was the most powerful tank during world war 2. With its powerful 88mm gun and an almost impenetrable front armor, it was one of the most feared weapons of world war 2. Up to the end of the war, the allies had not introduce any effective means to counter the threat. The main strength lies in its armor protection and powerful 88mm gun. Until the introduction of more powerful allied antitank guns, the existing American 75mm equipped on the Shermans and 76mm on the T-34s could not penetrate the Tiger’s armor at ranges over 800 meters. The armor was also very different from that used on other German panzers. http://www.worldwar2aces.com/tiger-tank/ Here is two videos that i liked.. Top Ten WW2 Tanks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZZ34lVcYAA&NR=1&feature=fvwp and a tiger a tiger tank battle WW2 WW2 - Tank Battle in Budapest (Nov 1944) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59VPY3xiUNg
Well back then whatever worked (no matter how crappy) was mass produced without further research into how to make it better. Well America didn't have the resources. We were losing money and almost out until the whole heroes of Iwo Jima war bond drive happened. They actually expanded on this in Flags of Our Fathers. Which although a movie, it was the true story of the events.
There will be a lot more losses and it won't have the psychological effect. It will also require 4x the tank crews.
That would explain why the Sherman (for one) (or even the T-34) were thoroughly reliable then... Or the Pzkpfw IV... or Pzkpfw III (and StuG variants). In short: no. Engineering is engineering. The vehicle/ gearbox combination (of Tiger) was badly designed from the start.
You think? With four StuGs you have four times the flexibility (for outflanking/ pinning and killing) than you do with 1 Tiger. (Actually even that's an underestimate, pace Lanchester). How many do you need to have a psychological effect? Most reported "Tigers" weren't Tigers anyway. "Hey there's one big tank coming towards us" "Hey there's FOUR tanks coming towards us" :shrug:
I was maily refering to the Tiger beingmass produced when because it worked(terribly but nonetheless). However, I stand corrected by your statement. By T-34 you're referring to the Soviet Tank right?
Yes the Soviet one. Mass-produced so effectively they didn't even bother to grind the welds flat (except where absolutely required). The Germans regarded it as shoddy workmanship, but it was actually a cost-saving practice - why spend time grinding welds flat when they don't need to be flat? And so generally reliable that most repairs (that were needed) could be undertaken in the field by the crew.
They are also easier to kill. I know it will have more pieces to fight with and more options for tactics, however large numbers of troops is not the strength of Germany, they have limited amount of men. In some scenarios, numbers can be a liability instead of an advantage.
I think the best way to win a war today is to have a variety, Germany had awsome machines, but they just could not counter the combined different tanks from different nations, something like NATO today. Can you imagine what would be running through the Chinese or who ever with there Armour, facing todays allies with a fleet of leopard 2, and m1 abrahams...Yeah OK, have fun with that. I consider Nato the Most Powerfull millitary force ever produced. if you can call that an empire
I said in certain scenarios, not all scenarios. Numbers only work if one have the logistics and the auxiliaries to support it.
Empire have to be an monarchy. To get technical....the sovereign have to be called Emperor.....and the Emperor have to have subordinate kingdoms and sovereigns.
??? Charge the MGs??? What does that mean? You mean charge the Machine Guns? Of course it is a strategy by definition, just not a very good one for casualty rates.
Granted, but there's four times as many to kill. And although it's four times as many to ship (if you're not defending your own country). 1 Tiger is probably just as difficult to ship as 4 StuGs. The logistics requirement is usually based on the square of vehicle weight, e.g. it costs four times as much (and is four times harder to transport) to support a ~50 tonne tank as it it does a ~25 tonne one (taking the 25 tonner as the baseline vehicle). Plus there will be more bridges and routes available for the lighter vehicle.
When you don't care about the guys doing the charging and you have more than enough available to make it worth while. If there's enough men to charge it, and over-run it, with sufficient left over for other purposes then it's a viable tactic. Providing you're callous enough to do it that way...
