2/26    Panzer/Tiger > T34 > Sherman
        \_ Thank you for that well-reasoned piece of historical analysis.
           \_ I'm encouraging discussion.
              \_ Each individual tank was better, but because the Sherman
                 was mass produced in a way the Panzer was not, it could
                 be produced in 5X quantities. Was the Panzer better than
                 5 Sherman's?
                 \_ you are right. one on one, Panzer > Shermans.
                    But Shermans were mass-produced and tactics had to change.
                    Which tank would you rather be in?
                    \_ None.  They were all death traps.
                    \_ I would prefer to be in a Panther. Good gun,
                       good mobility, reliable. I hear some are still
                       in use today in Africa.
                    \_ The Germans called Shermans "Tommycookers" because they
                       easily caught fire.  There are documented cases of a
                       Tiger decimating multiple Shermans, without retaliation
                       (Sherman shells just bounced off).  America placed
                       production over R&D as a priority for their tank
                       program in the 30s.  This unfortunate oversight cost
                       many American lives early in 1944.  It took almost a
                       year for American tanks to become useful (they were
                       never very good in WWII).  Americans won their battles
                       with excellent supplies, overwhelming air superiority,
                       and general Patton, not with tanks.  -- ilyas
                       never very good in WWII). -- ilyas
        \_ What was that gianormous German tank that they only built a few of?
           \_ Maus.  It was far bigger than the King Tiger, but never saw
              service.  Even King Tigers (or even normal Tigers) were often
              used as stationary artillery by the retreating German forces.
              Incidentally, while the Panther was a better tank than the T-34,
              it had two major problems.  One was the much greater complexity,
              which made it difficult to repair damaged Panthers (or keep
              undamaged ones operational).  Another was
              the relatively narrow tracks (compared to the wide T-34 tracks)
              which made mobility on poor roads in Russia much much worse.
              The Panther was also very expensive and lavishly made.  By the
              time it entered service, Germany's priority should have been
              stamping out as many tanks as possible, as cheaply and quickly
              as possible, like the Russians were doing.
              T-34 was the better tank, per unit of resource.
                -- ilyas
           \_ King Tiger? They made 485 of them. They were basically
              unstoppable until they ran out of fuel.
              \_ Why?  Longer range?
                 \_ They had really thick sloped armor and a gun that
                    could take out any other tank at a range of 2km.
                    But even point blank, the Sherman could just not
                    penetrate the King Tiger armor. The best the
                    allies could hope to do was detrack it.
           \_ Maybe you mean The Maus, that they only made two prototypes
              of. They were 180 Tons and never saw combat.
           \_ there was the Tiger I and the Tiger II (King Tiger)