Re: Sherman vs Tiger (was: Starting to build a tank) [TANKS]

[Steve Edwards <sedwards-at-awger.net>]

jon s kowitz wrote:

>
>  I don't think they're are many (any?) driving Tigers left.  Most were 
> destroyed by the allies at the end of the war.


I was under the impression that the Bovington Tiger was mobile, or had 
been mobile until they blew the engine -- but maybe they got it with a 
blown engine, and then rebuilt it. Anyway, even if it is mobile, I don't 
expect it moves a whole lot.

>   The Tiger held a clear advantage over the Sherman that no amount of 
> numbers could help until the Sherman got the "lazy-8" tracks which 
> gave it the mobility to really take advantage of the Sherman's 
> superior numbers.  


The Sherman did have a few tricks up it's sleeve... like a gun 
stabilizer. It was also reliable, and maintainable. One-on-one it was no 
match for a Tiger, but it was never intended to go one-on-one with 
another tank.

> On another note, you're not exactly comparing apples to apples, the 
> Sherman is a medium tank and the Tiger is a heavy tank (kind of like 
> trying to compare an M1 with an M551).


It's what was there... and it's what was on the show. :)

>   The Tiger, while a very impressive machine, may very well have been 
> a factor in causing the Germans to lose the war.  By diverting huge 
> amounts of resources away from other types they reduced the numbers of 
> vehicles available overall.   My optinion is that they should've 
> improved the Pzkw IVG and build a s$^tload of them instead of building 
> three types of tanks, one of which was horribly unreliable (Pzkw V) 
> and one of which was never available in sufficient numbers to actually 
> equip all of the units with.


That's one of those great "what the ----?!?" questions, right up there 
with "Why hang bombs on jet interceptor?"

I've heard it said that they could have built three Pzkpfw IVs for the 
price of one Tiger. So, if you figure that a Tiger is three times as 
effective as a Pzkpfw IV then you're breaking even, except that three 
tanks can be in three places at the same time while a single Tiger can 
only be right here (or over there). And I don't know how the fuel 
consumption and  maintenance would skew things, but I don't think it 
would be in the Tiger's favor.

The Pzkpfw IV was already a dead-end with the F, resources should have 
been expended on the Panther instead of the King Tiger. This is almost 
directly comparable to the Bf109 vs Fw190 vs Me262 story (which turned 
out pretty much the same way).

> On the Sherman side, I have absolutely no idea why in the hell they 
> never followed suit with the Brits "Sherman III" and fitted them with 
> diesel engines.  Damn "Ronsins"...


For the same reason we didn't adopt the 17pdr as the standard gun: "Not 
invented here."

Then again... Packard was building Rolls Royce Merlins under license to 
install into the Mustangs, so it's not like there wasn't a precedent.

    - Steve "what caliber is a 17pdr, anyway?" Edwards