Worf
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 5,212
- Location
- Troy, New York, USA
The fact that American, British, Canadian and Free French tankers had to fight German advisories in heavy tanks speaks to their bravery, but lets not fall for the prevailing myths perpetuated by "panzerphiles." The German army was not a mechanized juggernaut mounted in armored behemoths. 75% of German forces on the Eastern Front relied on horses or shoe leather for transport. As late as 1944, only slightly less than half of German units deployed to Western Europe were motorized, mechanized, or armored formations.
Was the Tiger I a good tank? Sure, it was great! But the Germans built less that 1,400 of them over its two-year production run! The Tiger II? Less than 500 were ever built. The Panther? About 6,000 were built, but they were so mechanically unreliable that Panther formations were routinely under strength due to breakdowns. As a comparison, the combined production for run M4 Sherman variants produced from 1942 until the end of the war was just under 50,000 units! In the Sherman, you had exactly what it was designed to be: a rugged, reliable, nimble, infantry support tank.
Same could be said of the T-34. But I think its fair to say that their kill to loss ratio was outstanding, plus in either a defensive or offensive roll they were handled superbly. I agree with you it took incredible courage to take on the Wermacht in ANY of the allied tanks right up until the end of the war. All I'm saying is that if they'd put as much ingenuity and forethought into the tanks as they did the fighters or the bombers the losses might not have been so severe. Too me it seems the Nazis were ALWAYS trying to make a better more effective tank while the allies seemed to put their talents elsewhere... but in the end it mattered little. As on Panzer commander ruefully said after the war.
"Our tanks were 10 times better than yours... problem is you always had 11."
Worf