German tank superiority!?

[Secret Master]

I want to pull my hair out with ANOTHER argument over which tank is better. Here's a clue. The best tank was the one that had a better crew, was lucky and had other things going for them.

A tank fight is WAY more then the stats listed for gun and armor. It doesn't happen in a lab or gun range but on a battlefield with trees, hills, houses, smoke, and lots of other things going on like artillery, infantry and you name it.

So what if tank A can penetrate at 1000 yards while tank B can only do it at say 400. If tank A can't see tank B because of smoke or their attention is elsewhere then tank B can get to that 400 yards and now both are EQUAL and first shot wins.

I both agree with you and disagree with you.

First of all, let's be clear that crewing an armored vehicle is a complicated, intense task. Highly trained crews that know how to react properly when under fire are absolutely vital. Give me a good tank crew in a Sherman over a group of people who have never worked a tank before trying to drive an Abrams any day. The Sherman might actually accomplish something, while the incompetent crew in the Abrams drives it into a ditch, lose a tread, and bail out of the vehicle the moment someone sprays it with small arms fire because they are frightened. The Abrams technological advantage over the Sherman is irrelevant in this case

But once crews reach a certain skill, the value of technology increases in the equation. A large technological gap, such as the inferior tank not even having a gun capable of penetrating any armor on the opposing tank, becomes a big problem when crew skills are closer together. A speed advantage, an armor advantage, a gun advantage, or even a fuel advantage may not matter in all fights, but when thousands of tanks are involved in a six month campaign, the small advantages start adding up. 100 fewer tank losses over a six month period might make a real difference when fighting the war even if you produced 5000 tanks in that same six month period. When you factor in losing fewer crews because you lost fewer tanks, the benefits further pile up.

But in the hands of an even better crew, the technologically superior tank can truly perform well over its inferior colleagues. The analogy I like to use is Lance Armstrong (bear with me here). If I wanted to be a world class cyclist, I could just use the same cycling gear he used and run the same rule-breaking drug regimen. But I would still suck. Why? Because only in the hands of a master do some of the engineering tweaks and physiological tweaks from the doping make a real difference. You have to be at a certain level of skill to truly make the equipment shine. And in the hands of a skilled user, an extra 20 mm of armor or an extra 2 kph or an extra 10 kilometers of fuel or a higher muzzle velocity can be deadly. In game terms, I don't know how to render this properly without resorting to bizarrely complicated math. But I wouldn't want a game to completely ignore the technological impact of better tanks, even as I think that crew quality amplifies the technological impact substantially. HOI3 just does this by making tech equal higher unit stats, while doctrines and training modify combat in other ways. It's an okay system, but it does tend to promote and cater to a "But the Tiger/Sherman/Cromwell/T-34 was better!" mentality.

Where I think you have an even better point to make is in operational terms. I think Rommel and Guderian could have had a similar performance record in the Battle of France if they had worse tanks. They were playing the division/corps game very well against their opponents. Doctrine and initiative beat out French technical knowledge of tanks hands down.

 

[Darkrenown]

It's not a slight difference in armor thickness between the M26 Pershing and Tiger II that can reasonably be brushed aside and ignored. The Tiger II's armor is generally at least 2-inches thicker in most places, with the turret of the Pershing being especially weaker in comparison. I am curious how shortages of rare materials effect Germany in HoI4, but I don't think it's relevant to where tanks should be placed on the American Tank Tech tree.

You keep bringing this back to the HoI tech trees, I guess that's understandable seeing as this is the HoI forum, but to be clear: I'm comparing the actual tanks here in reply to your statement that a KT would be the clear winner over a Pershing. I'm not saying they had similar armour, I'm saying the KT didn't have enough armour to be immune to the 90mm gun, so since each tank could penetrate the other, armour thickness isn't that relevant should the two fight. I'm additionally doubting how effective the KT's armour really was given it's quality issues - 2 extra inches sounds great, but it's no good if it's soft and floppy.

In combat that the 90mm MG M3 rarely had access to HVAP ammo. I hope that in HoI4 the American tanks are not OP with an ahistorical supply of HVAP, unless they spend more resources to achieve this than they did historically.

While the Americans as a whole had a limited HVAP supply, the Pershings came to the war fairly late, when HVAP was becoming more common, and in limited numbers which would make it easier to supply each of them with a few rounds. While I do not have a source to prove this at hand, I would be incredibly surprised if the US didn't ensure their "super tanks" had a stock of the good ammo. Additionally, my sources showed the 90mm to have comparable penetration with capped AP shells, not just HVAP. Finally, again, I am talking about the real tanks, not the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90_mm_Gun_M1/M2/M3

Because the standard fifteen-and-a-half foot long M3 90mm main tank gun proved incapable of penetrating the heaviest frontal armor of the heaviest German tanks such as the Tiger B or King Tiger tanks, a number of improved versions of the M3 were developed, including the T14 which included a standard muzzle brake and the T15 series. The 21-foot long T15E1 90mm main gun fired AP T43 shot with an initial muzzle velocity of about 975 m (3,199 ft) per second, later increased to 1,143 m (3,750 ft) per second. Two M26A1E2 "Super Pershing" tanks were equipped with T15-series 90mm main guns in March 1945. One of these tanks, equipped with a 90mm caliber T15E1 high-velocity gun firing a 1,143 m (3,750 ft) AP shot made it to the European Theater of Operations and was assigned to the 3rd Armored Division for the purpose of destroying King Tiger and other heavily armored German tanks. This gun could penetrate 8.5 in (220 mm) of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) at a range of 1,000 yd (914 m) against armor angled at 30 degrees. At a range of 100 yd (91 m), it could penetrate 13 in (330 mm) of RHA angled sloped at 30 degrees

I do not think it is logical that this solitary "Super-Pershing", the only one of it's kind and specialized be an Anti-Heavy Armor platform, should be the standard to which all Pershing tanks are balanced. Rather the US Army recognized that this "Super-Pershing" was at the limit of it's capabilities and that a new tank was required to be the American answer to the Tiger II.

I am not talking about the Super Pershing. I'm not sure if you thought I was thinking of the Super Pershing supposedly taking out a KT at Dassau, but that didn't actually happen.

You quote is kinda strange though "Because the standard fifteen-and-a-half foot long M3 90mm main tank gun proved incapable of penetrating the heaviest frontal armor of the heaviest German tanks such as the Tiger B or King Tiger tanks, a number of improved versions of the M3 were developed, including the T14 which included a standard muzzle brake and the T15 series." It seems to think the Tiger B and the King Tiger are two different tanks. That aside, it doesn't actually mention penetration numbers for the M3 - just that it was "incapable of penetrating the heaviest frontal armor of the heaviest German tanks" - which is wrong according to the "OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ORDNANCE" quote I posted previously: "SHOT, FIXED, H.V., A.P.-T., 90mm
...
This shot will penetrate all plates of the German Pz Kpfw V "Panther" and "King Tiger" Tanks. IT WILL DEFEAT THE GLACIS PLATE OF THE "PANTHER" AT RANGES UP TO 450 YARDS AND OF THE "KING TIGER" AT 100 YARDS RANGE. UP TO RANGES OF 800 YARDS THE SHOT WILL PENETRATE THE GUN MANTLET AND TURRET FRONT OF BOTH THE "PANTHER" AND "KING TIGER" TANKS." - Only up to 100 yards sure, but wrong is wrong, and your quote does point out the T15E1's penetration values at 100 yards so it's not like it's skipping short ranges as irrelevant. Although even if if you accept the M3 couldn't penetrate the glacis of a KT, it's not like that's the only place you can shoot a tank frontally and tanks don't have to be penetrated to be knocked out.

Since my sources showing they had similar penetration and come from US army hand books and Soviet firing tests, while your source saying the M3 gun was "inferior" without showing what penetration values it's using is a wiki article sourcing a book I don't have access to to see what it's actually basing that on, I still feel comfortable saying the two guns were comparable.

 

[Darkrenown]

There where huge problems with gears, suspension and other things on the Panther and Tigers. The King Tiger also had inferior armor due to lack of essential raw materials and lack in knowledge in producing armor plating. I can't find the links now, but there are many reports about catastrophic failure in the KT armor. Hit by allied AT weapons, chunks of the armor on the inside would be shattered inside of the tank, killing the crew. Even if the AT round did not penetrate the hull, the result was devastating.

I meant to reply to this earlier, but talking about armour again reminded me to do so:
Pics of big cats hit by big guns.
British guns vs German tanks.
On German armour (There's a link to two rather technical papers from the US's Watertown arsenal laboratory at the end of this one, for people interested).

 

[sapper66]

Typically in armored warfare, he you can hit their target the quickest usually is the victor.

Additionally, there is a huge misconception with regard to armor penetration and taking out one's enemy. In the movies you get nice fireballs etc. However, you only really need to penetrate only most of the way through the armor to have positive effect. The reason is due to spalling of the interior portion of the armor due to the kenetic impact. This slapping is essentially flying schrapnell in the interior of the armored vehicle Nd causes significant to the meatbags inside. Additionally this spalling schrapnel also can takeout engine and hydraukic components turing the nice fighting machine into a bg metal box.

This is one reason that dead tanks are fired upon multiple addtional time as their crews cannot always tell if there was positive effect.


Food for though in RL.

 

[Jamey]

I meant to reply to this earlier, but talking about armour again reminded me to do so:
Pics of big cats hit by big guns.
British guns vs German tanks.
On German armour (There's a link to two rather technical papers from the US's Watertown arsenal laboratory at the end of this one, for people interested).

I've been enjoying the links you've been posting. Very informative. It makes it clear how much research goes into a game like HOI4.

 

[Darkrenown]

^^^ A lot of this is actually far too detailed to matter for HoI4, but it's still nice to know, I think.

I both agree with you and disagree with you.

First of all, let's be clear that crewing an armored vehicle is a complicated, intense task. Highly trained crews that know how to react properly when under fire are absolutely vital. Give me a good tank crew in a Sherman over a group of people who have never worked a tank before trying to drive an Abrams any day. The Sherman might actually accomplish something, while the incompetent crew in the Abrams drives it into a ditch, lose a tread, and bail out of the vehicle the moment someone sprays it with small arms fire because they are frightened. The Abrams technological advantage over the Sherman is irrelevant in this case

But once crews reach a certain skill, the value of technology increases in the equation. A large technological gap, such as the inferior tank not even having a gun capable of penetrating any armor on the opposing tank, becomes a big problem when crew skills are closer together. A speed advantage, an armor advantage, a gun advantage, or even a fuel advantage may not matter in all fights, but when thousands of tanks are involved in a six month campaign, the small advantages start adding up. 100 fewer tank losses over a six month period might make a real difference when fighting the war even if you produced 5000 tanks in that same six month period. When you factor in losing fewer crews because you lost fewer tanks, the benefits further pile up.

But in the hands of an even better crew, the technologically superior tank can truly perform well over its inferior colleagues. The analogy I like to use is Lance Armstrong (bear with me here). If I wanted to be a world class cyclist, I could just use the same cycling gear he used and run the same rule-breaking drug regimen. But I would still suck. Why? Because only in the hands of a master do some of the engineering tweaks and physiological tweaks from the doping make a real difference. You have to be at a certain level of skill to truly make the equipment shine. And in the hands of a skilled user, an extra 20 mm of armor or an extra 2 kph or an extra 10 kilometers of fuel or a higher muzzle velocity can be deadly. In game terms, I don't know how to render this properly without resorting to bizarrely complicated math. But I wouldn't want a game to completely ignore the technological impact of better tanks, even as I think that crew quality amplifies the technological impact substantially. HOI3 just does this by making tech equal higher unit stats, while doctrines and training modify combat in other ways. It's an okay system, but it does tend to promote and cater to a "But the Tiger/Sherman/Cromwell/T-34 was better!" mentality.

Where I think you have an even better point to make is in operational terms. I think Rommel and Guderian could have had a similar performance record in the Battle of France if they had worse tanks. They were playing the division/corps game very well against their opponents. Doctrine and initiative beat out French technical knowledge of tanks hands down.

Adding my own thoughts: Crew skill is certainly a huge factor, but the most important thing in tank vs tank combat is firing and hitting first - your don't even necessary have to penetrate, just hitting the other guy has effects ranging from scaring them into making a wrong move or fighting less effectively, through making them withdraw because they are taking fire, through making them bail out, to killing the crew with spalling or concussion effects. As mentioned, crew skill is a huge factor in this, but so is attacking vs defending, and the basic characteristics of your tank. E.g. a bad crew might stay buttoned up and not spot enemy tanks and then bail out as soon as someone says boo at them, but in another example, if two tanks have equally skilled crews and see each other at the same time, the tank whose gun can be aimed and fired first has a large advantage, finally a light tank with a comparatively tiny gun and paper-thin armour could ruin the day of just about any WWII medium or heavy tank that rolled by exposing their sides/rear to them.

Of course, most that that is still relatively unimportant, because tank vs tank combat was actually a fairly uncommon thing for WWII tanks to engage in - the vast majority of the time they'd be fighting against infantry, bunkers, and AT guns, or simply moving to places the enemy would find highly inconvenient. In these cases a balance of armour, mobility/reliability/fuel-efficiency/maintainability, and HE shell lobbing/Machinegunning ability become vital.

Finally, you need to actually have enough tanks to be useful, in the right places, so strategic concerns such as ease of production + upkeep are paramount (although not absolute - it of course does you no good to make thousands of useless tanks).

Edit: I wander off to look at books for 30m and sapper has pre-empted me

 

[Secret Master]

Of course, most that that is still relatively unimportant, because tank vs tank combat was actually a fairly uncommon thing for WWII tanks to engage in - the vast majority of the time they'd be fighting against infantry, bunkers, and AT guns, or simply moving to places the enemy would find highly inconvenient. In these cases a balance of armour, mobility/reliability/fuel-efficiency/maintainability, and HE shell lobbing/Machinegunning ability become vital.

This is actually an important point.

Finally, you need to actually have enough tanks to be useful, in the right places, so strategic concerns such as ease of production + upkeep are paramount (although not absolute - it of course does you no good to make thousands of useless tanks).

Ironically, I think HOI3 got this right in TFH even in its older division set up. Spreading out the CA bonus and lack of penetration penalties so that you can actually apply them to a significant number of combats and apply enough concentration of force for key offensives was more important that just the raw number of HARM you could spam.

 

[Corelli]

I think the big thing that is overlooked is that it was a team effort with armored divisions. You had to have the right balance of artillery, mobile infantry, AT guns, support staff and training. It wasn't just comparing a tank vs a tank.

All sides tinkered with armor division make up. Sometimes there were too many tanks and not enough infantry. Sometimes the infantry couldn't keep up, even if they were in trucks as trucks are easily destroyed near the front (soft skinned).

And sure German tanks had thick armor but that didn't matter much when planes with rockets could hit them with impunity (attacking the thinly armored topside).

For game purposes I am hoping we continue to see armor hardness vs penetration power in research and division make up. Go to war with heavy tanks armed with guns good only against infantry and lightly armored vehicles and you are going to get creamed by a division made up of next generation AT guns with at least some mobility.

Anyway, back to the loud argument over which tank was "best".

 

[dav77-b]

Are there some strategic effetcs to simulate the lack of rare ressources to make proper steel ( too small to be considers in production, but important enough as strategic effect) ? So if germany does not get access to the strategic ressources it gets a amor debuff.

 

[f1nalstand17]

How am I ignoring armour when I specifically mentioned armour? " the KT was in theory more heavily armoured but it was also a larger target and the quality of its armour was questionable"

Well that was primarily due to Germany running out of Molybdenum as the war progressed, so why can't the KT in this hypothetical scenario not have its proper armor? Just in case we have some people here that believe Germany's access to rare materials in the war was the same throughout (due to the British blockade) let me provide some sources:

Whether these were truly due to uneven quality of the armor (the Germans were adjusting the alloy content of their plates to compensate for shortages of some metals), or were due to the degradation of plates that were struck by multiple projectiles in close proximity is hard to asses.

That was in reference to the Panther trials by the US Army at Isgny. The article can be found here.

And of course, the oft quoted Battlefield.ru article "Was the Tiger really King?" mentions how the Russian's noticed and documented this with their trials of the King Tiger's at Kubinka as well:

"evident gradual decline in the quantity of molybdenum (M) in the German T-VI and T-V tanks, and a complete absence in the T-VIB. The reason for replacing one element (M) with another (V, vanadium) must obviously be sought in the exhaustion of their on-hand reserves and the loss of those bases supplying Germany with molybdenum. Low malleability appears to be characteristic of the "Tiger-B's" armor. An advantage of domestic armor, as is well-known, is its high malleability; German armor has fewer alloys and is therefore significantly less malleably."

 

[Dark Jakkaru]

If I may chime into this conversation to raise up a point that isn't exactly explained all that much when talking about tank design. Also, I'm not trying to single out a few individuals as this is mainly aimed generically so please don't take it personally.

For starters, the technical know-how about the three key things when discussing armor is usually Firepower, Mobility, and Armor are really only technical aspects of a vehicle and nothing more. Crew skill and training normally modifies or changes how such a blend works in a particular design and generally this is what judges whether someone feels a particular design is better than another and weights this over the lifetime of the said vehicle's performance. But, none of those analysis, debates, or arguments at large never see the wider picture about the particular intent behind the design or really elaborate on the collaborative effort design work usually entails when making such a complicated vehicle as a tank. More over, we have even less real understanding of the actual design work with regards to tank evolution in particular as much of the real details we focus on technically based only on the 3 core things over everything else about the vehicle. These technical blinders only hinder real analysis in the long run as that also requires the person doing the research to have or be well attuned to such technical details to point it out and explain in "layman's terms" things that can be buried in technical jargon. Sometimes, technical people are not very well versed to explain things plainly to folks so that also is going to hinder the knowledge discovery process.

That being said, we are getting a little bit better as time goes on people build off of the work of others and we can get better insight to design such as the Panther's final drive or other such technical information that wasn't easily obtainable if we only focused on 3 core things and nothing else. But, that is not exactly the point I was trying to make. It's really about making a pause and trying to understand why a particular design was made the way it is and what ultimately it is based off of. So, in terms of tanks this is easy. Every tank in the world will fail regardless if the development team achieved perfect Firepower/Mobility/Armor ratios and have the best crew in the world manning the tank if this one item between the two doesn't work.

This item is really a "space" where the technical details and human interaction link up and is the fighting compartment as we generally refer to this space today. This is what made Heavy Tanks post war so untenable to have as the crews in the fighting compartment have an enormous burden when the munition required two men to load during front line combat operations and you only have a handful of other folks to substitute just to be able to fight back if one or both of the loaders gets injured. This is also what separates a 155mm armored howitzer from a 120-125mm tank as the fighting compartment within a Paladin is designed to be serviced in a way the crew's skill can make the best use of it rather than compared to a tank where the compartment is designed differently to make best skill of the crew normally being much closer to combat fulfilling a different role. On the surface, we can see technically the Paladin could knock out tanks just as effectively with it's gun but this isn't the design intent behind the vehicle and we're not adding any value to gaining better knowledge on the subject if we go back and forth between just technical information or skill and not both where it matters.

Understanding design goes a long way to explaining why the technical teams of very intelligent folks in Germany continued to design tanks generally not as sloped as the much vaunted T-34 going from the late 30s into the 40s (not so much after Barbarossa). But, it doesn't do any justice in terms of explaining the designs behind such vehicles if we only measure slop angles to understanding a successful designs. The Panzer III was a particularly successful machine in terms of fighting compartment as it made best use of all 5 men and not just 3 in the turret. This is because the fighting compartment was accessible to all position by the crew if someone was injured and you needed a replacement. Also, we can examine the Russians as their teams are also made up of very intelligent folks appeared to have ditched some key things we are told were so great from such tanks like the T-34 (heavily sloped armor) and never seem to properly explain the design evolution into the T-54 that doesn't express such extremes of sloped design with generally flat sided hull, sloped front hull, and circular turret. If we follow the fighting compartment we get a clearer picture behind the designs of such vehicles that go a long way in determining the effectiveness of the designs in question and cannot be over stated because the fighting compartment is the space where the magic happens and that is generally dictated by design.

After all, a point was made that modern tank designs seemingly have thrown away the much promoted value of slopes for very flat shaped turrets. All I ask the viewer take a time out and try to figure out why modern tank designs made up of a great many very technical folks would seemingly do something like that and follow your own research there for knowledge discovery. I hope this helps in some way.

 

[keynes2.0]

^Good post. Very interesting.

 

[1alexey]

Typically in armored warfare, he you can hit their target the quickest usually is the victor.

Additionally, there is a huge misconception with regard to armor penetration and taking out one's enemy. In the movies you get nice fireballs etc. However, you only really need to penetrate only most of the way through the armor to have positive effect. The reason is due to spalling of the interior portion of the armor due to the kenetic impact. This slapping is essentially flying schrapnell in the interior of the armored vehicle Nd causes significant to the meatbags inside. Additionally this spalling schrapnel also can takeout engine and hydraukic components turing the nice fighting machine into a bg metal box.

This is one reason that dead tanks are fired upon multiple addtional time as their crews cannot always tell if there was positive effect.


Food for though in RL.

But the reverse was also often true. Penetration doesn`t necessarily destroys or incapacitates enemy tank, especially if it`s a penetration from AT rifle, simply solid shell or especially APCR that tended to be way smaller then the caliber of the shell.

Of course, most that that is still relatively unimportant, because tank vs tank combat was actually a fairly uncommon thing for WWII tanks to engage in - the vast majority of the time they'd be fighting against infantry, bunkers, and AT guns, or simply moving to places the enemy would find highly inconvenient. In these cases a balance of armour, mobility/reliability/fuel-efficiency/maintainability, and HE shell lobbing/Machinegunning ability become vital.

I think what you ment, was that tank vs tank was not the majority of combat in which tanks participated, because tank vs tank combat was extremely common at least from 1941, as the armored pincers of the attacker tended to be counter-attacked by armored formations of defender.

 

[Concept2D]

..... After all, a point was made that modern tank designs seemingly have thrown away the much promoted value of slopes for very flat shaped turrets. All I ask the viewer take a time out and try to figure out why modern tank designs made up of a great many very technical folks would seemingly do something like that and follow your own research there for knowledge discovery .....

The Abrams and Challenger use versions of chobham composite armour.
It's a multi layered armour including ceramic tiles.
This ceramic layer is the reason some modern tanks are flat/slab-y.
The tiles are also the reason the armour is not sloped much. You want a big hit to destroy 1 tile, not partially deflect destroying/weakening 3.

Some modern tanks have very sloped such as the Leopard 2A6, which uses much more spaced/shaped armour then the chobham variations.

 

[Dark Jakkaru]

The Abrams and Challenger use versions of chobham composite armour.
It's a multi layered armour including ceramic tiles.
This ceramic layer is the reason some modern tanks are flat/slab-y.
The tiles are also the reason the armour is not sloped much. You want a big hit to destroy 1 tile, not partially deflect destroying/weakening 3.

Some modern tanks have very sloped such as the Leopard 2A6, which uses much more spaced/shaped armour then the chobham variations.

Why?

 

[Concept2D]

Why?

The public does not have great information as the modern armours are classified, information comes from examining damaged tanks and what the private sector is doing.

What we do know is, the tiles are flat. They are stored under massive compression in all direction's (this is a "modern" development vs older ceramic armours).
They are probably flat because its economical, and also possibly because curves would be harder to keep under massive compression.

As for the other layers - from memory from a multiple hour search a long while ago.....
Steel > some "soft" material to reduce shockwave reflection > ceramic tiles + aramid "glue" > backing plane (probably steel) > space > tungstun / depleted uranium rods > space > thin steel > spall liner (kevlar type fabric)
The ceramic tiles absorbs crazy amounts of energy before they shatter. Shattering should destroy any HEAT jet, and hopefully damages/deflects penetrators (APFSDS).
The spaces are good vs HEAT and Squash head HE.
The tungstun / and depleted uranium rods stop penetrators.
The spall liner reduce bits of armour bouncing around killing the crew.
This package gives modern tanks the equivalent of ~1500mm of armour for a similar weight to ~150mm WW2 armour.

The Leopard is supposed to have multiple thin plates at many angles to disrupt and deflect HEAT or penetrator attacks.
Chobham is tuned to better vs HEAT weapons as that is what the British were most afraid of at the time, so I imagine the Leopard is tuned vs penetrators.

Hope one of those answers the why

 

[Had a dad]

we can stop with modern tank discussion.

This is a suggestion for now.

 

[Sinbuster]

Of course, most that that is still relatively unimportant, because tank vs tank combat was actually a fairly uncommon thing for WWII tanks to engage in - the vast majority of the time they'd be fighting against infantry, bunkers, and AT guns, or simply moving to places the enemy would find highly inconvenient. In these cases a balance of armour, mobility/reliability/fuel-efficiency/maintainability, and HE shell lobbing/Machinegunning ability become vital.

You raise a really interesting point here. Your link to 'big cats hit by big guns' also reiterates this point. I mean, what was better, the Tiger or the 88 flak gun? Sure the 88 had terrible armour but it was deadly and it didn't break down near as much. I'm joking -sort of - but I think you get the gist.

 

[Zinegata]

They compansate there quantitative weaknesses with quality ... See: the Americans need four to five Shermans to destroy only one German Tiger (on average ...). And even the Pershing wasn't complete on a level with a Tiger or a Panther never mind the TigerII! :excl:

This is complete and utter nonesense to begin with. The most reliable studies on US vs German armor vs armor engagements in fact show that the US Army had a 3:2 kill rate to their advantage in armor vs armor engagements (See Forczyck). The first major tank vs tank battle that the US Army ever faced was in fact Arracourt, therein the US Army notched a 3:1 kill rate in their favor (see Zaloga).

The only reason the 5:1 myth keeps getting repeated is because German fanboy sites have built up an enormous wall of self-inflicted ignorance; wherein they refuse to look at documents available since the 60s in the case of the US Army and the 90s in the case of the Soviets showing that German tank vs tank combat performance was in large part a myth created out of whole cloth; and instead resort to accusing Americans of "victor's history" and the Soviets of "communist propanda".

Hell, there were a grand total of three times that the US Army faced the vaunted Tiger - never more than in company strength - and only one of those three engagements may have involved a Sherman. Maybe one. (Although another one involved Pershings which did fine against the Tigers). The documentation to know this existed since the Green Book series of the US Army!

The Panthers and Tigers moreover in fact performed worst than the lighter German tanks, because they only had half the reliability. Superior armor and gunpower don't matter when you're in the repairyard nursing a broken drive because of the tank's obesity. Indeed, Stug battalions regularly outscored the best Tiger units, because Stugs were actually reliable enough to keep fighting while the Tiger battalion commanders wrote fanfiction to justify their inaction to high command.

=====

Finally, what people again don't realize is that the vast majority of land combat experience went to improving doctrine, tactics, and organization - not petty stats on tanks. The Second World War was in many ways the story of how the German, British, French, Soviet, and US Armies evolved from the uncertainty of a pre-war doctrine unsure of how to employ tanks - to armies that were all using tanks largely the same way.

Everyone in fact came to rely on their reliable 30-ton mediums - the Sherman, the T-34, and the Stug/Panzer IV - and used them primarily as infantry support or breakthrough exploitation vehicles. Fighting tanks head-to-head against each other was in fact frowned upon by all sides; which is why the commentary of experienced German Panzer Division commanders (Guderian, Bayerlein) on the German fat, overweight tanks was always laced with deep misgivings or outright derision. They understood that the tank was a mobile weapon. A 45 ton semi-mobile bunker is not the same thing.

 

[Chromos]

Dont forget the US had almost 2:1 but most often 5:1 and most enough also 10:1 superiorty to reach that..
They fought most times only few tanks at a time and when those were well placed suffered heavy losses. Thats also "well known".
So 5:1 need has a reason. And also don't forget that this was only for US.
UK had slightly different experience as had SOV..

What some people forget, don't seem to get, is that the very bad reliability for some GER mediums was solved later on. I could post the available service % later if I find that post.
It shows that all had similar % by '44..