Re: British Tanks

<eunometic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1182578311.427625.272170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 17, 2:51 pm, Duwop <tut...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If we can then agree that those resources, for example, could
alternatively produce (total WAG coming now)
13,000 T34/85
4,500 PzV (Panther)
2,000 PzVI (Tiger)
8,500 PzIV

I know the aboie figures represent estimates. A Panther weighed
about 44 tons, and a T-34 and Sherman around 31 tons. Given the
reputed kill ratio or the superiority numerical superiority required
to overcome the Panther (and Tiger) this suggests an excellent use of
the limited amount of steel and combat troops the German's had.

Let us start with the following figures, for the Normandy fighting,

"A British analysis of tank losses indicates that on average it takes
1.63 hits to knock out a Sherman, 2.55 to knock out a Panther and
4.2 hits to knock out a Tiger."

31 divided by 1.63 is 19
44 divided by 2.55 is 17
56 divided by 4.2 is 13

So assuming cost is the same as weight then the Tiger was good
value for money. Taking more hits per unit weight to knock out,
then comes the Panther than the Sherman.

Of course the reality is cost is not just related to the weight of the
vehicle, for example it seems the Panther cost around the same as
the Panzer IV, as it was designed to be easier to mass produce.

The claims about Tigers and Panthers killing lots of western allied
tanks for minimal losses are simply exaggerated.

The fundamental reality is the Panther was optimised to fight in
the more open terrain commonly found in the east against an
enemy that could not react quickly to new circumstances. The
fighting in Normandy was in closer terrain, costing the Panther
much of its long range advantage.

The other thing is opportunity costs, if you again assume weight
equals costs then you have 1.4 Shermans per Panther and 1.8
Shermans per Tiger. We all know the wargame situation means
the Germans should win the tank duals but the extra tanks are
rather useful because tanks did more than fight enemy tanks.
An attack supported by tanks was usually more effective than
one without armour support. Also the reliability of the vehicle
becomes important, if one takes twice as much maintenance for
example it really hurts the average available tank strength.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: British Tanks
    ... 4,500 PzV (Panther) ... 2,000 PzVI (Tiger) ... and a T-34 and Sherman around 31 tons. ... Its called the real world situation where the tanks found themselves ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Anglo American weapons
    ... Crusader IIIs were looking pretty unimpressive by then, ... the Tiger and Panther were only in service for a few years. ... nations, which generally produced fewer tanks, but tanks that ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: [OSX] Quale OSX per un G4/867 ?
    ... >> Panther o Tiger? ... > garantire che ogni minuto che passa rimpiango il Panther. ... Vantaggi vicini allo zero. ... clock e il 50% in piu` di RAM, piu` che altro i vantaggi del nuovo sono ...
    (it.comp.macintosh)
  • Re: British Tanks
    ... 4,500 PzV (Panther) ... 2,000 PzVI (Tiger) ... and a T-34 and Sherman around 31 tons. ... they daren't venture into open spaces to confront the allied tanks for ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: British Tanks
    ... 4,500 PzV (Panther) ... 2,000 PzVI (Tiger) ... and a T-34 and Sherman around 31 tons. ... The panther and tiger tanks were a small proportion of the German ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)