No, we were lucky that the Germans couldn’t build enough Panthers. They were the best tanks in the world up into the 50s. Best optics, armor, and, after Kursk, the best engine/transmission setup, and the main armament would blow holes in anything we or the Russians had until they came up with the JS 1s and 2s, and, we had the M26s.
Had the Tigers had better speed, they could have been the best. They DID have the 88s installed after all.
The Sherman’s and the T-34’s thing was numbers. The panther could kill off 10 of the other tanks to every 1 of the panthers killed. But, if you have on a couple of thousand Panthers, and, the Americans have 24000 Shermans, and, the same for the T-34, you can’t win. Numbers are the best defense.
Had the Tigers had better speed, they could have been the best. They DID have the 88s installed after all.
The Sherman’s and the T-34’s thing was numbers. The panther could kill off 10 of the other tanks to every 1 of the panthers killed. But, if you have on a couple of thousand Panthers, and, the Americans have 24000 Shermans, and, the same for the T-34, you can’t win. Numbers are the best defense.
I agree. Another consideration is air superiority. The Battle of the Bulge was, obviously, not planned by Ike but by Hitler, and Hitler found a window of bad visibility which negated the air superiority he faced. But for planning purposes, if you expect to have air superiority over the battlefield, that might affect the way you see the quality v. quality tradeoff in your tank design specs.In fact, the US Second Armored Division was a “heavy” armored division - and yet other than Shermans it had lighter tanks as well. The tradeoff is not only numbers but speed, and probably range. Interesting fact: the Germans used a great many horses to transport their equipment. And horses don’t go very fast compared to a truck, in the short run and especially in the long run. American trucks, used by all the Allies including the USSR, put the Germans at a serious mobility disadvantage.