Originally posted by Lonestar24
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Er, such as...
I wouldn´t have used the "far superior" expression, but the Panzer V is considered the most "complete" tank of the war (the mature models, not
the early ones rushed to the front).
Wonderful, except for the fact that it was a direct response to the T-34, so, not exactly leading design or "far superior".
It certainly beat anything the western allies could field in significant numbers.
Glad you tacked on that "significant numbers" corollary. Anyway, only a fool would ever hold the Sherman up as an example to be followed.
Even the Panzer IV in later models
Yes, but developing an existing (and flawed design) by up-gunning and up-armouring (and therefore slowing) isn't exactly the definition of
"leading" that I would choose. Nor would I classify Panzer IV as being "far superior" to Churchill or Cromwell (and definitely not "far
superior" to Comet), and the "far superior" is exactly the phrasing I am concentrating on, as that was the description used.
And while they probably were a step in the wrong direction, the Tiger and Royal Tiger tanks still were exponentially more effective than most
of their allied heavy tank counterparts.
Define "exponentially more effective". Looking at the data I've seen I'd have to say they were exponentially more damaging to their home economy
than even a failure like the A37 Tortoise. Too much effort wasted in design and proving (not to mention two competing prototypes) when said effort
could have been put to far better use, too difficult to produce under war-time strain, too heavy, slow, unmanouverable, complex and thirsty. For what
damage they did to the allies on the battlefield they did far more damage to the German war-effort in wasted resources.
Once again, we go back to "economies of scale". The Leopard 1 was cheaper than the Chieftain, which is why many countries chose it to replace their
Centurians, but I know which one was better.
Um, a bit simplistic to say the least. The Leo1 customers were and still are in the top 20 richest nations on this world
Suggest you go back and check who the customers were and who the top 20 richest nations in the world are.
- and ALL of them were considered to partake in the looming war against the tank hordes of the soviet union -
I really, REALLY, doubt our 90 Leo 1s were considered to be part of the anti-Red Army equation. The customers for Leo 1 were NOT ALL western European
and all of them had a defense budget reflecting that.
Again, not true.
Was the Leo1 cheaper? Yes. Was the Chieftain the bigger bully on the block? Yes.
But the core of the Leo1´s success was that it was much more capable at tactical maneuvers, its mobility and reliability. It functioned like a
clockwork from winter storms to hot deserts, it was able to deep ford up to 4 meter depths and could literally drive circles around any and all tanks
existing before it and, for a time, after it including the Chieftain.
But here's the thing...Your circles don't matter much when I take a harder hit and hit back harder than you can. So, while the Leos are doing their
balletic manouvres, and no doubt much impressing the Red Army Guards divisions, what really matters is whether you can survive the 60-100 armoured
devisions heading your way and damage them more than they can damage you. Chieftain mightn't have been as fast and it mightn't have been as nimble,
but "pound for pound" ratings are purely theoretical. Once Ali lands a hit on you, you don't get up, I don't care if you are Sugar Ray.
Leo 1 was available earlier (barely) than the Chieftain, when some were looking to replace their Cents. Doesn't mean it was better than Chieftain.
Anyway, the point I was making was about the inadvisably-used hyperbole of "far superior".