As I said I don't contribute to this type of thread because frankly there are large numbers who enter the debate 'knowing' the answer. Usualy it descends into name-calling and insult and I have better things to waste my time on.
I would say that my case is typical. Anyone who refuses to accept the percieved wisdom that the Tiger was 'it' gets lots of aggro from those who can't understand why he will not accept the obvious. Why bother even having such a thread if the answer is so obvious?
I do not think the Tiger was the greatest tank ever. Far from it. It was a heavy that had no real opposition for 2 years. It is easy being tough when you are being attacked by Pygmies. That said I never claim the Sherman was 'the best' either. Despite eveyone ASSUMING I did. Why is it that failing to back the Tiger for the job means you have to support the Sherman?
A tank is has to perform a number of missions and being a long range tank killer is just ONE ot its jobs. Wars are won by Infantry boots on the ground and tanks/Artillery/ships and aeroplanes are there to put those boots where they make the most impact. It is no good inventing artificial conditions where tanks sally forth to do individaul combat between the lines like lousting knights. In such acontrived meeting then the heavier armoured tank is bound to have the advantage. In fact I wonder why, in a thread where it asks which was 'the best' tank is it considered that heavy armour and large gun is considered THE critical factor.
I think the most succesful tank nation was the Soviets. They consistently produced good all round types that did everything the finely honed Western or over-engineered Panzers types ever did did and at a much smaller cost.
There I said it now tell me how stupid I am because I don't accept the obvious.
There is a degree of truth to what you say, but I think to be honest you are being deliberately obtuse.
Postwar tank design tends to support the notion that best does not equate necessarily to heaviest and most armoured. That is the basis of the modern MBT concept....a mixture of armament, armour, and mobility basically. So, to that extent you are correct.
However, in the context of WWII, the concept of a MBT was not quite there yet. Perhaps the design that came closest to the concept was the T-34. So again I would alrgely agree with you.
However, this still does not get to the heart of WWII era warfare, namely that no tank can lay claim to being a complete "allrounder" in the sense of a modern MBT. The design theory just wasnt developed to that level of sophistication. What tended to happen was that there were tanks that tended to specialise.....in the British concept you had "Infantry" and "cruiser" tanks. This was progressively melded as the war progressed, to produce a mixed breeed, starting with the Cromwell, before progressing to the Centurion. But the cruiser-Infantry tank classification was badly misguided in my opinion, what was needed (in the sense of separating roles for a tank, which in itself is an outdated concept), was a tank carrying the firepower to achieve the breakthrough (one might call this a heavy tank), and a tank to exploit that breakthrough, which one might call a breakthrough or medium tank. What was needed in reality was a tank that blended these often competing prioties to achieve the best blend of compromise between the three elements of mobility, firepower and protection.
Added to that equation is the simple tyranny of numbers, quite simply the cheaper the tank, the more you can fild, the more you can fild, the more effective are your armoured formations.
Now, given that there were not really any tanks that successfully combined all these competing elements (though I admit that there are quite a number that come very close, with the T-34, Panther, Mk IV, Sherman and Cromwell all up there vying for the position of best all round tank), one has to simply accept that tanks were specialised, and choose which one does its particular job the best when getting into these sorts of debates.....and to this point I believe you have disingenously dodged the issue, trying to label this forum as biased, one-eyed and the like. I can assure you that the majority here are none of the above...sure there are the odd zealots, but the majority are simply sitting back and spectating at this point. I believe that within its specialised roles, the tiger was a formidable weapon system. I have read, for example, that it could take out a T-34 at three miles....The tiger could not do everything, in fact its roles were quite limited....it had poor range, and its mobility was extremely limited...it cost a packet to build, and its serviceability was questionable....but as a battlefield weapons platform it was pretty formidable, greatly feared by its opponents....So I see you doing a great disservice to the brave men that had to fight these behemoths when you appear to belittle their battlefiled effects by suggesting they are not that big a threat.
If I have misunderstood you I apologize. I do not think or say you are stupid, quite the contrary, but it is annoying to watch you duck and weave, and avoid explaining yourself, which is to the detriment of the value of this forum.
