>>
Anonymous
10/01/13(Wed)09:28
No. 7720
>>7686
Okay, several separate issues there.
First of all, Ratte and other such bullshit like two-barrel turrets goes right out of the window, it's pure sci-fi and would never work and even if it did it would be laughably ineffective. We're ignoring all that.
So, the tanks which Germans actually made. Both Tiger and Panther weren't ubertanks, and in fact they were plagued with mechanical problems. They were only considered ubertanks simply because neither US nor Russia fielded tanks in same category. Russia got caught with its pants down so all that mattered was making as many tested, working(more or less hurr durr) weapons as possible and US had it's "Infantry Doctrine" where tanks were supposed to be used in anti-infantry duty and AT duty was to be handled by tank destroyers. So yes, German heavy tanks were vastly superior to T34s or Shermans, but that's because both T34 and Sherman are medium tanks. Compare Panther and Tiger to Pershing and IS-2 and the line gets quite blurry.
Finally, uberweapons. With Germany's resources dwindling fast in later stages of the war, it was simply a bad decision to make advanced, complicated weapons, and tanks are no exception. Of course that was probably solely Hitler's fault, but I figure when you're losing you will try to get anything that looks like a superweapon to turn the war around. Sadly, that's when you need cold logic, and not magic. Had Germany switched to just mass-producing, say, Panzer IVs... I won't say they would win the war, but they would most likely last much longer.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not some kind of raging amerikwan/russian fanboy(and I actually like few Rammstein songs), and I am not going to deny that Germany made many great weapons during the war, but fact is their military became very romanticized in the past 10-20 years, creating this vision of technologically superior ubermensch(how ironic!) who only lost because the enemies outnumbered them and attacked from both sides or something.