Greatest accomplishment or biggest failure

[Kprev24]

I have been pondering this for a while and I realize that while the tiger 1 was a rather effective tank, was it also partly the reason for Germany's downfall? It cost 250,800 RM consumed plenty of petrol, resources, manpower, and most importantly there were only 1,347. A panzer 4 cost 90,000 RM, a panther roughly 110,000 RM.  In addition, the Germans had no engine capable of powering the 56.9 tonnes beast.  So if the Germans had not produced the Tiger, maybe perhaps produced hetzers, panzer 4 and 5s, or even the stug 3s (4s were more defensive, if I remember correctly) would the war have had a different outcome?

[Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.]

The second world war wasnt decided by the Tiger tank (or lost). There were much more (difficult reasons) why german army lost the war.
But about the Tiger tank; It wasnt a waste of resources. It was an old fashioned tank. When german army ordered this "retro tank" they
know that it will work on the battlefield. It was expensive and complicated to produce but keep in mind that the Tiger was the result of
the battles of 1941. German army lost the battle of Moscow but they were still believing that they will win the war so they ordered a
classical tank out of the idea that they are already on the road to victory.
And i told this all the time; Tiger was a great tank but perhaps it wasnt his time.

[Walentin 'Walki' L.]

The second world war wasnt decided by the Tiger tank (or lost).

The biggest advantage of the allies in WW2 was Hitler.

[Kprev24]

I think I worded the quandary wrong. I know there was a lot more to WW2 than the tiger, I was more asking if people thought producing the tank in such high numbers instead of easer to produce tanks like the Panzer 3 and 4 or even the panther. I suppose I got my answer anyway but I do agree they needed an answer the the t-34 and KV series tanks, because the panzer 2 wasn't cutting it.  Or perhaps would it have been better as a breakthrough unit like it's original intention.  Gosh after reading my question it did seem like I asked if it was the reason he whole Heer came crashing down, I know I'm new but trust me I'm not that stupid. 

[Kprev24]

The second world war wasnt decided by the Tiger tank (or lost).

The biggest advantage of the allies in WW2 was Hitler.

How true 

[Miles Dixon]

I think Germans's downfall should be because of the other Axis' faction as well, as German forces spread too much away from their HQ and let other forces, such as Soviets able to strike in into Seelow and Berlin easily.

And maybe they dump their tanks when they found out it is damaged and then occupied by Allies is another factor that makes the downfall as well?

If I am correct, both StuG and StuH are quite defensive as well.

[Kprev24]

Yes, assault guns like the stug or stuH are very good on the defensive, their low profile is easy to camouflage, and the fixed turret is harder to use on the offensive.  Perhaps the Germans should have focused more on the Panzer V auf.A rather than heavy tanks.  The soviets can produce 10,000 T-34s a month, and the Americans about the same for the Sherman's, however the Sherman was inferior to the T-34.  I think what the Germans failed to realize is that it doesn't matter how an elephant could take out 10+ T-34s, if the enemy sends 20 more to counter it. 

[Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.]

We failed because we thought that quality is always better than quantity. When german command realised that this idea was wrong it was already to late.
But a little fact for everyone who loves numbers:
Red army lost 85.000 tanks during the war. Germany lost 25.000 tanks on the eastern front. During the war russia produced 75.000 new tanks (and started the war with 21.000 tanks).
Germany produced 23.000 and started with 5.000 tanks the war against the red army. Quantity is good to win a war of materials. But those loses were catastrophic for both tank armies.
No tank army can accept or survive this numbers of casualty for long. Out of my view red army tanks lost the war like the german tank armies. Russia won but not by tank warfare. Thats my point of view.

[Jeff 'Robotnik' W.]

The second world war wasnt decided by the Tiger tank (or lost).

The biggest advantage of the allies in WW2 was Hitler.

How true

The biggest example of this i can think of is the Dora railway gun. It took 2 weeks to set up and an entire flak battalion to protect

In comparison, a halifax bomber could drop an explosive even larger than what the Dora could shoot, and only require a few hours to take off, fly over germany or wherever, and drop it. And there were usually more than one of them dropping big ass bombs at a time

[Kprev24]

Yes I agree, some of their advanced weaponry was oversized and over-engineered.  For instance, the panzer 8, had that seen action, it most likely wouldn't have performed well in anything other than perfect conditions. It was simply too heavy and too big for any engine.  I guess we should just be glad they made these mistakes, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather not have a fascist controlled world.

[Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.]

The Maus is one of the good examples for Hitler's idea (or perversions of the idea) that quality will always beat quantity.
There were no plans to mass produce the Maus. The Maus should be a hammer to smash down enemies waves of tanks.
A rolling fortress with enough firepower to stop a russian tank formation. That was the idea of the Maus not the idea
of an real battle tank. A lot of german generals try to argument against this tanks but non of them had success. Hitler's
hubris favoured those monster tanks instate of real main battle tanks.

[Sommarkatze]

I guess the Atomic bomb fits in here somewhere?

[Kprev24]

Well we stole it cause 'Mercia XD lol but I guess "to the victor go the spoils"

[Kprev24]

The Maus is one of the good examples for Hitler's idea (or perversions of the idea) that quality will always beat quantity.
There were no plans to mass produce the Maus. The Maus should be a hammer to smash down enemies waves of tanks.
A rolling fortress with enough firepower to stop a russian tank formation. That was the idea of the Maus not the idea
of an real battle tank. A lot of german generals try to argument against this tanks but non of them had success. Hitler's
hubris favoured those monster tanks instate of real main battle tanks.

So he had a wille for super-heavy tanks? I suppose the engineering was there, except the engine power or the resources at the time.  Speaking of resources, this is another burning question, did the U.S have a lend-lease act with the U.S.S.R? The katyusha was based off the American truck "studebaker", and I thought I saw somewhere that they used some Sherman's?

[Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.]

Without land and lease red army wouldnt have survived the winter 1941/42...
USA send locomotives, railcars, fuel, tanks, rubber, planes and most important trucks.
I saw a statistic (think it was an us book about the red army?) about the land and lease program for the Udssr. In 1944 more than 75% of soviet locomotives were us land and lease locomotives. Round about 50% of trucks, jeeps and cars were land and lease materials. All in all US land and lease helped red army to survive the material causalities caused by the german offensives.
Out of my view without land and lease red army wouldnt have survived the war or had been able to start counter offensives "so early" in the war.