"Was the Tiger really King?" Topic

number 4

Good pictures and clarifies the situation nicely.

"One of the reasons for the change to the Tiger II was ease and cost of building. The Tiger I was a very complex tank to make. Take the turret for example – the basic shape required bending an armour plate into the horse shoe shape. Not easy."

Tiger I with a new turret would still be a simpler solution. Just like the improved Panzer IV that never came.

The Germans tried to fix a problem by building something new and preferably bigger to keep ahead of enemy tank developments. Tiger I wasn't cutting it any more against the various new guns the allies introduced, so they just cranked up the stats and the weight with it.

It's baffling to hear that parts in Tigers and Panthers could vary quite a bit between production batches. Wartime logistics didn't improve this one bit, but you do have to give it to the repair and maintenance crews that they were able to keep tanks running even if they found that the spare parts didn't fit the tank they were trying to fix and had to modify or rebuild parts to make them fit. It also explains why crews complained about leaks and oil/fuel lines rupturing all the time, some were simply jury rigged in the factory to start with.

Tiger I with a new turret would still be a simpler solution. Just like the improved Panzer IV that never came.

It wasn't just the turret. The Tiger I and the Panzer IV were both complicated designs – Panzer IV in particular. It wasn't a question of tweaking a few bits, both need complete redesisgn. What they should have done is started designing the E series in 1940!

"For starters, you can count the number of man-hours needed at the factory to put together a given piece of kit. And the amount of materials and machinery needed. And the amount of man-hours needed to produce those materials and machinery."

I was reading a book on T-34's a few years back and they talked about driving the cost down and how many rubles the various models were. Even in a centrally controlled economy like the USSR they assigned prices to things.

I was reading a book on T-34's a few years back and they talked about driving the cost down and how many rubles the various models were. Even in a centrally controlled economy like the USSR they assigned prices to things.

Yes, but the government and/or party controlled the prices of everything, so the cost in rubles didn't/doesn't tell you much. They could arbitrarily set the price of nickel-steel armor at 1 ruble/ton if they wanted to.

"Yes, but the government and/or party controlled the prices of everything, so the cost in rubles didn't/doesn't tell you much. They could arbitrarily set the price of nickel-steel armor at 1 ruble/ton if they wanted to."

Yes, but the economic planning agencies used 'shadow prices' which reflected actual resources costs rather than subsidised (or inflated) final consumer prices.

I studied how Gosplan worked back in the good old days of the Cold War.

Central planning was actually quite efficient in mass producing a limited range of products, such as those you need for a war. Which was why the Allies did it in WW2 as well.

Not so good for complex consumer markets of course, nor does it reward risk and innovation.