"A Question about Tanks" Topic

I know very little about WWII and have played only a few games of Crossfire and now Chain of Command which I have enjoyed.

Then I read an article in the Sept-Oct issue of WWII magazine, which I am sure a number of you have seen.

In the article, "Tank Trap, How armored vehicle production cast national character in Steel."

The topic is how tactical and national issues influenced tank production. According to the article:

Basically the Germans spent about $320,000 USD per tank and as many man-hours to produce.

The US spent about $33 USD, 000 per tank at 10,000 man-hours.

The Soviets spent $50,000 USD per tank and 30 to 50,000 man- hours.

In the end, the mass-produced US rmor could operate across 3,000 miles without an overhaul and new engine.

The Germans, less than half that.

The Soviets 1,500 miles

The Soviets built cheap and simple because they realized that a Soviet tank's life expectance in combat was 14 hours. There was no point in building a tank that could travel 3,000 miles.

The Germans were craftsmen and for quite a while refused to use mass production techniques found in the Allied countries. So they produced about half the tanks of either the Russians or Americans.

So, if this article in on point, here is my question:

It would seem that due to a number of factors, German tanks should have a greater propensity for complex, artistic systems and a shelf-life equal to the or worse than the Soviets. This runs counter to what I have always heard and certainly the WWII rules that I've looked at.

Does this seem reasonable?

It's a complex subject with no easy answers. Most enthusiasts only look at the subject from firepower vs. Armor vs. mobility. As that article points out, there are other factors such as cost and time to produce, numbers produced. Then you have tactics and doctrine, how they were used in combat. What about three man turret vs. two or one man turret. What about better optics. What about crew training and quality. It's an unending can of worms really.

However, I think we can all agree that the German tanks look better. Like so much of the German war machine from uniforms to dive bombers, their tanks look sinister, like angular tracked death. The French and American tanks look slightly effeminate by comparison. The Brit tanks have a cobbled together look. Only the Russian come close to the Germans in the looks department. Add to that all of the nifty camouflage patters and it's no contest.

I read that very same article, which argued that you can't debate the merits of the tanks without considering the different production approaches/philosophies and 'national character' behind them.

There's no contradiction because a German tank will last as long as it can be refueled, field serviced and maintained with the required replacement spare parts, which is difficult because the Germans fielded more variety of tanks than other nations (i.e. logistical nightmare).

Russian tanks are not built to last because they're not expected to survive very long in combat anyway. Indeed, even the superlative T-34's suffered high attrition against the Germans due to inferior command and control equipment and lower crew quality. So just crank them out as fast as you can. The Russians also throw their tank crews into combat with little training for the same cold reason of expendability.

The US Sherman is a good tank but does not compare well with late war German tanks on a one-on-one basis and were not popular among their crews.

Most if not all WWII rules look at tanks on their individual merits. A Tiger is better than a Sherman. They don't address the fact that the Tiger will need a major overhaul after 50 miles while the Sherman can go on for much longer. How boring.

This article takes Stalin's view that "Quantity has a quality all its own."

German design and production was all over the place before Speer took over. Be interesting what the cost per unit was pre and post him taking over.

As you're aware, miniature gaming represents tactical engagements, with a few rulesets approaching a grand tactical scale. At this level, the medium to long term serviceability of the tanks doesn't really come into play once they're on the tabletop. Some rules do include rolls against mechanical failures for certain notorious beasts.

The italicization is to mark a key aspect and frequently damning flaw of WWII games; the full strength unit. Rarely achieved in any army in any period, German armor infrequently saw battle with anything like their paper strength, especially in the popular sub-periods (e.g.,Normandy '44). Most WWII gamers, in my experience, either politely ignore or give lip service to this fact.

@enfant perdus

+1000

There's no contradiction because a German tank will last as long as it can be refueled, field serviced and maintained with the required replacement spare parts, which is difficult because the Germans fielded more variety of tanks than other nations (i.e. logistical nightmare).

Actualy I think the British could give the Germans a run for their money in the number of tank designs fielded. I make it 4 different infantry tanks, 8 cruisers, 3 or 4 different light tanks, plus the lend lease types and all in a bewildering number of marks. Even the supposedly standard Sherman had 3 different engine types – the Sherman I and II with the Continental radial, the Sherman III with a diesel and the Sherman V with the Chrysler multibank.

German tanks anticipated being transported by railways over long distances. American tanks anticipated being shipped by ships and off loaded without a major port, so weight was a concern. American tank construction was high quality with creature comforts other tanks did not have, like a siren.
The Sherman had many different hull and engine types so the greatest number of companies could make them. If your company can make large castings because they made railway engines before the war, they could make cast hull Shermans. The tanks tended to be issued bases on engine type to ease supply issues. Russians and Marines got the diesel engines for example, nearly all M4A3 types went to the US Army.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

There's a possibly apophyrical statement from a German tank commander "One Tiger was worth ten Sherman tanks, unfortunately there was always an eleventh Sherman…"

Actualy I think the British could give the Germans a run for their money in the number of tank designs fielded. I make it 4 different infantry tanks, 8 cruisers, 3 or 4 different light tanks, plus the lend lease types and all in a bewildering number of marks. Even the supposedly standard Sherman had 3 different engine types – the Sherman I and II with the Continental radial, the Sherman III with a diesel and the Sherman V with the Chrysler multibank.

Although that's true, the Allies at least tended to keep their different makes/models together in the same unit, easing the QMs task somewhat.

Allied vehicles tended to be mass produced, so you could take a part off one vehicle and be reasonably sure it would fit into another vehicle of the same type without modification. The Germans tended to hand finish their AFVs, meaning that the same couldn't be assumed.

Field maintenance wasn't really considered in the German approach either. For example the Panther transmission had a design life of around 200 km (& was frequently less). To replace the transmission (no mean job in any case), the entire engine needed to be removed; needing at the minimum a field workshop with crane.

Culture meant a lot. The USA car culture meant that a lot of our troops could drive a vehicle. They weren't intimidated by maintenance issues and could improvise. The tank engines were mostly multiple auto motors. Parts were easy to come by. Easier to have cross training of the crews-driving and repair especially.
Read somewhere a German recon unit watched Third Army put 10,000 vehicles through one intersection in three days and they could do nothing about it. Apocryphal or I got the number wrong or bad memory but it was a lot.

I'd rather have a 'Easy-Eight' or a 'Jumbo' Sherman than any others' afv.

Allied vehicles tended to be mass produced, so you could take a part off one vehicle and be reasonably sure it would fit into another vehicle of the same type without modification.

Back when the History Channel (sic) had historical programming, there was an episode of some show that dealt with this subject, including lots of first hand accounts from combat AND maintenance crews. A couple of the examples that stuck with me over the years:

-Sherman with a fried electrical system. Wiring harness salvaged from another Sherman that had taken a catastrophic hit from an AT round. First Sherman back in action the next day.

-Sherman needs the entire engine replaced. Again, working engine salvaged from knocked out wreck. Less than two hours from starting to remove the old engine to firing up the replacement and taking the tank for a test drive.

- Putting a Pullman-Standard Car Company turret on a Ford manufactured hull that has new bogies stripped from a Lima Locomotive Works M4? No problem.

. The Germans tended to hand finish their AFVs, meaning that the same couldn't be assumed.

Same show had German vets describe hours of work with grinders and hand files to fit replacement and salvage parts.

A GI mechanic could take a 3/8 " flange knocker widget out if it's box and put it right on place. A German mechanic might have to file either the hafgensprockett or the studknerfelb to make it fit. An Italian mechanic would DEFINITELY have that problem.
A Ford engineer during the war was the first to study the problem of parts being within technical tolerance with the specs but with tolerance stack ups not being to be able to match up with each other. He was very successful in ramming compatibility through, especially with parts being made in different plants. It helps a great deal to not have your factories being bombed every Tuesday.
This engineering hero, known but to those forced to study quality assurance history is a big reason for the reliability of American tanks etc.

An outstanding quality control program is in the long run far less expensive than an adequate defect replacement policy. This is something some big shot hobby manufacturers do not grasp.
No business is unique. This is universal.

Although that's true, the Allies at least tended to keep their different makes/models together in the same unit, easing the QMs task somewhat.

Can't see much difference between the Axis and Allies. Russians perhaps being the most standardised of all. I've seen pictures of US units with a mix of Continental radial and Ford GAA engined types. Late war Germans PD's had Panzer IV's and Panthers with possibly a different tank chassis as the basis of the Jagdpanzers, although they were increasingly PzIV based. The US in contrast mixed M4's and M5's in the same battalion.
The British fielded a bewildering number to types in Normandy having armoured vehicles on Crusader, Valentine, Churchill, Covenanter, Centaur, Cromwell, Challenger, M3, M5, M4 and M10 chassis.
And don't forget all the big German cats had Maybach HL-230 engines.

It would seem that due to a number of factors, German tanks should have a greater propensity for complex, artistic systems and a shelf-life equal to the or worse than the Soviets.

True…many gamers are enamored of how good German tanks were, but that tends to be based on the one-to-one tank issue, if the better German tanks could even make it to the battlefield. Although I wouldn't want to face a German Tiger one-on-one, the fact is a Tiger company, which rarely made it to the battlefield in full strength, rarely made it through 1-2 days of combat before breaking down. Heck, during the Battle of the Bulge, the Tigers were placed in the rear, by the Germans, because they were so slow and prone to break down. Earlier Panthers were not much better.

For more on the Tiger's limitations and why it didn't have much impact on the battlefield read "Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II" link

At the same time rules writers often ignore the fact that Panthers would routinely catch fire when hit, just as earlier Shermans did, and it's not unusual for them to limit a Sherman's capabilities for this reason, but not the Panther, even though the Sherman fixed this problem, as was done with later Panthers.

I've often thought that if a gamer wants a more realistic approach to German super tanks, they should pay the "points" for the tank and then roll a dice for a 50/50 chance of the tank NOT being able to be placed on the table.

Many make the argument that the Germans would have been better served by putting their resources -- money, materials, and time -- into producing more PZIVs rather than Panthers or, certainly, Tigers.

As you're aware, miniature gaming represents tactical engagements, with a few rulesets approaching a grand tactical scale. At this level, the medium to long term serviceability of the tanks doesn't really come into play once they're on the tabletop. Some rules do include rolls against mechanical failures for certain notorious beasts.

Yes. I was thinking of those rules that do have rolls for mechanical failures. [Some do, some don't] If on a grand scale tanks had short or long service issues, then once the table, the odds of say a Tiger breaking down would be higher than a Sherman, taking nothing away from their relative strengths.

At least that was what I was wondering. I appreciate all the thoughtful answers.

Many make the argument that the Germans would have been better served by putting their resources -- money, materials, and time -- into producing more PZIVs rather than Panthers or, certainly, Tigers.

I've heard the argument before and not convinced. The Panther only took 10% more resources to make than a Panzer IV for a much better tank. So instead of 5,000 Panthers you get 5,500 Panzer IV's. Doesn't sound like a game winner to me! The Panzer IV wasn't a good design in terms of manufacturing, being complex and not easy to make. Later German designs were much better in terms of manufacturing, but never reached the levels achieved by the USA.

One thing to consider about the Panther is that the Germans routinely put more green crews in the Panthers, while the veterans got the Pz IVs. The idea here is that it would even out capabilities and combat performance. So while it could be argued that 5000 Panthers are better than 5500 Pz IVs, the end result might be more like only 5000 Pz IVs in combat capacity regardless.

Damon.

The "10% resources" is misleading. As much as anything the time lost changing over and learning to make the new tank is a huge issue. It's hard for car companies to do it in peacetime, switching from the 2013 model to the 2014. So yeah, maybe it's 5,500 vs 5000 in costs. But those 5500 can be crankde out in half the time of the 5000. So what do you want, 5500 this week or 2500 this week and 2500 more over the next 3 months?

The Panther only took 10% more resources to make than a Panzer IV

Perhaps but you can repair a PzIV transmission from the front, as stated above you have to disassemble the entire Panther to repair the transmission, and Panthers were always stripping the transmission because it was over stressed.

So another 10% to make, another 10-20% maintanence costs in the field and they are fuel hogs.

I didn't know that Germans parts had to be hand fitted. Swedish Bofors were redesigned, in the USA, because of that problem.

Germans had major issues with spare parts at the front, to the point where they often would ship the damaged/broken tank back to Germany via rail for repairs.

German parts were often produced by slave/POW labor, who tended to sabotage as much as they could.

German transmissions failed at a high rate due to the weight of the tanks. Often a company that was supposed to have 15-17 tanks, would only have 2-3 that could actually move and fight.

Fuel shortages prevented training as the war went on. Easy to find pictures of German tanks towing tanks due to broken transmissions or lack of fuel.

Soviet and US tests of German armor after the war demonstrated that the welding was often badly done and the armor itself very brittle. Tests of earlier war vehicles showed the same failings (1939-1945 production).

The Sherman was never designed and meant to fight enemy tanks (the US had a strange idea that "tank destroyers" were to do that).

German optics were superior, but the rest of the vehicles were poor quality. Shermans and T-34s are still in operational use today, no one but the desperate or too poor to use anything else used German equipment after the war, dumping anything they did have as soon as they could replace it.

Dan

Keep in mind that those figures are for a Tiger, a Sherman, and a T-34. A Tiger is in no way comparable to a Sherman or T-34.

The listed price for the Sherman excludes armament and fire control, at a minimum. There was also significant variation in the price of the various sub-types of Sherman, of which there were many.

Decent starting point here link especially posts 5 and 6.

The US got a T-34 to test at Aberdeen. The report that came out of it is a good read. Basically the engineers and mechanics were horrified at how bad it was. It didn't meet many of the most simple basic requirements. From the welds to the engine oil filter or actually lack of. They went through and explained how with some simple improvements it could have been much better. Basically they determined that there was nothing new or anything worth copying. Have to agree they were right as we saw during the Arab- Israeli wars or the First Gulf War. The Russians learned the wrong lessons from WWII on how to build tanks.

I've often thought that if a gamer wants a more realistic approach to German super tanks, they should pay the "points" for the tank and then roll a dice for a 50/50 chance of the tank NOT being able to be placed on the table.

Though in a point-based system such a reduction in effectiveness would also require halving the points cost of the said tank, with the end result being just added randomness in the amount of tanks that the Germans would field in the end.

If one really wanted to represent all the troubles of maintenance, reliability, logistics etc. then I think it would really require some sort of campaign system, with the progress of units followed over a period of several weeks.

A lot of gross generalisations here….)

costs:
stugIII approx 82,500 reichsmarks
PIV 103,462 reichsmarks
Panther 117,100 reichsmarks
Tiger 250,800 reichsmarks.

Figures taken from zetterling's Kursk analysis, he argues (quite comprehensively), that the panther was a MUCH better bargain than a PIV, once one takes into account its overall survivability, and superior combat power – bear in mind he relates all this to the Kursk battle when the panther was still suffering teething troubles, yet it still manages to out-perform PIV's significantly, and 2 panthers were probably a better overall deal than a single tiger.
As for the idea that Panthers were routinely crewed by novices and PiV's by veterans, sorry, this is arrant nonsense, it certainly happened, but not with any great regularity or as the result of any definite policy.

The biggest problem with the panther was it's weight, both in terms of logistics (tow and recovery), crossing ability of bridges etc, transmission failiure (due to poor weight ratios) and increased fuel consumption.
Arguements about lack of fuel are largely irrelevant, as a panther with no fuel is no different to a PIII with no fuel,
what IS relevant is that none of this matters if your tank is X superior to the enemy when the enemy is producing X + Y numbers of tanks.

"The British fielded a bewildering number to types in Normandy having armoured vehicles on Crusader, Valentine, Churchill, Covenanter, Centaur, Cromwell, Challenger, M3, M5, M4 and M10 chassis."

Hi Fred,

As Etranger said, they did tend to keep the same types in the same units (to an extent). For example, all the Churchills were grouped together in the same brigades, while the Sherman types were generally grouped together by brigade, so 33rd Armoured Brigade had Sherman I, 4th Armoured Brigade had Sherman II, 8th & 27th Armoured Brigades had Sherman III and the Armoured Divisions had Sherman V. Cromwells similarly were grouped in entire regiments and/or brigades of Cromwells.

Fireflies and DDs did tend to throw things out of kilter, however.

Valentines and Covenanters didn't go to Normandy, though Valentines did turn up later in the form of SP 17pdr guns. Centaurs only lasted for two weeks in the hands of the RMs and while a small Centaur unit fought on until the end of August, they weren't really an admin burden. In any case, they shared 99% commonality of parts with Cromwells (ditto Challengers).

Valentines and Covenanters didn't go to Normandy, though Valentines did turn up later in the form of SP 17pdr guns. Centaurs only lasted for two weeks in the hands of the RMs and while a small Centaur unit fought on until the end of August, they weren't really an admin burden. In any case, they shared 99% commonality of parts with Cromwells (ditto Challengers).

There was a specialist vehicle based on the Covenanter, but I'll have to look up what it was. I think it might have been the bridge layer. Crusaders were used for gun tractors and AA tanks, although IRC they were rapidly converted into additional tows. Valentines as Archer SP AT.
I doubt the Centaur had 99% commonality in parts. It had a different engine to the Cromwell.
Of course the Germans also did the same, Panthers and PzIV's in Panzer divisions whereas Tigers, Heavy Jagdpanzers and Stug's were in separate units with their own maintenance crews.
There is an assumption that German units were a hodge lodge of different types, but outside of a few units, usually very late war, ad hoc kampfgruppe, most units had one or two different types.
There is also another belief that in any given campaign the Germans fielded dozens of different armoured vehicle types. The reality is very different. For example in Normandy the Germans fielded armoured vehicles based on the 38t, PzIII, PzIV, Panther and Tiger. The PzIII and PzIV chassis shared some commonality of parts and had the same engine – the Maybach HL-120. The Panther and Tiger had the same engine – the Maybach HL-230. Not such a logistical nightmare as some folks imagine.

Hi Fred,

I was forgetting bridgelayers. Most brigades had six Valentine Bridgelayers, while the Churchill brigades had Churchill Bridgelayers. The Czechoslovak Brigade was uniquely meant to have Covenanter Bridgelayers, but nobody seems able to confirm this.

Other Valentine variants didn't turn up until October 1944 though, when Valentine SP 17pdrs ('Archer' post-war) turned up, along with their Valentine XI command tanks.

Yes, I agreed re Crusaders – lots of those around from AA tanks to gun-tractors and AT troop-leaders' tanks.

You can also throw in the Ram though – lots of Ram variants floating around! Oh and Lee/Grants (CDL & Priest)! :)

I agree that Centaurs had a different engine (Liberty as opposed to Meteor), though there weren't enough Centaurs in Normandy to make them an admin burden. They were sufficiently similar that the majority of Cromwell IVs were simply re-engined Centaurs.

IIRC Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality all its own." … and also said, "One death is a tragedy, two a statistic. "

McLaddie
I know very little about WWII

READ … … That being said, having been a Mech Infantry Commander and Maint. and Log Officer at both Bn and Bde levels. I can truly say modern technologically based armies[like many/most in the West] is a very costly Master. Catering to the Iron Monsters and other technologies takes time and money … in large amounts of both. It appears to me the WWII Germans had a tendancy to over engineer their vehicles. Where the USSR was certainly going for numbers. Along with big guns ! A high tech AFV may be combat effective, but if it is a maintenance nightmare. And many are left on the road side broken down. And don't get into combat … That suppossed effctiveness is limited … The US M4 was massed produced and issued to the allied armies as well. While mechanically reliable, it too had to go thru an number of upgrades to be more effective in action against many of the German AFVs it encountered … some may say another case of quantity having a quality of it's own …

WW2 tanks were all rushed into production far too quickly. In a situation where every nation was under pressure to produce the armies faced a decision whether to run on with a current design or to halt the production lines and put a new tank into the field. Frequently they took decisions with massive downsides, but they all had a logic behind the. Tiger was a good decision given that Germany was short of fuel and so heeded tanks that had high survivability and a really effective gun. Similarly with Panther, lthey were designed to be outnumbered and cope with that situation. The allies, East and West had plenty of fuel and generally plenty of men. They went for solutions that gave them large numbers and we should not forget that tanks were not only expected to fight other tanks, so mass production meant that many infantry attacks could go in with tank support because there were no German tanks opposing them at that point of assault.
Of course wargames over emphasise tank versus tank combat because a realistic game where the attacker has three to one superiority and tank suppoprt and the defender has position and some a/t.

I have been reading the Stackpole German heavy tank unit histories.What tales of engineering disaster! The 653 Schwere Panzer goes through their experiences with first Ferdinands and then Jagdtigers (poor guys). The 504 had Tigers then King Tigers.

Just changing inner wheels on all the above was a nightmare. I totally agree with the concept of German forces paying points for certain vehicles and then dicing to see if they stay. However 50/50 seems too generous. 20% likelihood of entering combat seems to have been 'normal'. Both books give cases of a single tank turning out when paper strength was 17!

I'm pretty sure stats can be worked out for each type, but suspect that there is just not the will. I get it. Wargames are instinctively seen as a form of chess, equal pieces with equal values.Competitions demand such 'parity'. It's the same issue with sensible real world tactics. They can make for a boring game. (The Germans stay frozen in place, while the Allies have 6 gos with aircraft, then 6 gos with artillery, then assault!) What really get me is how Germans in many rules are given incredible powers of initiative, when often in practice men sat there without orders because their superiors were too frightened to seek them, or because Hitler had declared a Festung, or the flying squads were killing anyone who breathed wrong, or they were 'ear, nose, throat' troops, or….

In Italy, for instance, Kesselring had Panthers – but most of the time couldn't risk actually using them. Their chances of deployment would be zero in most wargames (until German collapse threatened AND was worse in that scenario than somewhere else.) But what player would wish to pay for 5 and then have a 5% chance of using them?!

Wargames are instinctively seen as a form of chess, equal pieces with equal values.Competitions demand such 'parity'. It's the same issue with sensible real world tactics. They can make for a boring game. (The Germans stay frozen in place, while the Allies have 6 gos with aircraft, then 6 gos with artillery, then assault!) What really get me is how Germans in many rules are given incredible powers of initiative, when often in practice men sat there without orders because their superiors were too frightened to seek them, or because Hitler had declared a Festung, or the flying squads were killing anyone who breathed wrong, or they were 'ear, nose, throat' troops, or….

Yes, and one reason why I have never played a competition game. Many rules and gamers want to field elite German tank divisions or better quality SS but there is no reason why German troops cannot be low grade Volksturm or static divisions with lesser abilities and/or equipment and outclassed by their enemies – you just have to convince the players.

Many rules and gamers want to field elite German tank divisions or better quality SS but there is no reason why German troops cannot be low grade Volksturm or static divisions with lesser abilities and/or equipment and outclassed by their enemies – you just have to convince the players.

Good luck convincing players to use boring Volksturm and youth brigades instead of their glamorous elite Wehrmacht and Waffen SS units. It has nothing to do with being competitive tournament players but because we're naturally inclined to favor the better, more colorful and 'interesting' units in wargames even if they don't reflect the reality of history.

Same reason why no one in their right minds would pay the high points cost for Tigers and Panthers only to sit these pretty tanks on the sidelines because they couldn't roll a 6 on a D6 to make them 'available' in a game.

Not sure about the 3,000 miles without an overhaul figure given for the Sherman. I recently read about how in late '44/early '45 an American armored division was respositioned in the line and had to make a 250 mile road march. Over half the Shermans had broken down by the end of it.

someone a while ago was apparently playing successfully with a Late War German with Tiger 2s and Volkssturm. As long as he was defending the shear number of infantry and the impenetrability of the tanks served him well.
I heard a lecture once by an officer who had served in Normandy. His vew was that even low quality German units there showed initiative. If they broke up then individuals would stay around the position and snipe. His view of British troops was that if they were out of command e.g. through officer loss they would take up a defensible position and brew up..

It may have been in John Salt's compendium from WO, not sure at this point, but I read that in British service the average daily routine crew maintenance on tanks in operations was 3 hours – 4 hours for Churchills (whose crews apparently didn't mind the extra time). Presume that includes the various Shermans.

Not sure about German and Russian tanks. But none of these vehicles were as low maintenance as automobiles or even mining/construction equipment (although pre-shift on construction equipment usually includes at least a hit on the grease zerks).

Anecdotally my uncle (combat engineers, armored, North Africa and Italy) recalled sitting on a hill watching German tankers moving rocks out of the path of their tank. He noted that on their part, when they once wanted a couple of 'days off' that they deliberately wrecked their transmission.

His view of British troops was that if they were out of command e.g. through officer loss they would take up a defensible position and brew up..

Sensible chaps. You never know when you are going to get the next brew! :-)

Good luck convincing players to use boring Volksturm and youth brigades instead of their glamorous elite Wehrmacht and Waffen SS units. It has nothing to do with being competitive tournament players but because we're naturally inclined to favor the better, more colorful and 'interesting' units in wargames even if they don't reflect the reality of history.

Ditto the allied players. Seen any late Russian armies with lend lease Shermans or T-34/76's, despite both being very common right upto the end of the war? Of course not it is wall to wall T-34/85's and JS-II's. Same goes for NWE anyone would think paras were the only troops engaged.

Same reason why no one in their right minds would pay the high points cost for Tigers and Panthers only to sit these pretty tanks on the sidelines because they couldn't roll a 6 on a D6 to make them 'available' in a game.

Who can blame them, having spent the money and time to paint them? I doubt early war allied players would be happy if their Matildas, Char B's and KV-1's sat out the game because the rules said they had run out of fuel or broken down.

Scott big difference between break down and rebuild. Tanks break tracks almost constantly, often several times in one day. So that leaves them broken on the side of th4e road. But in an hour or two with some steel bars and big hammers and every cuss word you know, they are back on the road. Lots of times you dont even need any parts.

A rebuild on the other hand involves going back to third shop, stripping it pretty much back to the hull and rebuilding everything.

A number I remember from somewhere was that a PZ III engine was supposed to last 1500 miles but in North afrika th4ey only made it 500 miles.

owen

Whoa, am I reading this right McLaddie? 320,000 hours per tank?

Tim:
Yeah, you read it right. I was being lazy. Mea Culpa. The article actually states 200,000 to 300,000 man-hours.

To quote from "The Right Stuff", "No bucks … No Buck Rogers … " …