of course one sherman could take 1 panther

But they had so manu shermans

why send one, and let the others stay back

thats just stupid

thats what you get when you fight a country who has any steel

you get 5 tanks

and oil

dont forget the oil

Notseys didnt even have enough copper <:GWqlabsKek:393085130219978752>

🛢 <:think_hitlerdidnothingwrong:378717099952177162> 💭 💸 <:sad:382980750347206666>

https://tenor.com/view/sad-walk-of-shame-shame-shameful-head-down-gif-5548725

wehraboo walking home

aafter being destroyed by facts

and logic

<:shap:497652686603288576>

The tiger was superior to contemporary tanks when it first was built

But kinda lost the advantage later

it wasnt logistically sound tho

AFAIK

Oh, yeah

I meant from a purely statistical perspective

overengineered piece of trash

superiority takes more than just firepower(when the tank is able to run)

Like, if you put them in a 1v1 on equal footing the tiger would win every time

there isnt any 1vs1 in war

Between a tiger and a 75 Sherman

so that argument is shit

Yeah, ik

But i know what you mean

a tiger is like the cost of 5 shermans

But the k/d was 10

1 tiger is like 3 panthers i think

Roughly

So does that mean the tiger was more money efficient?

the panther was the more viable option

🤔

resources efficient

resources were more important than money during the war

i think around 80% of all panthers broke down on the way to Kursk

still bigger numbers

no matter how good a single tank was, you could never win battles with less than a fleet of them