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

its only one point on a map to fire from

so, putting so much money into a single tank was unwise

Panthers broke down so much

They’d catch fire if the incline was too high

<:GWqlabsKek:393085130219978752>

its like the yamato

japanese wanted a BB that could destroy everything

look how that went

Wehraboos be like muh SuPeriUr TeNK

Hello

battle ships overengineered by the japs. they did alright too considering they had no resources at all in contrast to the usa for building stuff

so they managed their fleet quite well

the problem with war thunder is reliablility and ease of maintenance arent gameplay factors at all