Originally posted by starlifter
About the Panther... have you ever seen one in real life? Its huge and unwieldly, and prone to breakdown. Nice stats in theory though.
Not sure if that's directed at me, but YES, I did see several ones. So I'm not sure if you are referring to the right tank.
The King Tiger (Tiger II) was the biggest, heaviest amored and most powerful tank of WW2. It's drawbacks were the huge size, the very limited maneuverability and speed and the high fuel usage!
The Panther series on the other hand was the ideal counter-attacker of the late war. It posed the highest problems to the Allies. It was almost twice as fast as the King Tiger, much more maneuvarable than allied tanks of equal firepower, and in groups they still packed quite a punch. So it might the King Tiger you are referring to. Then I would have to agree with you, those drawbacks were one of the main reasons why the Ardennes counter-offensive failed.
In practice, even as an American, it's hard to cross the T34 any way you slice it... influence, numbers, all 'round real life performance.... Boy oh boy, the tank battles those Russians and Germans had!
The Russian tanks were solid fighters but they achieved their success not because of their superiority but due to their sheer numbers and support of other army elements.
Taken in a one on one fight with equally able commanders, the German tanks will most likely always win.
Of course, today the M1A1 is king. And it actually works well in the field.... except it's size, which limits the airlift options in a mobile war.
I think that here too, the Leopard II tank will get the better in a fight against the Abrams. The real advantage US tanks have is the support, especially with information. The linked combat systems applicable in US tanks of today give the individual tank commander a great advantage over any opponent.
And the training of US troops is definitely more intense and much better than most other armies around the world. Superior training makes up a large part of actual fighting power, but just comparing the tanks, I still favor the Leo.
Maybe a bit of patriotism but still lots of objectiveness. I've seen both tanks in training action here in Germany, not in a direct simulated battle, though, but the Leo was more impressive in it's effectiveness.
