Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7
Yup big differrence between Panzer 1 and Tiger 1. Panzer 1 wasn't realy a tank at all, more a tracked cavalry vehicle or scout car. Weighed less that 6 tons and armed only with two 7.92mm MG's. This type of vehicle was fairly common during the interwar period of the 20's and 30's but obsolete to all intensive purposes by 1939.
|
My bad. He does list the Pzkpfw 1, but there is a completely separate entry for the Pzkpfw VI Tiger I.
The text:
Quote:
The Tiger I quickly gained a reputation as a deadly opponent due to its heavy armour and powerful 88mm main gun. The tiger was not, however, quite the ultimate weapon it seemed. Hugely expensive to produce and rather complex to maintain, the Tiger absorbed a lot of resources in return for its formidable combat power. Just getting it to the battlefield presented a problem.
The Tiger was too heavy for most bridges and a lot of roads, and the running gear suffered from clogging in muddy conditions. Its gun was immensely powerful, but traversed very slowly and its performance in the field was hampered by being underpowered and fuel greedy."
|
Every one of those arguments can be leveled at the Abrams, the Challenger, the Chieftain, the Leopard II - any of them. I saw an Abrams shear its own return roller going through a muddy gully - the tank was downed for a good two hours while being repaired.
it's an unintentionally funny book, that's for sure.