Should Panthers be cheaper?

[McGuba]

The Pz.IV might have been on par with the T-34/85 and the Sherman, but was certainly outclassed by the Soviet "beast killers": IS-2, ISU-122, ISU-152 and SU-100. And thousands of these were produced from 1944, and there were the Sherman Firefly, Comet, M36 and M26 in the west which also seem to have a better gun at least. So even if the Germans decided to stick to the Pz.IV/StuG III combo and produce more, they would have run into some problems dealing with these Allied types after a while.

[Horseman]

The Pz.IV might have been on par with the T-34/85 and the Sherman, but was certainly outclassed by the Soviet "beast killers": IS-2, ISU-122, ISU-152 and SU-100. And thousands of these were produced from 1944, and there were the Sherman Firefly, Comet, M36 and M26 in the west which also seem to have a better gun at least. So even if the Germans decided to stick to the Pz.IV/StuG III combo and produce more, they would have run into some problems dealing with these Allied types after a while.

Without a doubt - The PzIV was never going to compete 1 on 1 with those big boys.

The argument for keeping with the PzIV/StuG over Panthers/Tigers is would you rather have 100 PzIVs or 1 Tiger? (maybe not quite that extreme but you get the idea)

There were obviously others issues - chiefly shortage of oil/quality materials and manpower.

The Germans were never going to win but they may have been able to force an almost stalemate or more likely conditional surrender IF Hitler had allowed his Generals to do things the way they wanted to.

EDIT: Managed to miss off the fact that one of the things some of Germany's top Generals wanted was a switch in focus to a more defensive style of warfare.

[kondi754]

Like the Firefly, the Pz IV could receive a gun with a larger caliber, length, and muzzle velocity.
The enormous money spent on heavy tanks and other heavy vehicles could be spent on new technologies for the production of specialized anti-tank missiles using materials available to the Germans during the second half of the war.

[IceSerpent]

No, I agree with Horseman - Pz IV after 1942 was a solid, decent tank, which could fight very effectively with Sherman and T-34/85
American tank crews mistook him for the Tiger very often, and battalion commanders reported that their troops had suffered heavy losses in the fight against the Tigers but there were the Pz IV in fact.

The latest and arguably the best incarnation of Pz IV in 1943 (Pz IV H) was at the limit of what that platform could handle. An argument can be made that it was already over the limit, because of the issues with front suspension. T-34/85 was pretty much at the limit of its capabilities too, although T-34 was a better design to begin with. Both could easily penetrate each other's frontal armor at ranges up to 1.5km (iirc), but T-34 was faster while Pz IV H got too heavy for it's engine after all modifications. So, yeah, it was still decent when fielded against a contemporary design from the late 1930s, but pretty much obsolete when facing newer tanks that were becoming available in 1943.

Like the Firefly, the Pz IV could receive a gun with a larger caliber, length, and muzzle velocity.

It couldn't apparently - attempts to put Panther's gun on it (Schmalturm turret) have failed. 75mm L/48 was the best Pz IV could use.

[kondi754]

You can always change the turret, the point is that instead of building unnecessary heavy tanks, you can upgrade or rebuild an existing combat-proven tank
See what the Israelis did to the Sherman in the 1960s, a late 1930s project of tank and performed very well on the battlefield against the Arab T-54 and T-55

Ok @IceSerpent, so whats your point of how should the development of the German Panzerwaffe be in the face of a losing war, when it was necessary to defend more often than to attack, and when the available resources were systematically reduced ?

[McGuba]

Like the Firefly, the Pz IV could receive a gun with a larger caliber, length, and muzzle velocity.

Hm, I am not so sure that the Pz.IV was strong and big enough for that. And if there was such a gun why they did not do it?

The enormous money spent on heavy tanks and other heavy vehicles could be spent on new technologies for the production of specialized anti-tank missiles using materials available to the Germans during the second half of the war.

Yes, for sure, but there are many other "if"-s. They could have done many other things as well differently and then there could have been a different outcome. Both the Axis and Allies made good and bad decisions and probably the one who made more bad decisions turned out to be the loser. But when they made their decisions they made them based on current evidence without knowing what would happen in the future. The Germans made a lot of innovations, some worked, some did not, but it was not easy to tell on advance which of those would eventually work well and cost effectively and which would not.

The argument for keeping with the PzIV/StuG over Panthers/Tigers is would you rather have 100 PzIVs or 1 Tiger? (maybe not quite that extreme but you get the idea)

Most sources seem to claim that a (late production) Tiger cost like 2-2.5 times more than a Pz.IV. 250.000-300.000 RM vs. 115.000 or something. So the question should be more like 2.5 Pz.IV or 1 Tiger I. Just to be the devil's advocate, if two or more Pz.IVs have no chance against a IS-2 in a normal fight but a Tiger I does, I might pick the Tiger as in the other case I would lose all Pz.IVs for no gain. It would be hard to prove, but I think an "average" Tiger I could destroy more than two times more enemy tanks than an "average" Pz.IV. If that's the case then it was probably more cost effective. If not, well at least they tried to come up with something better...

For me it is a bit like arguing that instead of IS-2, and ISU types the Soviets should have produced even more simple T-34/85s and then they would have reached even further into Germany.

The Germans were never going to win but they may have been able to force an almost stalemate or more likely conditional surrender IF Hitler had allowed his Generals to do things the way they wanted to.

It is especially interesting to compare the Führer with Stalin. Stalin initially also liked to interfere in military matters but after a series of heavy losses he learned that it is perhaps better to leave his Marshals do their own business. The Führer did quite the opposite, he interfered more and more which probably shortened the war considerably. Stalin proved to be smarted in this regard which might have contributed in him gaining the upper hand in the end.

[adiekmann]

Like the Firefly, the Pz IV could receive a gun with a larger caliber, length, and muzzle velocity.

Hm, I am not so sure that the Pz.IV was strong and big enough for that. And if there was such a gun why they did not do it?

The enormous money spent on heavy tanks and other heavy vehicles could be spent on new technologies for the production of specialized anti-tank missiles using materials available to the Germans during the second half of the war.

Yes, for sure, but there are many other "if"-s. They could have done many other things as well differently and then there could have been a different outcome. Both the Axis and Allies made good and bad decisions and probably the one who made more bad decisions turned out to be the loser. But when they made their decisions they made them based on current evidence without knowing what would happen in the future. The Germans made a lot of innovations, some worked, some did not, but it was not easy to tell on advance which of those would eventually work well and cost effectively and which would not.

The argument for keeping with the PzIV/StuG over Panthers/Tigers is would you rather have 100 PzIVs or 1 Tiger? (maybe not quite that extreme but you get the idea)

Most sources seem to claim that a (late production) Tiger cost like 2-2.5 times more than a Pz.IV. 250.000-300.000 RM vs. 115.000 or something. So the question should be more like 2.5 Pz.IV or 1 Tiger I. Just to be the devil's advocate, if two or more Pz.IVs have no chance against a IS-2 in a normal fight but a Tiger I does, I might pick the Tiger as in the other case I would lose all Pz.IVs for no gain. It would be hard to prove, but I think an "average" Tiger I could destroy more than two times more enemy tanks than an "average" Pz.IV. If that's the case then it was probably more cost effective. If not, well at least they tried to come up with something better...

For me it is a bit like arguing that instead of IS-2, and ISU types the Soviets should have produced even more simple T-34/85s and then they would have reached even further into Germany.

The Germans were never going to win but they may have been able to force an almost stalemate or more likely conditional surrender IF Hitler had allowed his Generals to do things the way they wanted to.

It is especially interesting to compare the Führer with Stalin. Stalin initially also liked to interfere in military matters but after a series of heavy losses he learned that it is perhaps better to leave his Marshals do their own business. The Führer did quite the opposite, he interfered more and more which probably shortened the war considerably. Stalin proved to be smarted in this regard which might have contributed in him gaining the upper hand in the end.

There was a more powerful gun: the one they put into the Panther! And yes, you are right, the turret of the IV could not house it. Remember, even to put the 17 pounder into the Firefly, some creative modding had to be done in order to make it fit. The last versions of the Mk IV were getting heavier and heavier and were losing some of their mobility. They also were getting more difficult to drive as their weight was all off.

Another problem that overshadows all of this are late war shortages and its impact not only on production, but design. This has already been mentioned above. The Tiger I was a complex, overengineered machine. It was never intended to be mass produced in large numbers, or that was the reasoning behind it. It actually worked well; however, its weight made it necessary for frequent maintenance. Wear and tear. Even Leopard 2 tanks need their tracks replaced every x-number of kilometers. Is this because it is a poor tank design? No, it's just the reality of a tank that weighs more than a Tiger I (68.7 vs. 63 short tons). The difference is modern technology, like the Leopard 2 has somehting like 1500 hp.

The Panther was designed purposely with compromises in mind to facilitate production and make it cheaper. This is the reason for its weak drive, the single main problem with the tank. They had the means and knowledge to make it better, but for the reasons already mentioned they intentionally chose not to use a better transmission that would have eliminated that weakness. Plus you see reports all over that the quality of German armor, the actual armor, was inferior late war than earlier. Again due to material shortages.

Now, had the Germans designed the Panther in 1940...wow, you would have seen a much better tank because these considerations would not have played a role then. The Mk IV was at the end of its development life, as was the bf 109. The Germans planned and organized their war economy MUCH better during WW1 despite all of the territory they controlled and used during WW2. That can be directly blamed on the incompetence of the Nazi regime that undermined their war efforts in many directions and areas, this just being one of them. The fact is, no matter what tank they built, the Germans were never going to match the production capacity of the Allies, so it wouldn't have mattered, and even if they somehow miraculously did they did not have the manpower - unless they developed unmanned drone tanks, or crewed by Nazi Zombies! Yikes!

[adiekmann]

Like the Firefly, the Pz IV could receive a gun with a larger caliber, length, and muzzle velocity.

Hm, I am not so sure that the Pz.IV was strong and big enough for that. And if there was such a gun why they did not do it?

The enormous money spent on heavy tanks and other heavy vehicles could be spent on new technologies for the production of specialized anti-tank missiles using materials available to the Germans during the second half of the war.

Yes, for sure, but there are many other "if"-s. They could have done many other things as well differently and then there could have been a different outcome. Both the Axis and Allies made good and bad decisions and probably the one who made more bad decisions turned out to be the loser. But when they made their decisions they made them based on current evidence without knowing what would happen in the future. The Germans made a lot of innovations, some worked, some did not, but it was not easy to tell on advance which of those would eventually work well and cost effectively and which would not.

The argument for keeping with the PzIV/StuG over Panthers/Tigers is would you rather have 100 PzIVs or 1 Tiger? (maybe not quite that extreme but you get the idea)

Most sources seem to claim that a (late production) Tiger cost like 2-2.5 times more than a Pz.IV. 250.000-300.000 RM vs. 115.000 or something. So the question should be more like 2.5 Pz.IV or 1 Tiger I. Just to be the devil's advocate, if two or more Pz.IVs have no chance against a IS-2 in a normal fight but a Tiger I does, I might pick the Tiger as in the other case I would lose all Pz.IVs for no gain. It would be hard to prove, but I think an "average" Tiger I could destroy more than two times more enemy tanks than an "average" Pz.IV. If that's the case then it was probably more cost effective. If not, well at least they tried to come up with something better...

For me it is a bit like arguing that instead of IS-2, and ISU types the Soviets should have produced even more simple T-34/85s and then they would have reached even further into Germany.

The Germans were never going to win but they may have been able to force an almost stalemate or more likely conditional surrender IF Hitler had allowed his Generals to do things the way they wanted to.

It is especially interesting to compare the Führer with Stalin. Stalin initially also liked to interfere in military matters but after a series of heavy losses he learned that it is perhaps better to leave his Marshals do their own business. The Führer did quite the opposite, he interfered more and more which probably shortened the war considerably. Stalin proved to be smarted in this regard which might have contributed in him gaining the upper hand in the end.

There was a more powerful gun: the one they put into the Panther! And yes, you are right, the turret of the IV could not house it. Remember, even to put the 17 pounder into the Firefly, some creative modding had to be done in order to make it fit. The last versions of the Mk IV were getting heavier and heavier and were losing some of their mobility. They also were getting more difficult to drive as their weight was all off.

Another problem that overshadows all of this are late war shortages and its impact not only on production, but design. This has already been mentioned above. The Tiger I was a complex, overengineered machine. It was never intended to be mass produced in large numbers, or that was the reasoning behind it. It actually worked well; however, its weight made it necessary for frequent maintenance. Wear and tear. Even Leopard 2 tanks need their tracks replaced every x-number of kilometers. Is this because it is a poor tank design? No, it's just the reality of a tank that weighs more than a Tiger I (68.7 vs. 63 short tons). The difference is modern technology, like the Leopard 2 has somehting like 1500 hp.

The Panther was designed purposely with compromises in mind to facilitate production and make it cheaper. This is the reason for its weak drive, the single main problem with the tank. They had the means and knowledge to make it better, but for the reasons already mentioned they intentionally chose not to use a better transmission that would have eliminated that weakness. Plus you see reports all over that the quality of German armor, the actual armor, was inferior late war than earlier. Again due to material shortages.

Now, had the Germans designed the Panther in 1940...wow, you would have seen a much better tank because these considerations would not have played a role then. The Mk IV was at the end of its development life, as was the bf 109. The Germans planned and organized their war economy MUCH better during WW1 despite all of the territory they controlled and used during WW2. That can be directly blamed on the incompetence of the Nazi regime that undermined their war efforts in many directions and areas, this just being one of them. The fact is, no matter what tank they built, the Germans were never going to match the production capacity of the Allies, so it wouldn't have mattered, and even if they somehow miraculously did they did not have the manpower - unless they developed unmanned drone tanks, or crewed by Nazi Zombies! Yikes!

Oh, and yes, you are also absolutely correct about Hitler and Stalin. Stalin learned from his mistakes, whereas Hitler compounded them and got worse as the war went on. Your comment reminded me of a book that I read at University decades ago called Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
https://smile.amazon.com/Hitler-Stalin- ... 180&sr=8-2

[Horseman]

Most sources seem to claim that a (late production) Tiger cost like 2-2.5 times more than a Pz.IV. 250.000-300.000 RM vs. 115.000 or something. So the question should be more like 2.5 Pz.IV or 1 Tiger I. Just to be the devil's advocate, if two or more Pz.IVs have no chance against a IS-2 in a normal fight but a Tiger I does, I might pick the Tiger as in the other case I would lose all Pz.IVs for no gain. It would be hard to prove, but I think an "average" Tiger I could destroy more than two times more enemy tanks than an "average" Pz.IV. If that's the case then it was probably more cost effective. If not, well at least they tried to come up with something better...

Its not just the cost in money - its also the construction time. Panzer IVs could be produced way more than 2.5 times faster than Tigers. The were also far more reliable so a Panzer IV spent more time in service than a Tiger.

This is even more telling when you consider that at the time the Tiger was introduced there were already plenty of sites producing Panzer IVs which then had to be converted into producing Tigers.

The Soviets did not have the same problems as Germany - for them switching to better improved tanks made sense. They would still massively outproduce Germany.

And the other consideration - if Hitler had listened to his generals and allowed them to adapt to a defensive war properly then production of tanks would have slowed dramatically as they started churning out more and more StuGs and the like.

[kondi754]

I think that the whole discussion is based on comparing tank stats and placing them in a model battlefield situation, where armored or mechanized units of 2 fighting armies met by chance, and besides, a few interesting facts from Wikipedia in addition.
But this has little to do with the real war, where there were very few Tigers and Panthers, and if they were on a battlefield they were misused mostly, you could rarely see the IS-2 (correctly IS-122) because there were also relatively few of these tanks - they were grouped in heavy tank regiments of 15 vehicles assigned as the HQ reserve of each Soviet army, and little more in the Soviet tank armies.
There were the T-34s and Shermans which ruled on the battlefield, and they decided about the final success. The Germans didn't respond to this threat and went for quality (only on paper) but not quantity, which is the only objective factor in the war. It's not true that the development of the military situation and the path of equipment development in enemy armies cannot be predicted. Staffs are working on it and I can assure you that German panzerwaffe's specialists knew very well that they need to create a simple, reliable, maximally mobile vehicle with decent armor and a dangerous cannon, and this vehicle had to be the Pz IV or its successor. The thing is, they didn't decide on the further development of Panzerwaffe ...
This is fundamental for an intelligent manager, if you are weaker and have limited resources, so you need to develop things that are proven, if you are unable to mount a better gun on a given tank then make better shells.
Instead of building giant vehicles in small numbers, use these funds to produce synthetic fuel, armor-piercing and fragmentation ammunition, AT guns and (above all ) Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks and MG's ammunition or even more Jabo jets.
There is no "if" here. This is hard logic.
BTW If I asked you to give an example of an armored battle, most of the answers will be about the Battle of Kursk. And here's a surprise - the Battle of Kursk was a battle of artillery and infantry, a typical battle of the First World War, where only sometimes tanks appeared and heavy tanks even less often. Despite the development of technology, World War II was still an infantry war !!! The Germans lost it primarily because they didn't have any more people capable of carrying weapons, so this whole discussion doesn't make sense anyway...

[McGuba]

Panzer IVs could be produced way more than 2.5 times faster than Tigers.

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know how much more?

The were also far more reliable so a Panzer IV spent more time in service than a Tiger.

Hm, it looks like it is only partially true and only for the first year of service. It looks like from mid 1944 the Pz.IV, Panther and Tiger had about the same operational rate in the range of 60-70%.

The Germans didn't respond to this threat and went for quality (only on paper) but not quantity, which is the only objective factor in the war.

I might be wrong but I think the results of the various Arab-Israeli conflicts tend to suggest that sometimes quality can beat quantity. Quality has some advantages over quantity like less trained crews, less fuel, less parts and maintenance are needed. All of which were scarce in Germany compared to its enemies. If a nation is outnumbered by its enemies, as it was the case with Germany, I can understand the reasoning behind that. It does not matter how many more mediocre tanks you can squeeze out from the factories, your enemies will have even more. Therefore having fewer but superior tanks may be better, at least in theory, but at least not worse than the other alternative. Does it really matter if you have 1 Tiger or 2-3 Pz.IVs, if they have to face 10 Shermans?

Instead of building giant vehicles in small numbers, use these funds to produce synthetic fuel, armor-piercing and fragmentation ammunition, AT guns and (above all ) Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks and MG's ammunition or even more Jabo jets.

In a defensive war, yes, I agree with that, but maybe they were too late to accept that they were fighting a losing war. But everybody wants to win the war and one can only do so by producing offensive weapons and not defensive ones. However, had they accepted that they had no chance to win earlier (which is not very realistic knowing their ideology) it would have made sense to shift to produce these "poor man's weapons" instead of the heavy tanks to reach a negotiated peace at least. But at some point the Allies made it clear that they would only accept unconditional surrender, which left little hope for that anyway.

[Retributarr]

"McGuba": … in-short!... "Terrific-Analaysis!!!".

[kondi754]

That is why I wrote that our discussion does not make sense in the broader context (political, strategic and economic), because Germany was doomed to failure. Nevertheless, I like such discussions.

[Catacol]

I wouldn't say no to some price and slot balancing for late war units.

2 changes I've made in my ongoing multiplayer development. The first is the cost of the all terrain German armoured cars. Apart from the puma they are ridiculously cheap - given the rate of movement, their ability to hit and run, and the fact that ground defence values are also quite high and made a hell of a lot higher by AT they are actually a game breaker. I've just finished playing my opponent a back to back game on a scenario I created based on the fighting around Kirovograd, and the 8 wheelers caused havoc. When one considers that base level 233 costs about the same as a 4 wheeled and much less useful BA64 it is crazy.

The other thing I've done is massively crank up the cost of super heavy artillery. These counter battery and tank destroying units are game winners on their own, and far too cheap. I've made them about the same as a heavy tank and it has worked instantly.

I've made changes to other units too in terms of ground performance - flame vehicles in particular and a range of infantry units. Towed AT guns also need making cheaper and I've done that.

Thinking about it I wouldn't mind a developer led thread that focuses purely on ideas for the multiplayer format of the game - at least until (or unless) we get some very user friendly mod tools. I think the community could be very useful in advising on unit and cost changes.

[Catacol]

The fact is, no matter what tank they built, the Germans were never going to match the production capacity of the Allies, so it wouldn't have mattered, and even if they somehow miraculously did they did not have the manpower - unless they developed unmanned drone tanks, or crewed by Nazi Zombies! Yikes!

Go read the analysis of wartime potential production in Richard Overy's "Why the Allies Won" - he debunks the long held view that Germany was "doomed" to lose because of productive capacity differences. Had Goring not made such a mess of things with the 4 year plan, and Todt failed to reconcile the competing arms of German industry and failed to maximise the productive capacity of the occupied territories, then the production gap need not have been there. Speer set about sorting all this out, but his arrival in 43 was too late. There is an interesting bit in there referring to US support given to Soviet production facilities, and the bewilderment of US observers who couldn't quite work out how Soviet production didn't just fall apart. The resilience of the soviet worker, and his/her capacity to endure horrendous working conditions and adapt to material shortages, was one of the great triumphs of the Soviet effort. It is also worth saying that by 1944 manpower reserves in both the USSR and UK were close to exhaustion. Russian infantry units were almost always understrength, and the UK couldn't further expand ground forces at all. Yes - German manpower was stretched....but so too were her enemies. We need to puncture the myth of the "inevitability" of German defeat due to material and manpower differences because it hugely oversimplifies a complex topic.

And in any case wars have to be won via victory on the battlefield - they are not won in factories. Germany could have avoided defeat at Stalingrad; she could have avoided the capitulation in Tunisia in 1943 and not run down a blind alley at Kursk. These were hugely significant battlefield defeats, the result of poor intelligence, poor strategy and poor leadership. We also therefore need to puncture the myth of the indomitable Wehrmacht doomed to defeat but heroic in the quality of the rearguard action. Yes - there were some inspired commanders such as Manstein and some units that were extremely high quality such as Grossdeutschland - but German generals and the German leadership lost them the war no matter the impact of Auftragstaktic on the ground. Germany lost the war as a result of her own failures and not because of the supposed tag team numerical superiority of her enemies.

[Patrat]

And in any case wars have to be won via victory on the battlefield - they are not won in factories.

Wars may not be won in factories, but history is filled with examples of wars that were not won on the battlefield. Vietnam is only one of the latest examples. The North Vietnamese lost virtually every battle they fought, but still won the war.

I can name a lot more examples if you wish. Going back all the way to Roman times.

Hint: Look up "Fabian Strategy".

[Catacol]

And in any case wars have to be won via victory on the battlefield - they are not won in factories.

Wars may not be won in factories, but history is filled with examples of wars that were not won on the battlefield. Vietnam is only one of the latest examples. The North Vietnamese lost virtually every battle they fought, but still won the war.

I can name a lot more examples if you wish. Going back all the way to Roman times.

Hint: Look up "Fabian Strategy".

...though at the same time the US failed to achieve a substantive battlefield victory which was why - in the end - a combination of the loss of political will and impact of media fuelled protest knocked the stuffing out of Johnson, Nixon and Ford. At Khe Sanh and Hue during Tet the US drove the NVA and fighters away, and the Vietcong were neutralised as a fighting force afterward...but still it wasn't a substantial enough victory. By being forced to resort to bombing and fruitless search and destroy tactics the US were denied a substantive battlefield victory.

Ho may not have won his victory over the US on the battlefield, but the US certainly contributed to their own demise by military failure. The French departed after defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and in 1975 the destruction of the South Vietnamese Army was the key to ending the war. All the debate over hearts, minds, economics and ideology cannot mask the fact that victory in war requires battlefield success.

[kondi754]

The Pz.IV might have been on par with the T-34/85 and the Sherman, but was certainly outclassed by the Soviet "beast killers": IS-2, ISU-122, ISU-152 and SU-100. And thousands of these were produced from 1944, and there were the Sherman Firefly, Comet, M36 and M26 in the west which also seem to have a better gun at least. So even if the Germans decided to stick to the Pz.IV/StuG III combo and produce more, they would have run into some problems dealing with these Allied types after a while.

Unfortunately, I have a different opinion. If you read the monographs about the vehicles you write about, you would come to 2 conclusions:
1.The Pz IVG or H handled with most of these tanks and SPGs very well, not to mention the StuG IV which were very dangerous to all of these vehicles
2.Most of these vehicles were so few on the frontline so it is not worth writing about them because they hadn't strategic or at least operational significance, at best tactical

[Retributarr]

[

The Germans didn't respond to this threat and went for quality (only on paper) but not quantity, which is the only objective factor in the war.

I might be wrong but I think the results of the various Arab-Israeli conflicts tend to suggest that sometimes quality can beat quantity. Quality has some advantages over quantity like less trained crews, less fuel, less parts and maintenance are needed. All of which were scarce in Germany compared to its enemies. If a nation is outnumbered by its enemies, as it was the case with Germany, I can understand the reasoning behind that. It does not matter how many more mediocre tanks you can squeeze out from the factories, your enemies will have even more. Therefore having fewer but superior tanks may be better, at least in theory, but at least not worse than the other alternative. Does it really matter if you have 1 Tiger or 2-3 Pz.IVs, if they have to face 10 Shermans?

"...at least in theory"...now demonstated as "Fact!".
"Introduction-Preface": My recollection here and I may be wrong!... is that the 'Syrians' had nearly the newest-latest "Russian-Tanks" that money could buy. While!!!... for the most part the "Israeli's were using upgraded-modified "Centurion-Tanks". The Israeli tank crews also had extensive training with the use of their tanks and were 'Expert-Marksmen'... in targeting tanks for destruction.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Isra
The Battle of Golan Heights was a battle between Syrian and Israeli forces that took place at the beginning of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. During the Battle of Golan Heights, Syrian tanks vastly outnumbered Israeli tanks. However, the Israelis were able to defeat the Syrians, largely because of the superiority of Israeli tanks.





Valley of Tears - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_Tears

The Valley of Tears (Hebrew: עֵמֶק הַבָּכָא, Emek HaBakha) is the name given to an area in the Golan Heights after it became the site of a major battle in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, known as the Valley (or Vale) of Tears Battle, which was fought between the 6th and 9th of October. Although massively outnumbered, the Israeli forces managed to hold their positions and on the fourth day of the battle the Syrians withdrew, just as the Israeli defenses were almost at the point of collapse.
Map of the Golan campaign.


An Israeli Sho't Kal, an upgraded Centurion tank

Israeli Intelligence estimated that Syria had more than 900 tanks and 140 batteries of artillery immediately behind the Syrian line. The Syrian 7th Division was one of the units ready to attack. The actual number of Syrian tanks was about 1,260. Each Syrian infantry division had one infantry brigade, one mechanized infantry brigade, and one armored brigade. [More indepth informational details at Web-Page] The Syrian attack force was backed by at least 1,000 artillery pieces.

Valley of Tears in 2010

Aftermath
The Syrians lost over 500 tanks and APCs and the Israelis lost 60 to 80 armored vehicles.

Eitan told the 7th Brigade over the radio: "You have saved the people of Israel". Ben Gal told Kahalani: "You are the true savior of the people of Israel".

[Patrat]

And in any case wars have to be won via victory on the battlefield - they are not won in factories.

Wars may not be won in factories, but history is filled with examples of wars that were not won on the battlefield. Vietnam is only one of the latest examples. The North Vietnamese lost virtually every battle they fought, but still won the war.

I can name a lot more examples if you wish. Going back all the way to Roman times.

Hint: Look up "Fabian Strategy".

...though at the same time the US failed to achieve a substantive battlefield victory which was why - in the end - a combination of the loss of political will and impact of media fuelled protest knocked the stuffing out of Johnson, Nixon and Ford. At Khe Sanh and Hue during Tet the US drove the NVA and fighters away, and the Vietcong were neutralised as a fighting force afterward...but still it wasn't a substantial enough victory. By being forced to resort to bombing and fruitless search and destroy tactics the US were denied a substantive battlefield victory.

Ho may not have won his victory over the US on the battlefield, but the US certainly contributed to their own demise by military failure. The French departed after defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and in 1975 the destruction of the South Vietnamese Army was the key to ending the war. All the debate over hearts, minds, economics and ideology cannot mask the fact that victory in war requires battlefield success.

Did you write the above? Or is it a qoute? If so, I'd like to know the source.

Anyway. Except for the last sentence,(which is an opinion, not fact)) the above just reinforces my point.
Ho didn't win on the battlefield. He managed to drive the US out without any major battlefield victories. It's true that without US support, South Vietnam was doomed to eventual battlefield defeat. But if the US had been able to stay, HO was never going to be able to destroy the South Vietnamese army on the battlefield.

Ok another example from history is from the 2nd punic war. Where the term Fabian Strategy was coined.

Fabius Maximus managed to drive Hannibal from Italy by avoiding fighting him on the battlefield. Hannibal trounced the Romans every time they tried to fight him on the battlefield in Italy. By refusing battle and by attacking Hannibals logistics, Fabius eventually succeeded in forcing Hannibal to withdraw from Italy. Thus setting the stage for the eventual Roman victory at Zama.

True, like Ho, the Roman's ended the war with a battlefield victory (Zama). But in both cases, victory came after losing pretty much every battle prior to the final one. In both cases, final victory would never have been achieved without the prior strategy of avoiding major battles until the foe was sufficiently weakened.

The American Revolution turned out somewhat similar. After getting beat on the battlefield numerous times by the British. Washington used essential a Fabian Strategy of avoiding major battles.

The American Revolution also ended with a battlefield victory, Yorktown. But like my previous examples, the final victory would never have been possible without weaking the foe thru a Fabian Strategy.