Toxn

You flatter me, but I'm really here more in a comedy role myself 

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.
 
"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."
"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."
 
"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."
"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"
 
"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."
"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"
 
"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."
"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."
 
"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."
"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."
 
"It was made by Americans."
"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

So another side note: this game also works really well in reverse...
 
Discussing, let's call it the A42 "Cataphract", as developed by the British in 1943:
 
Designer: "Overall its dimensions were comparable to Tiger 1, but about 60cm longer and 30cm narrower. For all that, the turret ring diameter was 160cm. The vehicle weighed around 45 tonnes, ten tonnes less than Tiger, but had a lopsided armour scheme with equivalent (or better) frontal protection and about half the armour everywhere else."
 
Wehraboo: "Typical poor British design: over-emphasising some aspects at the expense of others. This reminds one of Churchill, which paid a heavy tank's bill on weight and mobility (not to mention an over-long hull which makes turning difficult), but only has good protection from the front for the trouble."
 
D: "The tank carried a high-velocity gun in the 75-76mm class, with good armour penetration (able to knock out all but the heaviest tanks). On the other hand, it had a less powerful HE round than existing 75mm guns like KwK40 and M3."
 
W: "This is also typically British. They put can-openers on their tanks and then forgot the most common mission for them: infantry support! It is less of an issue for specialist vehicles such as Archer, but for a mass-production tank it's a crippling defect."
 
D: "The drivetrain was complex, bulky and very unreliable, but provided nice-to-have capabilities like neutral steering and good gun stability over rough terrain. The engine was underdeveloped and needed a massive amount of work (including derating) before it could be used for any length of time successfully. Overall, the time-to-failure was something like a few hundred kilometres, and they didn't foresee being able to improve this (although the lifespan of individual components could have been improved)."
 
W: "This is Covenanter all over again - a bunch of 'clever' ideas that amounted to a mess. At least then they had the good sense to keep it as a training vehicle instead of sending it into battle. They should have stuck to well-proven transmission and suspension components, and used a surplus aero-engine or something rather than bodging it."
 
D: "Due to the issues with the suspension, drivetrain, turret ring diameter and turret design, the vehicle had almost no upgrade potential. The armour could not be thickened appreciably without causing even worse reliability problems, and the gun could not be replaced by a larger-bore weapon without designing an entirely new turret (and even then it would have been a squeeze for the crew)."
 
W: "This was the problem with Cromwell too - forcing the British to make iterative new vehicles when it should have been upgrading existing ones. The Germans, Russians and Americans all realised this with PzIV, T-34 and M4. Each was able to be reworked with new weapons, turrets, armour, and even engines without stopping the whole production line to produce a completely new vehicle."
 
D: "Speaking of the turret, there were technically two hatches (a commander's hatch and an escape hatch directly in the rear), but the placement made it so that only the loader could use the rear hatch and only the commander and gunner could use the commander's hatch. The hatches were very small (around 40cm diameter), but the commander's hatch was well-appointed with periscopes, a mounting for a scissors periscope and a geared azimuth indicator to show the turret's rotation in relation to the hull. The gunner had a single coaxial sight with a single level of magnification (2.5x), but later production was slated to have a selectable 2.5/5x sight. The FoV was around 28' for the 2.5x, and 14' for the 5x."  
 
W: "Again, the British talent for wonky engineering on show. The hatch is a mix of good ideas (they cottoned on to the use of periscopes quickly, after all), dubious ones (a simple ring indicator would have worked just as well) and terrible ones (Comet hatch syndrome strikes again). The gunner's sights were good and workmanlike (3x and 21' FoV is more typical for the British), but the Americans had already introduced modern conveniences such as a second unity/fixed magnification sight mounted to the roof at that point. This tank should have had these, it would made the gunner's life much easier!"
 
D: "The tank used almost no components common to other models besides the engine (which, again, needed massive reworking), and was difficult to service in almost every respect due to the complexities and placement of the drivetrain and suspension components. This, along with a chronic shortage of spare parts (because production of vehicles was prioritised over the production of spares) meant that commanders in the field would have to rely heavily on rail to move the tanks up to the front. There were no road transporters large enough to carry them, and next to no engineering vehicles able to unditch them."
 
W: "This is madness from the perspective of fighting a mobile war - something that the Germans excelled at but the allies had to painfully learn. A tank is only useful when it's moving under its own power. More than that - when winning an industrial war, it is rational production that counts. Look at the effort the Germans made under Speer to rationalise production of aircraft and tanks. This rationalisation probably prolonged the war by a year, giving the Wehrmacht the material to push back against the hordes of Russian vehicles being thrown at it."
 
D: "It was made by Germans."
 
W: "Oh its amazing! A wonder weapon! The ancestor of all modern tanks!"
 

So another side note: this game also works really well in reverse...
 
Discussing, let's call it the A42 "Cataphract", as developed by the British in 1943:
 
Designer: "Overall its dimensions were comparable to Tiger 1, but about 60cm longer and 30cm narrower. For all that, the turret ring diameter was 160cm. The vehicle weighed around 45 tonnes, ten tonnes less than Tiger, but had a lopsided armour scheme with equivalent (or better) frontal protection and about half the armour everywhere else."
 
Wehraboo: "Typical poor British design: over-emphasising some aspects at the expense of others. This reminds one of Churchill, which paid a heavy tank's bill on weight and mobility (not to mention an over-long hull which makes turning difficult), but only has good protection from the front for the trouble."
 
D: "The tank carried a high-velocity gun in the 75-76mm class, with good armour penetration (able to knock out all but the heaviest tanks). On the other hand, it had a less powerful HE round than existing 75mm guns like KwK40 and M3."
 
W: "This is also typically British. They put can-openers on their tanks and then forgot the most common mission for them: infantry support! It is less of an issue for specialist vehicles such as Archer, but for a mass-production tank it's a crippling defect."
 
D: "The drivetrain was complex, bulky and very unreliable, but provided nice-to-have capabilities like neutral steering and good gun stability over rough terrain. The engine was underdeveloped and needed a massive amount of work (including derating) before it could be used for any length of time successfully. Overall, the time-to-failure was something like a few hundred kilometres, and they didn't foresee being able to improve this (although the lifespan of individual components could have been improved)."
 
W: "This is Covenanter all over again - a bunch of 'clever' ideas that amounted to a mess. At least then they had the good sense to keep it as a training vehicle instead of sending it into battle. They should have stuck to well-proven transmission and suspension components, and used a surplus aero-engine or something rather than bodging it."
 
D: "Due to the issues with the suspension, drivetrain, turret ring diameter and turret design, the vehicle had almost no upgrade potential. The armour could not be thickened appreciably without causing even worse reliability problems, and the gun could not be replaced by a larger-bore weapon without designing an entirely new turret (and even then it would have been a squeeze for the crew)."
 
W: "This was the problem with Cromwell too - forcing the British to make iterative new vehicles when it should have been upgrading existing ones. The Germans, Russians and Americans all realised this with PzIV, T-34 and M4. Each was able to be reworked with new weapons, turrets, armour, and even engines without stopping the whole production line to produce a completely new vehicle."
 
D: "Speaking of the turret, there were technically two hatches (a commander's hatch and an escape hatch directly in the rear), but the placement made it so that only the loader could use the rear hatch and only the commander and gunner could use the commander's hatch. The hatches were very small (around 40cm diameter), but the commander's hatch was well-appointed with periscopes, a mounting for a scissors periscope and a geared azimuth indicator to show the turret's rotation in relation to the hull. The gunner had a single coaxial sight with a single level of magnification (2.5x), but later production was slated to have a selectable 2.5/5x sight. The FoV was around 28' for the 2.5x, and 14' for the 5x."  
 
W: "Again, the British talent for wonky engineering on show. The hatch is a mix of good ideas (they cottoned on to the use of periscopes quickly, after all), dubious ones (a simple ring indicator would have worked just as well) and terrible ones (Comet hatch syndrome strikes again). The gunner's sights were good and workmanlike (3x and 21' FoV is more typical for the British), but the Americans had already introduced modern conveniences such as a second unity/fixed magnification sight mounted to the roof at that point. This tank should have had these, it would made the gunner's life much easier!"
 
D: "The tank used almost no components common to other models besides the engine (which, again, needed massive reworking), and was difficult to service in almost every respect due to the complexities and placement of the drivetrain and suspension components. This, along with a chronic shortage of spare parts (because production of vehicles was prioritised over the production of spares) meant that commanders in the field would have to rely heavily on rail to move the tanks up to the front. There were no road transporters large enough to carry them, and next to no engineering vehicles able to unditch them."
 
W: "This is madness from the perspective of fighting a mobile war - something that the Germans excelled at but the allies had to painfully learn. A tank is only useful when it's moving under its own power. More than that - when winning an industrial war, it is rational production that counts. Look at the effort the Germans made under Speer to rationalise production of aircraft and tanks. This rationalisation probably prolonged the war by a year, giving the Wehrmacht the material to push back against the hordes of Russian vehicles being thrown at it."
 
D: "It was made by Germans."
 
W: "Oh its amazing! A wonder weapon! The ancestor of all modern tanks!"
 

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.
 
"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."
"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."
 
"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."
"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"
 
"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."
"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"
 
"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."
"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."
 
"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."
"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."
 
"It was made by Americans."
"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

TIL that sauropods had terrifying nightmare feet:
 
 

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.
 
"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."
"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."
 
"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."
"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"
 
"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."
"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"
 
"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."
"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."
 
"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."
"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."
 
"It was made by Americans."
"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.
 
"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."
"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."
 
"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."
"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"
 
"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."
"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"
 
"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."
"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."
 
"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."
"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."
 
"It was made by Americans."
"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.
 
"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."
"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."
 
"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."
"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"
 
"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."
"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"
 
"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."
"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."
 
"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."
"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."
 
"It was made by Americans."
"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.
 
"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."
"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."
 
"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."
"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"
 
"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."
"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"
 
"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."
"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."
 
"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."
"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."
 
"It was made by Americans."
"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

My god man, watching you bend over backwards to defend Panther and then turning straight around and drubbing other vehicles for lesser faults is ridiculous.
 
We have, in this exact instance, reliability reports that are directly comparable, and in every instance the Panther is a dog and Pershing is fine:
http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/03/pershing-heavy-by-necessity.html
vs
https://www.tankarchives.ca/2019/05/none-more-frightening-than-cat.html
(direct report here: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/04/panther-trials.html)
 
M26 was, again, mediocre. Certainly as a product of a long-running development program which nonetheless had to be rushed into service to fulfil a seemingly pressing need (do we have to keep hitting you over the head with the parallels here?).
And yet it was better by most standards than Panther.

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.
 
"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."
"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."
 
"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."
"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"
 
"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."
"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"
 
"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."
"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."
 
"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."
"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."
 
"It was made by Americans."
"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.
 
"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."
"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."
 
"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."
"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"
 
"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."
"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"
 
"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."
"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."
 
"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."
"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."
 
"It was made by Americans."
"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.
 
"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."
"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."
 
"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."
"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"
 
"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."
"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"
 
"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."
"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."
 
"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."
"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."
 
"It was made by Americans."
"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.
 
"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."
"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."
 
"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."
"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"
 
"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."
"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"
 
"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."
"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."
 
"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."
"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."
 
"It was made by Americans."
"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

My god man, watching you bend over backwards to defend Panther and then turning straight around and drubbing other vehicles for lesser faults is ridiculous.
 
We have, in this exact instance, reliability reports that are directly comparable, and in every instance the Panther is a dog and Pershing is fine:
http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/03/pershing-heavy-by-necessity.html
vs
https://www.tankarchives.ca/2019/05/none-more-frightening-than-cat.html
(direct report here: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/04/panther-trials.html)
 
M26 was, again, mediocre. Certainly as a product of a long-running development program which nonetheless had to be rushed into service to fulfil a seemingly pressing need (do we have to keep hitting you over the head with the parallels here?).
And yet it was better by most standards than Panther.

My god man, watching you bend over backwards to defend Panther and then turning straight around and drubbing other vehicles for lesser faults is ridiculous.
 
We have, in this exact instance, reliability reports that are directly comparable, and in every instance the Panther is a dog and Pershing is fine:
http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/03/pershing-heavy-by-necessity.html
vs
https://www.tankarchives.ca/2019/05/none-more-frightening-than-cat.html
(direct report here: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/04/panther-trials.html)
 
M26 was, again, mediocre. Certainly as a product of a long-running development program which nonetheless had to be rushed into service to fulfil a seemingly pressing need (do we have to keep hitting you over the head with the parallels here?).
And yet it was better by most standards than Panther.

This discussion has actually given me a renewed appreciation for the M26.
 
It's lower and shorter than Centurion or Panther, has worse frontal hull protection than the latter (but better side, top, turret, rear protection) and is generally more comfy than either. It's gun is perfectly fine, and has decent HE capability (unlike the other two). The soft factors (crew comfort, lots of viewing devices, a low and high-magnification gun sight, roof MG mounts, raised driver's seat, duplicated driver's controls, large engine bay hatches, ammunition layout etc) are all nice.
 
Overall, I'd say that the common historical verdict on the Pershing is more or less correct: it was an interim vehicle, advanced in some ways over its predecessor but not fully developed and lacking in certain areas. Even so, I'd say that it's the most balanced and usable of the three late-war heavy mediums. A solid 6/10 to the Cent 1's 5 or the Panther's 4. The T-44, for reference, is more like a 6.5-7, while the first-run T-54 is more like an 8.

This discussion has actually given me a renewed appreciation for the M26.
 
It's lower and shorter than Centurion or Panther, has worse frontal hull protection than the latter (but better side, top, turret, rear protection) and is generally more comfy than either. It's gun is perfectly fine, and has decent HE capability (unlike the other two). The soft factors (crew comfort, lots of viewing devices, a low and high-magnification gun sight, roof MG mounts, raised driver's seat, duplicated driver's controls, large engine bay hatches, ammunition layout etc) are all nice.
 
Overall, I'd say that the common historical verdict on the Pershing is more or less correct: it was an interim vehicle, advanced in some ways over its predecessor but not fully developed and lacking in certain areas. Even so, I'd say that it's the most balanced and usable of the three late-war heavy mediums. A solid 6/10 to the Cent 1's 5 or the Panther's 4. The T-44, for reference, is more like a 6.5-7, while the first-run T-54 is more like an 8.

That rigorous system doesnť hold water when you study particular engagements. I give one example because that is very well known to me. 
 
29th August 1944 an air battle over Czechoslovak territory along the today's Czech/Slovak border. Take into account that this battle took place over German-controlled territory, all wreckage was quickly found and nearly all Allied pilots who survived on parachutes were captured (several were hidden by locals until Red army came). The real losses are 100% documented from archives, from found wreckage etc. and all names of shot down crews are known. 
 
Luftwaffe pilots were awarded 19 Abschuss, 7 Herausschuss and 1 eingültige Vernichtung. 
 
The real losses were 9 B-17 shot down, 1 B-24 crashed for technical reasons (outisde of the battle area), 4 B-17 heavily damaged and 2 B-17 lightly damaged. No P-51 was shot down. German losses were 9 Bf-109 and 4 Fw-190 (4 Bf-109 due to broken engine, all the rest but one shot down by P-51). The US awards are not known to me unfortunately. 
 
So the Germans were awarded more than double the actual kills while they must have known that the number is way too high. 
 
 

In a way it was indeed possible to reach such numbers but we can safely bet they were inflated - after all they were inflated for all sides as deep studies of particular engagements show. To be fair numbers of kills by US bomber crews are probably the most inflated and I guess it was done knowingly to raise morale of the gunners as well. 
 
The reasons why such disproportionally huge number of victories for German fighter pilots could be possible are mainly two. 
 
First they flew until they died while allied pilots were used to train newbies. As a result of this fly-till-death strategy Germany had smaller and smaller group of elite pilots followed by cannon fodder while Allied pilots became gradually better than common German pilots as the war went on.
 
Flying till death brough this disproportionally enormous numbers of combat missions. Hartmann flew 1404 combat sorties with 825 engagements. Kozhedub flew 330 with 120 engagements, in a quick online search unfortunately I didn't find numbers of sorties for Bong, Marmaduke, Albert or Urbanowicz but I guess they weren't higher than 300. By quick math for Hartmann 1404/352=3,99 and 852/352=2,42. For Kozhedub it's 330/62=5,32 and 120/62=1,93. If we took it as real numbers Kozhedub would have worse sortie/kill ratio but better engagements/kill ratio than Hartmann. Let's not also forget that Hartmann was 16x shot down, i.e. he was in a way also extremely lucky. After the war Hartmann was charged in USSR for various crimes including "destuction of 345 expensive Soviet aircraft". The trial was also more of a propaganda show I guess but interestingly it operated with Hartmann's offcial numbers.  
 
The second reason, why, is that to have huge number of kills you need to have someone to shoot down. We can see that the top fighter pilots of battles of France and Britain also scored plenty of kills in very short time because there was more than enough targets to shoot down and they flew non-stop in desperation. As the war went on the number of Germans flying around went so low in comparison to now overwhelming numbers of Allied planes that towards the end of the war some Allied pilots probably never even entered an aerial combat. Best scoring pilot of the Battle of Britain Josef František was credited with 17 sure+1 probable kills in 28 days. The elite French Groupe de chasse I/5 was credited with 71 kills with a loss of only one dead own pilot during the Battle of France (many were shot down but survived and fought again). I.e. in desperate situation against enemy with superior numbers top Allied pilots scored enormous number of kills as well (and their kills were of course also inflated). 
 
In the end I would say that the numbers of aerial kills could be proportionally correct but they were for sure inflated on all sides (that is normal in every war, US kills in Vietnam were grossly inflated too). 
 
 
What I don't believe however is tank kills of pilots like Erich Rudel. Various studies showed that armor losses to airforce were minimal during the WW2. The tests showed that destryoing a tank with WW2 aircraft was extremely difficult even on a static tank without AA fire.  

I did?
 
Man, I've really lost a few steps since I had a kid 

Reading Wages of Destruction is an eye-opener in more than one way. Glad to see it being seriously discussed here

The main limiting factor (I think also according to Tooze) was that there were no skilled people to take over the industry of the occupied countries while locals were considered to be untermensch (and the terror used against them certainly couldn't make them loyal). Germany meanwhile didn't have enough specialists to be used abroad, general over-conscription of the German population didn't help too. During the war even the number of common German workers in German domestic industry went down by several millions and it had to be replaced by slave labor which was used on all levels of the economy. The economies of most of the occupied countries were not only nearly unexploited but they were even basically left to die from starvation (even French industry was nearly unused and it wasn't even allocated resources like coal). In the end it meant that while the empire grew in size the industrial and manpower base stayed nearly the same as pre-war which is of course a perfect receipt to loose the war. 
 
In Soviet union it didn't work for simple reason - there was no equipment. The Soviets either evacuated or destroyed everything and the local population was basically subject of genocide so there was anyway noone to work. There was a weird situation that during Operation Barbarossa Luftwaffe was not allowed to bomb Soviet industry to allow using capturing factories (they didn't have capacity for that anyway as was proven later) but nothinng of use was captured. 
 
IMHO It worked basically only in Czechoslovakia and Austria. Austria joined Germany basically willingly but its industry was very weak. Czechoslovakia was more complicated but there was still a lot of local Germans involved in the country's industry already before the war so it was much easier to be taken over - the skilled responsible and loyal people were gained together witht the country just like hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers who happily joined Wehrmacht and SS in the first moment together with weapons - it's unfortunately true that Bohemian Germans were overwhelmingly Nazi - 43% of all local German popuation was SdP party mebers by March 1939 and the overall support was near total (SdP was basically NSDAP in Czechoslovakia). Also the country was occupied before the war started so that there was much more time to create effective control. Most of the workers were however Czechs or slaves and they deliberately often worked as slow as possible and sabotages were a thing too (even in design stage of some weapons - usually indirect through letting known weak properties to get into production or slowing down testing processes with various issues). Still it was the only occupied country where large industry worked for the German war machine. 
 
It's anyway staggering how badly organized the industry was in Germany alone especialy the AFV production, I think that automated welding was not introduced at all, the production was more like a pre-war handcraft manufacture than the real mass-production of USA and USSR (it worked quite well with fighter aircraft though). I was once told that the Nazi leadership was too afraid of the industry tycoons so they tried not to interfere in their affairs. 
 
In the end we get again to the point that the best industrialized activity of WW2 Germany was indeed the mass murder... 

It seems the transmission was the real achilles heel of the DB design (the prototype broke on startup during trials). Although MAN calling the DB transmission complex and unreliable was an epic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
 
This article lays it out in some detail: https://www.tankarchives.ca/2020/08/panthers-ancestors.html?m=1
 
I'd say that, realistically, the DB design (if chosen) would have eventually been boxed into almost the same corner as the historical Panther - forced to accept a front transmission, interleaved suspension and pre-designed Henschel turret.