Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.

[worktroll]

Panzer III production formally ceased in 1943, but the chassis lived on to the end for Stugs & the like.

A similar case involved the British 2-pounder. After Dunkirk, no-one was prepared to stop production of the 2-pounder  for the 6 months required to change over to the 6-pounder. A bad gun was considered better than no gun, especially given the amount of equipment left behind in France.

[kato]

Panzer III production formally ceased in 1943, but the chassis lived on to the end for Stugs & the like.

And the StuG-III was the attempt to go for quantity over quality. 10,000 produced between mid 1942 and 1945 - 90% were destroyed in the same three years.

[ANS Kamas P81]

In fairness, I've never heard anyone say the StuG III was a bad machine at all.  It had its limitations being a casemate machine, but the guns were fine and the things worked reliably enough.  90% of them may have been lost, but how much of that high percentage is because they couldn't keep production going and replacements eventually stopped as the Germans lost the war?  I mean, from July 1944 to April 1945 the Americans lost between 4300 and 4400 M4s; assuming the start of the month to the end of the month that's about 300 days - nearly 15 tanks a day getting lost on average...but we kept on producing them, unlike the Germans.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Yeah, keep in mind that the US built 50,000 M4s and the Soviets built 55,000 T-34s.  Also, the M4 had a much higher crew survival rate when the tank was destroyed compared to the T-34 and Panzer IV due to having a roomier interior that was easier to move around in and each crew member having their own dedicated escape hatches.

That's actually one of the reasons why the US just kept producing more Shermans.  The M4 was a good generalist tank: it could fight infantry, it could fight enemy fortifications, and it could fight most German tanks.  With German armor being relatively rare compared to it, especially the big scary armor like the Panther and Tiger, the US army didn't want a bunch of specialized machines.  This actually became a problem with M10, M18, and M36 tank destroyers that were pushed into serving as tanks to assault fortified locations: their open turrets and reduced armor made them very vulnerable to German infantry.

[PsihoKekec]

However, crews of tank destroyers (and SU-76) were more likely to survive a hit by HEAT warhead as open top meant less overpressure inside.

Also all German AFVs, not just StuGs suffered over 90% percent casualties in the last three years of war, it was just a nature of campaigns they fought.

RE the German war econimy might I suggest reading the wonderfully written and darn well researched

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/and-they-shall-reap-the-whirlwind-story-only-thread.343760/

There's a great deal about the German econimy, about how allied bombing got most of their ideas wrong (ball bearings were imported from Sweden as an example) and how in reality the US stumbled across the right target, Oil, in 44. This time in that story, things go a bit different.

I love how he lays out all the infighting between different departments, terrible bureaucratic inertia and odious personalities of various decisionmakers. Especially Lindemann.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Also all German AFVs, not just StuGs suffered over 90% percent casualties in the last three years of war, it was just a nature of campaigns they fought.

Eastern Front probably didn't have a lot of prisoners taken, I imagine, especially after '43.

[Kidd]

Also all German AFVs, not just StuGs suffered over 90% percent casualties in the last three years of war, it was just a nature of campaigns they fought.

This

Obviously German AFV casualties were high; they lost the war didn't they? But the question is, did they lose because of the inferiority of their tanks, or despite the superiority of their tanks?

So the Germans lost 100% of their Panther tanks. The Soviets lost 7 times as many T-34s... At least 70-80% of their WW2 production and prewar stock. Which is the better tank then?

[Istal_Devalis]

I wouldn't normally consider the tank that spontaneously caught fire as the good one, that's for sure.

In this case, it's worth looking at the design philosophies behind them. The Panther was meant as a 'quality' tank. The fact that the majority of its casualties were equipment breakdown puts the lie to that. The T-34 was built with the idea of being as cheap and quick to manufacture as possible. It being essentially disposable was part of the point.

[Matti]

A similar case involved the British 2-pounder. After Dunkirk, no-one was prepared to stop production of the 2-pounder  for the 6 months required to change over to the 6-pounder. A bad gun was considered better than no gun, especially given the amount of equipment left behind in France.

Speaking about which, in USA Grant or Lee (or both?) remained in production because the need for tanks outweighed the need for more Shermans. On otherhand, generals rejected some tanks because those hadn't gone through enough testing or just plain sucked. Likely the better choice considering reliability issues some German tanks had going on.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

The Lee actually got phased out of the European theater and was sent to the Pacific, where it served very well: it was well armored enough to resist Japanese anti-tank guns, its 37mm was sufficient to kill Japanese armor, and its 75mm was effective against fortifications.

[Fat Guy]

Well, Japanese tanks were such shitboxes the Lee may as well have been a King Tiger!

Pershings never got sent to the Pacific because the Sherman was already overkill.

[ANS Kamas P81]

There's also something to consider about Pershings going ANYWHERE at the time.  According to (what I remember of) Nick Moran's research, there were a whole two cranes in the US at the time that could handle the 46 ton mass of the Pershing compared to the significantly lighter Sherman.  While there were also the RORO ships and the burgeoning LST concept, they were still limited to a max of 30 tons for each vehicle onboard - and, very likely, unspecified dimensional limitations as well.

Idly, I had a terribly silly idea that I figure I'll share.  That poor driver...

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

That looks like something from Battletech.

[Kidd]

There's also something to consider about Pershings going ANYWHERE at the time.

Supposedly only a dozen or so actually saw combat in the ETO.

[ANS Kamas P81]

They were pretty rare, though there's that Pershing-Panther duel caught on film that made it at least a little famous. 

[beachhead1985]

No, but I'd like to. :-)

Prepare to be disappointed.

The M7; for all your trainwreck needs.

[beachhead1985]

Just a minor correction. The M46 was the M26 Pershing with a new powerplant & transmission. The two tanks were identical & in fact the M46 was a rebuild program of the M26 Pershing. The turrets were the same, but the engine decks & exhausts were quite different. The M47 married the M46 hull with a new turret.

Damon.

I stand corrected.

[beachhead1985]

Well, Japanese tanks were such shitboxes the Lee may as well have been a King Tiger!

Pershings never got sent to the Pacific because the Sherman was already overkill.

They actually deployed Pershings on Okinawa as a test for the home islands. So at the very least we know that as part of Operation: DOWNFALL, the bridging infrastructure of Japan would have been improved significantly.

They were pretty rare, though there's that Pershing-Panther duel caught on film that made it at least a little famous. 

Where can I find this???

[Dave Talley]

just google Cologne panther pershing
you will find a ton of bits

[ANS Kamas P81]

It's also moderately gory, the battle is that a pair of Shermans comes around a corner and the lead tank gets ambushed by the Panther.  The camera captures the crew bailing out, with some graphic injuries; the Pershing is called up to handle the threat and puts the Panther down with three rounds - and again, the surviving crew of the Panther bails out with graphic injuries.

It's not the clearest imagery, hand-held 1940s film cameras in battle do not make the best choice, but there's stabilized and clarified versions of the sequence. 

[truetanker]

Wait?  There's no stolen gold in this story...  xp

Wonders now if Kilroy was ever there...

TT

[Sharpnel]

Kilroy is/was everywhere

[Matti]

Wait?  There's no stolen gold in this story...  xp

What story?

[Dave Talley]

probably thinking of the guys who bought a
Iraqi T72 and found a few bars of kuwaiti gold in the gas tank

[ANS Kamas P81]

Come on guys, how can you not recognize Kelly's Heroes at a glance!

[CranstonSnord]

Negative waves, Moriarty!

[ANS Kamas P81]

Oddball is my spirit animal.

[beachhead1985]

Oddball is my spirit animal.

Woof Woof!

And very technically interesting tanks, IRL; the post-war 76mm retrofit into the original (T43?) Turrets was pretty clever, but I wonder what it was like on the crews? I loved all the WWII Gear stated out in Twilight 2000 due to it having been passed to the Yugoslavs before they lowered the curtain on themselves.

Almost as cool as the Czechs still making these bad boys for a number of years!

[ANS Kamas P81]

I'd imagine it would be pretty cramped like the Firefly.  IIRC Chieftain mentions the 76 on one of his in-the-tank videos.

[Kidd]

So this happened....