6,850 StuG III could have been built using the steel consumed in the production of the final batch of unused or barely-used Type XXI and XXIII U-boats.

>>17836988 (OP)
>Build 6,850 Stug IIIs
>Have 5 gallons of fuel to split between all of them
>Don't have the logistical capacity to even get a thimble full of fuel to any of them
>Lose war, chuds piss and moan forever on the internet

>>17836988 (OP)
>>17837092

The Germans could have built 4500 additional Stugs for the cost and materials of 1350 Tigers, which would have had far more of an effect on the war. And yes, they would have had enough fuel, it wasn't until the US bombed the Romanian oil fields and the Soviets later overran them, that the Germans had no gas.

>>17837097
>The Germans could have built 4500 additional Stugs for the cost and materials of 1350 Tigers, which would have had far more of an effect on the war.
Yeah, they would have lost faster. The Tigers had a better k/d ratio than the stugs.

>*Breaks down en route to the battlefield*

>>17837111
>The Tigers had a better k/d ratio than the stugs.

The Tiger program was a massive waste of effort, materials and time for a handful of tanks that were terribly unreliable and burned far more fuel.

11,350 additional Stugs (which would have been upgraded over the course of the war) would have had far more of an effect on the war then the Tigers and late war subs. That's the equivalent of 378 Stug battalions under a late 1942 TOE.

>>17836988 (OP)
Okay, sure :-D
Now, please provide 2.87 million liters (≈2,413 tonnes) of fuel for (just) a 14-day offensive campaign.

>>17837111
An army's k/d ratio is largely irrelevant, anon.

If you build 1,000 tanks that are each able to destroy 5 enemy tanks, but your enemy builds 10,000 tanks during the same period, then you still lose even though your tanks are 5x better.

>>17837187
>The Tiger program was a massive waste of effort
It's not like they had any other chance. Since they underestimated the USSR's industrial capacity and military size the only thing they could hope for was some kind of Wunderwaffe.

>>17837530
>It's not like they had any other chance.

Build more Stugs and improved Panzer IVs instead of pie-in-sky "super tanks" that end up sucking.

>Since they underestimated the USSR's industrial capacity and military size the only thing they could hope for was some kind of Wunderwaffe.

Sure, the Germans were screwed anyways but this was because America entered the war and could keep the Soviets in the game via Lend-Lease.

>>17837530
You mean American as we supplied them with everything including the factories themselves

>>17836988 (OP)
King Tiger 314 destroyed 39 Soviet tanks (T-34 & IS2) in a last stand during the battle for Berlin, on April 30th. It was later disabled by a German mine.

>>17838504
Less than 7% of all Soviet war material was from American AND British lend lease and the Germans were already stalled before the first lend lease batches even arrived

>>17838508
Delusional mutt cope

>>17837268
If you have a limited amount of experienced tank personel, you might want to make sure they are worth multiple of the enemies. It's simple math, an outnumbered force needs a positive k/d ratio to have a chance at victory. What use are producing 10.000 tanks to field against the enemie's 10.000 tanks if you don't have the resources nor the Crew to use every single tank?

>>17838608
>and the Germans were already stalled before the first lend lease batches even arrived
Yes, by the snow, the crappy railroad system and the overly long supply lines first and foremost

>>17838504
Real life war isn't Hoi IV where you can spam a unit, retard.

The Stug only excelled because Germany was on the defensive and could negative the shortcomings of the Stu by clever positioning. But for actual offensives they needed a heavy breakthrough tank, not a medium tank or self propelled artillery. Altough the Tiger has mechanical Problems, most of them were either destroyed by combat or abondened because of supply issues. Explain to me how a tank like the PZ IV which was inferior in most regards was gonna better in the niche the Tiger occupied. You are also ignoring logistics, it is far easier to maintain a small number of tanks rather than a large number. A tiger might cost more than a Stug, but even then it only wastes marginally more gasoline than a single stug or several of them. And the larger number of battalions would have also required more supply lines to maintain at once.

Not to forget, Germany literally lacked tank crew members, they were struggling to even keep the number of them steady with the quality over quantity approach, how the hell are they going to find even more personel to maintain the now larger number of tanks? Especially because they are now dying faster because shocker: A tank with worse raw combat capabilities is going to have worse survival options

>>17836988 (OP)
Tigers were a response to the Soviets having KVs and T-34s that had too thick armour that regular Pz IIIs and IV couldn't penetrate, and that could easily knock out said Pz IIIs and IVs. In a way Soviet tanks completely mindbroke German engineers because to the end of the war they kept designing huge monsters that were supposed to hold off hordes of enemy tanks on their own

>>17836988 (OP)
Tigers are better.
>>17837097
It would have had had less of an effect being more demanding on fuel and manpower.
>>17837187
Tigers as a collective took less fuel than their stug equivalents.
Stugs did not have the physical stopping power of heavy tanks or the breakthrough potential of heavy tanks.
>>17837268
KDR isnt irrelevant, its one of the biggest indicators of who wins. wars where the loser has a better KDR are an anomaly and the result of outstanding factors.
>its just a numbers game
ok and the German numbers would have been worse because their limiting factor was more than armored fighting vehicles in the field.
>>17837530
The Soviet Union was never independent of the US from 1917 to 1991 they were a food dependent on the United States.
That alone disqualifies them from any kind of economic accolades, not only that but Hitler's economic miracles produced more factories in 12 years than the USSR did in 50 despite America shipping literally thousands of factories over to the USSR from 1920 to 1945.

>>17838608
90% of all Soviet shells came from the United States directly.
The Soviet artillery would have been reduced in effectiveness by 90%.
Over half of the German casualties were the result of artillery.
Lets remove this American factor for Soviet artillery and ignore for now their tank shells.
The Soviet Artillery which was over half of the German casualties is reduced by 90%
The Germans now instead of taking 2.5 casualties, take only 1.2m casualties and their defensive lines can no longer be blasted perpetually by artillery.
how do the Soviets win that?
Their primary axis of advance was endless barrage under which armored pushes were made.
If you then remove 90% of their tank shells.
where's the Red Army? It has no tanks and no artillery.
There is no Kursk, no Bagration, no Saturn, no Uranus, The Soviets have lost the war.

And we know the Soviets bitched out of a confrontation with the Mutts, whom never even made it out of Italy LOL.
Slavs cant fight, Im sorry but that ignorant animalistic shirtless monkey behavior is good in the iron age when you have to physically cut down a 6'2" slavic ape-man, but its completely useless and maybe a liability in the modern world where a 5'6" italian with a machine gun can spray an entire battalion of slav(e)s.

>>17838776
>90% of all Soviet shells came from the United States directly.
Amazing, you made a whole chain of thoughts based on one lie.

>>17838613
Tankie cope, you can't come up with an actual answer

>>17837097
>>17836988 (OP)
>>17837187
I love this cute little guy
His name even ressemble "slug"

>>17838776
>90% of all Soviet shells came from the United States directly

>>17836988 (OP)
I've always felt that for most applications, a rotating turret is a waste of effort. How many times do you actually NEED one? Why did rotating turrets become so popular when they add loads of complexity and manufacturing cost as well as limiting the size of the gun you can house?