全 3 件のコメント

[–]GelfandFominDemocracy Uber Alles 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Do you mean put the Pershing as it was earlier in the war or do you mean develop a more reliable and improved version of the Pershing?

AFAIK the Pershing was like a Tiger in terms of reliability and logistical issues.

Also M4 Sherman & Firefly could destroy tigers and panthers just well enough with the M3, M1, and 17pdr cannons if needed. The thing is the tanks of the USA were not designed to fight heavily armored targets as a main role in mind--they deferred to special up-gunned variants like the 76 shermans, fireflys, and tank destroyers. However, I do believe US tank doctrine used tank destroyers as a rapid response force used to plug armored break throughs rather than supporting antitank offensives.

[–]PuddingInferno [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That was the idea behind U.S. Tank Destroyer doctrine - it didn't work for two fairly obvious reasons. The first is that by the time the Americans were invading Europe, Germany wasn't making enormous armored offensives that required a rapid response force. The second is that field commanders weren't stupid enough to leave the TDs in the back in reserve when they had krauts to shoot at.