This is a sad way to point out the seeming oddity that is how Maho's signature is the earlier Tiger I, while her second in command rides the later-designed (and thus supposed to be stronger) Tiger II, and yet it's Maho and her tank that is the more formidable of the two as an opponent.
This is a sad way to point out the seeming oddity that is how Maho's signature is the earlier Tiger I, while her second in command rides the later-designed (and thus supposed to be stronger) Tiger II, and yet it's Maho and her tank that is the more formidable of the two as an opponent.
Well, Maho seems to be much more skilled than Erika, and I do believe that the higher reliability and mobility of the Tiger I would be a more effective weapon than the Tiger II in the hands of a more skilled operator.
Well, Maho seems to be much more skilled than Erika, and I do believe that the higher reliability and mobility of the Tiger I would be a more effective weapon than the Tiger II in the hands of a more skilled operator.
And that more skilled operator, with a crack crew, can make a Panzer IV stand up to a Tiger I.
And that more skilled operator, with a crack crew, can make a Panzer IV stand up to a Tiger I.
Forget that, Maho and either the same crew of her signature Tiger I or a similarly skilled team managed to defeat a a Panzer IV with but a StuG III, an assault gun originally intended for infantry support and repurposed as a tank destroyer whose comparatively fragile armor (a big downside, considering traditional tank destroyers are supposed to be at least as heavily armored as the average tank of their own weight class) and lack of a traversable turret forced it into a mainly defensive role as opposed to an offensive one. Miho herself had to dispel her own crew of rather talented amateurs of any overconfidence based on the StuG III's specs and sober them to the fact that they are the ones who are in the disadvantage.
It's like the difference between a midweight boxer taking down a heavyweight champion with a combination of determination, luck and unorthodox tactics, and a featherweight boxer taking down a middleweight one despite having one hand tied behind his back and one leg laden with a weighted shoe.
"a big downside, considering traditional tank destroyers are supposed to be at least as heavily armored as the average tank of their own weight class) and lack of a traversable turret forced it into a mainly defensive role as opposed to an offensive one"
While I mostly agree with the rest, this is more of a doctrine-issue, US Tank-Destroyer tactics were (nominally) based on either many hidden AT-guns, which is a defence-only tactic. Or a decently large reserve of lightly armoured, mobile but heavily armed vehicles intended to lead a counter-attack against a breaktrough by tanks which counts as a offensive tactic.
Similar issues are there with German TD-tactics, there are mobile, lightly armoured vehicles with powerful guns intended to keep up with the attack but be cheaper than full tanks such as the Marders, Then there's medium armour, less mobile but heavily armed TD's such as the StUG's which for its day at least had acceptable armour though the early models did only have guns capable of dealing with light armour rather than the later ones. And then there's of course the big dumb blocks of armour such as the JgTiger which while in theory capable of being unstoppable on the charge were mostly utilized on the defence simply because at that point in time they were losing the war and despite being unstoppable from the front there was very little to stop their opposition from just outflanking them or barraging them with arty or airstrikes which bypasses the thickest armour anyways.
