Panther131 Posted January 8, 2001 Share Posted January 8, 2001 I just did a little research on the quantity of Sherman Jumbos vs Tiger II's were made during WWII. It turns out that 254 Sherman Jumbo (75 and 76) were ever made. Making this one of the least produced allied tanks made in WWII. (I may be wrong, did light research) On the other hand 489 Tiger II's were made. Making it a low produced tank for the axis. Regular Vet Jumbo (76) at: 226 276 Jumbo (75) 187 237 Tiger II 286 352 Panther 195 240 I have though about this quite a while: speculation leads me to believe the Tiger II is over priced when compared to the sherman Jumbo (76). Say half of the Jumbo's were 76's making the total at 125 and that is likely a high estimate. The Sherman Jumbo is a very formadable opponent. with its152mm@78d of armor wraping itself around its turret. With 178mm at the mantlet...When you add the tungsten in this beast is bad ass. For instance...I have had Panthers Tigers and Tiger II's ricochet constantly off the Jumbos frontal armor, while the Jumbo will easily penetrate those tanks head on. I know what I am giving here is not very formal in a report, but I believe that some of the axis armor is overpriced, or some of the allied armor is underpriced. reg vet Tiger II 489 made 286 352 Jumbo(76) 125 made? 226 276 why a 60 point difference here? and a 76 pt difference a vet crew? I am just trying to figure this out, and make sense of it all. Thanks for any input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Offwhite Posted January 8, 2001 Share Posted January 8, 2001 There is a current discussion about this topic over here: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/014577.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted January 8, 2001 Share Posted January 8, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: I just did a little research on the quantity of Sherman Jumbos vs Tiger II's were made during WWII. It turns out that 254 Sherman Jumbo (75 and 76) were ever made. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Panther Do not forget that over 200 additional Shermans were feild converted by 1st & 3rd Army workshops to Jumbo status in 1944 & 1945. So actual Jumbo numbers were over 400. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 8, 2001 Author Share Posted January 8, 2001 I am not sure that is correct. I know that the Jumbo was originaly outfitted with a 75mm gun. Then, was refitted with 76 mm guns. However, I may again be wrong. My feeling is that those "Jumbo's" that were converted, were converted from 75mm guns to 76 mm guns. However, again I may be incorrect. Do you have a source? -Panther131 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talorc Posted January 8, 2001 Share Posted January 8, 2001 Panther - Remember that pricing in the current CM is based solely on "Combat effectiveness" Thus if your Tank Model A was identical in performance to Tank Model B, the price for both would be identical. This would be the same regardless of production numbers. (eg even if Tank A was a prototype only of which 5 were produced and Tank B was a production model of which 10,000 were produced) So your discussion should be based upon the relative combat effectiveness of each vehicle, rather than the production numbers. You seem to be making quite a few good points in that direction, but upon which I do not feel qualified to comment ------------------ Talorc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted January 8, 2001 Share Posted January 8, 2001 as regards your thread title question: not sure about the Sherman Jumbo, but the Königstiger went for 321,500.00 Reichsmark apiece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 8, 2001 Share Posted January 8, 2001 Actually the Koingtiger was sold in six packs connected by plastic holders at 1.8 million reichsmarks per pack plus a "tank tax" if you happened to live in Bavaria. In many areas of Germany buying a single Koingtiger is not legal in some districts. Near the end of the war the plastic six-tank holders came under fire because they choked circus animals who stuck their necks in them, but the war ended before anything could be done about it. Most commanders though when they picked up a six pack of Koingtigers would cut the plastic holders before throwing them away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 8, 2001 Author Share Posted January 8, 2001 Yes agreed. I just wanted to illustrate both points, one, the Jumbo is very comparable to a Tiger II. And two, if there is consideration of hisorical accuracy in quantity, the Jumbo was produced at half of the Tiger II. The Jumbo (76) is 60 to 75 points less then a Tiger II yet both tanks are very comparable. Give or take a few differences, I think they add up. I have also thought that tungsten rounds should be taken in to consideration with price points for allied tanks. As we all know, A tungsten round will kill just about anything. From long distance too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted January 8, 2001 Share Posted January 8, 2001 Jumbo is not nearly as deadly a tank as the King Tiger. Tiger's gun and armor are way better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 8, 2001 Author Share Posted January 8, 2001 Ok...I did some testing. Apparently I was dead wrong about comparing the Tiger II and the Sherman Jumbo (76). The Tiger II wins hands down. Woa...I just tested the JagdPanther and it is a very formidable opponent to the Jumbo. I was definitly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 8, 2001 Author Share Posted January 8, 2001 erased. egads. [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-08-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 8, 2001 Share Posted January 8, 2001 Hmm...it looked like a joke to me. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 8, 2001 Share Posted January 8, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: And also, to slapdragon you are really a jack ass if thats how you treat people with honest questions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think he ment anything by it. I don't see anything wrong with it. Just some humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 8, 2001 Author Share Posted January 8, 2001 Apology to slapdragon. -panther131 [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-08-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted January 8, 2001 Share Posted January 8, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: I am not sure that is correct. I know that the Jumbo was originaly outfitted with a 75mm gun. Then, was refitted with 76 mm guns. However, I may again be wrong. My feeling is that those "Jumbo's" that were converted, were converted from 75mm guns to 76 mm guns. However, again I may be incorrect. Do you have a source? -Panther131 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The conversion was takeing Shermans & turning them into Jumbo's useing contracted armor from French factories. The Source is from the US Army Ardennes Database, the data was found by it's author while he was researching, records were found in 1990, indicateing that over 200 Shermans were feild converted to Jumbo's by the US 1st & 3rd armies in 1944 & 1945. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 01-08-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 8, 2001 Author Share Posted January 8, 2001 ok...great. thanks John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts