Hard to argue with Calliope's math concerning the existing system. He didn't mention that the pp's could be invested in air power to absutely negate the incremental design improvements. Most aar's I've read seem to indicate much larger investments in air power than tanks. Sure enuf, there's those pos shermans parked in Berlin. It seems the marked difference in tanks historically is what tanks each nation started with. So, the soviets start with the T-34 (a rejected US design) and the US started with Lees and Grants (did any of them make it to Europe?). Two things. Does it roll? Mass production and spare parts. New models breakdown, even a good design, that goes for cars,tanks and,er,game design. Does the new system model the T-34s performance on snow and mud ? That was no accident. Number 2 is gun design, a good gun goes on your tank,TDs,assault guns and especially, your at guns. Armor is a reaction to gun improvements and economy. So, its better to have 6 88s on the field where 2 are armored than 3 armoured 88, generally speaking. Again tho,sure is fun to see the heavy tanks lined up on the casualty box after the dive bomb attack eh ? My two cents.
Having said that,that being said,that having been said,saying that,that having been said,having said all that,that said.....