Arty destroys King Tigers - WWII

Draschel:  Artillery means EVERYTHING, professor. A towed anti tank gun, is artillery. A towed field gun, is artillery. You mean to say, you only think of howitzers and mortars, as artillery? A simple platoon mortar crew manning a 60mm light mortar, is artillery. A towed nebelwerfer, is artillery. That goes the same with land mattress or calliope. Naval 12in to 16in shells landing, are artillery. Railway gun cars, are artillery, AA flak positions, are artillery. You see where this is going? The video itself stated the mere facts. "they retreated or risked damage from artillery barrage"  VS  "tanks immediately getting knocked out by incursion against Koning Tiger" You see the immediate difference, and lethality. "RISK GETTING DAMAGED"  <-->  "IMMEDIATELY GETTING KNOCKED OUT" An armoured vehicle, in onset, was designed 100 years ago to protect occupants from principally, artillery. The fragmentation, low velocity splintering across the battlefield. This was the primary concept, which artillery primarily does. Even today, light vehicle like M113, their principal protection package, is protection against small arms fire, and shell splinters. Not surviving AP cored heavy machine gun fire or various medium bore automatic cannon fire. Smalls arms and splinters.  This is what we call, artillery protection, frag protection. Saturation fire, can deal damage to a great many things, but is horridly wasteful and inefficient, at dealing with one particular small thing made to resist it by design. Can an  4.7in heavy mortar or 5.5in minewurfer crew which lob massive HE FRAG projectiles knock out Ferdinand 1 mile away? Sure can. But whats the cost, luck, efficiency, timing, manpower needed for such an act? You can have 3 crews firing non stop for hours before directly hitting the vehicle. Replace these saturation fire area denial anti-infantry means with a single M2 90mm anti tank gun and crew, and it will strike and do severely more damage if not destroy the Ferdinand in 5 shots with a dedicated trig sight made for anti-tank warfare.  Tanks weren't made to just combat tanks, but a big part of tanks doctrine, were to DEAL WITH OTHER TANKS. The doctrine of artillery, isn't to deal with tanks. But dispersing enemies and breaking up formation, can certainly disuade tank companies. An anti-tank gun was amde to fire at vehicle with solid shot, but if they weren't present and other targets were, they were also provided other types of ammunition that made them no practically different than a field gun, just smaller. But it ALL COMES DOWN TO DESIGN, EFFICIENCY. Wars are not won by the inefficient, time consuming, non purposed expenditure of munitions against targets not effectively engaged with what you are using.