QUOTE(jleavy @ Jun 5 2006, 05:48 AM)
The debate there came to an impasse - three sides each saying the Tiger I, the Panther, and T-34 were the best tanks.
2. Why do you believe this tank excelled above all others? Was it the mobility, the firepower, the armour - explain.
This is... a pretty topic specific debate to say the least, but as it happens to be (tangentially) within my field of education, I'll give it my best.
The answer to the first question depends entirely on the second. There are so many criteria to take into account, and sadly most amateur militarists tend to only care about what happens when X faces Y one-on-one on even terrain. Thus muzzle velocity, armour thickness and sloping, shell atributes, etc. Great for tabletop wargames, but poor on practical reality.
IF we focus on that imaginary scenario, then the best of the above three is the Tiger I. Its custom 88mm high-velocity cannon and thickness of armour meant it could kill a T-34/76 long before the latter could even get within maximum range, let alone effective range. The Panther and the T-34 had sloped armour, which effectively increases armour thickness against certain weapons in certain situations, but even with that advantage none could possibly match the armour of the Tiger I.
But what happens if it rains? What happens if you are a nation with finite resources? What happens if you are far from a repair depot? What if you don't control the air? What if you include 'innovation' as a criteria?
Situations change everything. The T-34/76 had wide treads made for use in snow and mud (which were common in the East) which would immobilise other tanks. The T-34/76 was also extremely easy to maintain and repair, while both the Panther and Tiger were over-engineered. More Tiger I's were lost due to mechanical breakdown in WWII than were lost to enemy action. So from a practical perspective, the T-34 gains points.
Furthermore, the Tiger was a great tank, but it also cost a great deal to make, and had a high production time. Nobody will deny that the Tiger was a far better tank than the US Sherman, but then again during the war German produced 1350 Tigers, while the US produced over 40,000 Shermans. Not entirely a fair comparaison, as the US had close to four times the economic might of Germany, but you still get the picture. A Tiger is certainly better than a Sherman, but is it better than 15 Shermans? Because thats the comparative cost/production value. When you LOSE a Tiger, not just through enemy tanks, but from the air, or hitting a mine, or mechanical breakdown, or lack of fuel, you are losing the equivalent of 15 shermans for each Tiger. Is that worth it?
What about innovation? It is hard to compare the Panther and the T-34/76 in terms of innovation, as the Panther was made specifically as a counter to the T-34, adopting some of its best combat features (if not its engineering features).
So now the situation is all muddled. Add to that the fact that tank-v-tank one-on-one is incredibly rare, most German tanks in the late war were destroyed from the air, and with the exception of some set-peice battles, most tank combat tended to take place from ambush. Also add the training and experience of tanker crews, which was much more extensive in Germany than in Russia, thus tends to give a skewed view of relative tank performance, whn in fact part of the german advantage was crewing, not mechanical.
So of you want the tank that makes the biggest boom, and wins the fantasy match-ups, then its the Tiger. If you want a tank that you would actually want to serve in during the war, which was reliable and would not break in mid run, with the greatest practical benefits, then its the T-34/76, or even better, the T-34/85 introduced in 1943 with bigger weapon and improved features.