@ Fiedler:

ME: "More importantly, the Soviets could build T-34s in much larger numbers, making the T-34 the more effective design from a strategic perspective."

YOU: "- that argument is irrelevant to the quality of the weapon on the battlefield."

You're wrong. The fact that the T-34 was relatively straightforward to build was an essential part of the design of the machine, and contributed to the T-34's strategic effectiveness. If you design a weapon which is potentially the most damaging weapon ever, but to build just one would bankrupt your nation twice over, then strategically, that weapon is useless.

""On paper, therefore, a fully-functional Tiger would probably defeat a T-34 in single combat."
- LOL, would it?

Read my comment more carefully. I was saying that the TIGER would defeat the T-34. Are you now arguing the opposite?


"oh, and assertions that the Tiger was hopelessly unreliable are COMPLETELY condraticted by the fact that Tiger crews LOVED their Tigers and would rather part with their left nut than fight with lesser equipment"

The Tiger crews loved their machines because they were well armoured and the crew compartment was comparatively comfortable. When it comes to breakdowns, let's look at the facts - you love quoting wikipedia, so I will do the same:

>The Tiger was first used in action on 23 September 1942 near Leningrad. Under pressure from Hitler, the tank was put into action months earlier than planned. Many early models proved to be mechanically unreliable; in this first action many broke down. Others were knocked out by dug-in Soviet anti-tank guns. One tank was captured largely intact, which allowed the Soviets to study it and prepare a response.

>In the Tiger's first actions in North Africa, it was able to dominate Allied tanks in the wide-open terrain. However, mechanical failures meant that there were rarely more than a few in each action. In a replay of the Leningrad experience, at least one Tiger was knocked out by towed British six-pounder antitank guns.

>The Tiger had reliability problems throughout its service life; Tiger units frequently entered combat understrength due to breakdowns. It was rare for any Tiger unit to complete a road march without losing vehicles due to breakdown. The tank also had poor radius of action (distance a combat vehicle can travel and return, in normal battle conditions, without refuelling).

>There are almost no instances where a Tiger battalion went into combat at anything close to full strength.

Also it was far too bloody heavy. Wikipedia again: >The tank's extreme weight limited which bridges it could cross and made drive-throughs of buildings, which might have had basements, risky. Another weakness was the slow traverse of the hydraulically-operated turret.