bigger guns are,nt really better you need more penatration which would prompt the production of a skinnier shell for more penatration and plus there is usually only one way to deal with a tank that has good armor and thats trying to shoot the turret of the tank and that instantly makes a dead tank no gun no problem thats what the germans did not understand even the toughest tank can be rendered useless by a turret shot.

"The Tiger was superior to virtually every tank in the field up until the last year or so, with exceptions for AT SPG's, and some of the heavier allied tanks. Why build 10 T-34's when 1 Tiger could achieve a similar result"

I could not disagree with you more. I would definitely take the 10 T-34's. As said before, one on one, the Tiger was arguably the greatest tank, but that didn't translate in operational terms. The overly complicated Tiger (even early Panthers for that matter) was notorious for mechanical failures and only small units of Tigers were fielded among tank battles in the Eastern front that comprised of tens of thousands of tanks. I feel like it was a mismanagment of inexpendable resources on the German's part.

The Tiger Tank had its uses due to the fact that it was produced in small numbers. It was regularly inserted in tactical situations where Panzer IIIs/IVs would fail or suffer heavy losses. I think it had notable strategic significance on the Russian front in 1943 and was an important weapon in the 3rd Battle of Kharkov. At the very least, it made the Germans harder to defeat.

In 1943, German Tiger Kompanies destroyed T-34s with impunity. After 1943, the Tiger I was less dominant due to evolving Allied countermeasures and equipment.

__________________
Best World War 2 Comics

General Raus talks about Tigers playing a key role in the 3rd Battle of Kharkov. In their first appearance in the battle, 2 Tigers destroyed 16 attacking T-34s on open ground. As the Soviet Armor retreated, the two Tigers counterattacked and destroyed 18 more T-34s. All of this was achieved in a single action.

__________________
Best World War 2 Comics

During the Battle of the Third Kharkov, 1 SS Pz Gren Div spearheaded its advance with virtually just two Tigers followed by the rest of the division's tanks and haltracks in tow. There was no reconaissance, no air cover or anything like that. It was not uncommon for a handful of Tigers to provide the offensive backbone of a tank division. As an aside, I think Joachim Peiper was the lead element commander and Wittman was commanding the point tank.

Ace tanker Otto Carius talks about how his Tiger I was used for recon in 43'. It didn't matter if he got hit- the hits wouldn't penetrate and the enemy pak front would be revealed for later targeting..

__________________
Best World War 2 Comics

It makes a bad habbit when the Soviets were finally countering the Tigers with 85s and 122s. Being in an invincible machine for too long in a war breeds over confidence. Still, it is easy to see why the commanders would push the Tigers to the outmost limits of its performance. Nothing the allies had in quanity could punch a hole through the Tiger at front and most attacks were ineffective on the side. The ten to one or five to one kill ratio bandied about on the internet was pure myth for the panzerwaffe in general, but in a good field of fire a Tiger could really do damage. One of the most memorable reads I have had about WWII was how an American Sherman platoon charged a Tiger from 2,000 down to 25 yards, and only the platoon sergeant's tank survived. The Tiger's armor was not penetrated--the spalling killed every last one of the German crew.

I get the impression that the mixed Tiger I/ Panzer III units were a better use of the Tiger compared to having them organized in homogeneous Tiger Battalions. It seems that these homogeneous units would of had inferior coordination since they would not have prior training and integration with the medium tanks. I'm not positive, though.

__________________
Best World War 2 Comics

Naturally there was several types of tactics, some with lighter vehicles on the outer wing, then there was the panzerkeil where the Tiger´s heavy armour was used to push through the enemy line.

Panzerkeil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________

If they produced T-34s they would have more tanks, right?
I beleive there would have been an even greater strain on their fuel reserves.
More tanks= more fuel consumption.

__________________

Those who fall back onto the fuel debate are WRONG on this point.

German tanks and other armoured vehicles ran almost exclusively on Petrol which come from fossil fuel such as Oil but the T-34's ran on Diesel which can be made out of any oil source. Also Albert Speer liked the T-34's due to their simplistic build and maintenance qualities but he could not bring himself to suggest to Adolf Hitler to begin mass production of these outstanding tanks, naturally they would be outfitted with the effective German PaK's. Just imagine the Germans having 30 to 40 fully equiped Panzer Divisions and that the Axis had them as well.

v.R

Guderian was shocked by the appearance of the T-34 and being a pragmatic sort and not particularly concerned about matters of national prestige when it came to equipment, urged that Germany needed to do exactly what you suggest - simply copy the T-34 since it was cheap, simple, and effective. Hitler and German ordnance had other ideas, and the Panther was their answer. It was a first-class tank but not really reliable enough, and too complicated especially compared to the humble T-34.

The numbers speak for themselves: the Germans were only able to build about 4,000 Panthers (and only 1,100 tigers) while the Russians built over 80,000 t-34/85 tanks alone. Every panther lost by the Germans was very hard for them to replace. while the Russian tank strength simply continued to grow as the war progressed, regardless of losses.