Even German Panzer aces requires 3-4 shots before scoring a hit. * While US Army Studies do show that the prime determinant of who wins a tank fight is who scores the first hit, the poll forgets an important fact: Both sides required multiple shots to score a hit. A Tiger commander that tries to engage in a series of close-ranged brawls in real life is just as much of a fool as a T-34 driver who tries to rush across an open field) A smart tank commander is one who understands that proper employment is how you maximize the power of your tank. (Which by the way, ties in with how people are commenting about the important factor of crew quality. At which range the Tiger's extra long-ranged hitting power becomes nothing more than stupid overkill. Most battles were fought at 500 meters or less. * Average tank combat ranges - based on US Army statistics - was far less than the 1000 meters proposed by this biased and incredibly dumb poll. When the Tiger was in service, it had dropped to 2:1 or even 1:1 despite Germany now being on the defensive!). Hell, the Panzer 38t is a better tank than the Tiger because of this (in fact, when the Panzer 38t was in service, German kill rates were 7:1. Moreover, less than 10% of the tank's job in World War 2 revolved around destroying tanks, it actually revolved around infantry support.

* The most important stat of a tank is reliability and availability, because a tank that doesn't show up for work is not a tank it is a piece of junk. It is not won by fools who believe in 'first shot immediately scores a hit' nonsense from any side.

It is not won by idiots who gamely shoot at each other from 1000 meters as though it was some knightly joust. This is yet another stupid comparison thread.Īgain, and it bears repeating: Wars are not won by armor vs gunpower comparisons.

Tiger tank versus t34