>>4603385Your apparent tank enthusiasm is very enjoyable, however I feel the need to correct some inaccuracies you seem to hold, perhaps from the influence of media portrayal of tanks such as in video games
>The tiger has an edge on a t-34 (88mm variant)Do you mean the t-34-85, which, among other things, replaced the 76 mm gun with an 85 mm one? And in any case, the effective engagement range put the Tiger at a large advantage
>evenly matched against an is-2This I think there is some debate. The IS-2 were generally used to engage tigers, and they could effectively penetrate a tiger before it could do the same, however the 122 mm of the IS-2 had 2 downsides in comparison to the 88 mm, the rate of fire and accuracy. But it is a toss up, sure
> the tiger, no matter how strong it may be has a few issues: unreliability... even more the later in the war you getThe Tiger's reliability actually improved with the war. The Panther was the real problem child in this regard, among the tanks that actually had an impact on the war (thus I'm sadly ignoring the tanks based on the Tiger II chassis). One of the biggest problems with reliability for the Germans weren't that they broke down often, as you stated a lot of tanks broke a lot, just because their job is so demanding, but rather they were so difficult to repair. The Russians didn't really care; in the early war the T-34 was just meant to push the Germans back as much as it could, and when it broke you jump out and find a new one, and the American vehicles are said to be very easy to repair in comparison.
Looks like you've already corrected your Maus statement.
