The Instigator
edibleshrapnel
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Dynasty2468
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 52710
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

edibleshrapnel

Pro

I'm going to keep this short and brief. The Germans produced tanks only after much modelling, and even then the prototype would be rearranged extensively. How can vouch for this? German tanks had a kill ratio of 3:1, some historians even saying 5:1. Name one tank model that was better then the Tiger. It scored the most kills per tank out of all tanks during ww2, and the number tank ace of ww2, Michael Wittman, commanded a Tiger. The tank may have had a faulty engine, but the gun and armour were incomparable.
Dynasty2468

Con

YEs the Tiger was good. But it was heavy and because of its weight, the engine was under constant strain.
Debate Round No. 1
edibleshrapnel

Pro

Yes, I previously stated that the engine was its main flaw. By you accepting the challenge, you are pertaining that the Tiger was NOT the greatest tank of ww2. If this is what you believe, what in your opinion is the greatest?
Dynasty2468

Con

In my opinion, T-34 was the best tank. It's faster, with 34 mph, while the TIger's max speed is 24 mph. Plus it consumes many gasoline.
Debate Round No. 2
edibleshrapnel

Pro

So, your claiming that the T-34 is superior over the tiger because of its speed? Are we taking anything else into consideration? I suppose all light tanks were the greatest because of their speed, at least that's according to you. And your final statement "Plus it consumes many gasoline". Isn't that a bad thing? excess fuel consumption is a negative attribute, and the way you use it in your sentence points to you talking about the T-34. The Tiger had the powerful 88mm flak gun, and the armour depth was a whopping 120mm in the front mantlet. The Tiger has been battle proven, few tanks matched its attributes.
Dynasty2468

Con

I'm sorry for a mistake. By "It consumes a lot of gasoline" I mean the Tiger.,Which is the main reason why it was out of action.

If you want another reason why the Tiger was not so good tank. Here's the list:
1) the Tiger requires more crews than the T-35. Men was very necessary.

2) the Tiger had shorter range than T-35, so the Tiger had to get closer to the target in order to hit them.

Source: Weapons of World War II by Alexander L"deke.
Debate Round No. 3
edibleshrapnel

Pro

You raise a good point, manpower was a luxury that Germany struggled to attain, considering the constant pounding they took from the seemingly endless industrial machines the allies possessed, but you lost me when you said that the gun on the T-35 had a higher velocity then the 88mm flak. upon research to the vast expanse of the cyber realm, I found first accounts stating that the 76mm F-34 gun used on the T-34 was not able to penetrate the Tigers front armour, and had difficulty penetrating the side and back. The 88mm was the most feared gun used on many German tanks because of its anti-tank capabilities. It had an effective range of 25000 ft. It was the greatest anti-aircraft gun of the war, and I would like proof towards you telling me how any tank gun could exceed the range that of a Tiger. Another thing, even if a Tiger was caught getting sniped by a T-34, the shells would simply bounce off, the gun could barely penetrate the Tigers armour at close range.
Dynasty2468

Con

Do you have any proofs or sources? Another question for you. How was the Tiger the greatest tank of ww2 when the American M36 and Soviet Union's JS-2 can penetrate Tiger's armour with ease? Do you even have proof that 88mm gun exist? How come
Debate Round No. 4
edibleshrapnel

Pro

I need proof that the 88mm flak gun existed? Why don't you quickly google it and compare and the picture, first-hand accounts, and forums to that of your doubt for the most produced anti-aircraft gun of the war. It was incorporated onto such tanks as the Jagdpanther, Nashorn, elefant, and of course the Tiger. Seriously, contempt like that shows your laziness to take 2 seconds of of your visit to this site to make a researched rebuttal. You so eloquently ask me why the Tiger can be compared to the "amazing" M36 Jackson and the "spectacular" Is-2. You state that it was actually the Js-2, there was never such a tank. What makes you think that the 90mm gun on the M36 could penetrate 120mm of armour with ease? The Tiger had greater overall armour then the M36, and the M36 had an open chassis, so fires and shrapnel were more likely to be set off. However for the Is-2, you can debate how it was better then the Tiger. You need to start justifying your platform, it is very annoying when you just say something like it is a statement. Also, what's with that random how come at the end of your paragraph?

Resources, WW2 general resources,WW2 history.com
Dynasty2468

Con

Why do you need proof? Why don't I just go to Google and type the 88mm flak gun? Because Google can be unreliable. DUH.
Anyway, here's why IS-2 is better(But not my favorite tank). Its armour is 0.7 to 5.2, thicker armour than most of the Soviet tanks. Its maximum range is 155 miles, while the Tiger's maximum range is 75 miles. Its combat weight is 51 tons so it won't strain its engine (You already point out the Tiger's engine's problem anyway). It's smaller, meaning that it won't be a huge target for the enemies. Its problem is that the rate of fire is slow due to the cramp space of the tank and because the shot and cartridge . Another problem is that it's too light, especially for an heavy tank (It was suppose to be a heavy tank).

P.S Take a chill pill please. You sound like you are about to explode.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Pacifist11 3 years ago
Pacifist11
The only superior range the T-34 had over the Tiger was the operational range. How far it could travel on one load of fuel. Which doesn't support the 3rd round Con argument.

4th round Con argument is extremely poor. Basically pointing out that the American 90mm and the Russian 122mm could penetrate the Tigers armor. Those weapons could penetrate the armor of any WW2 tank. The request for proof of the existence of the 88mm is as effective an argument as requesting proof of the existence of the Tiger tank.
Posted by Zerrok 3 years ago
Zerrok
don't forget to post the all the costs and benefits of the tiger in comparison to other tanks of the time.
No votes have been placed for this debate.