The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,127 times Debate No: 72815
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I'll present my own tank which I think is the best and Pro will also try to prove that the tank is inferior.
Round 1: Acceptance:
Round 2: Argument
Round 3: Argument/Rebuttal
Round 4: REbuttal
Round 5: Rebuttal/Conclusion.


Well this'll be fun. Are we going to base our arguments strictly off the qualities of our tank or are we also going to argue other factors such as cost, number produced, and operator skill?
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you. The tank that"s the best tank of WWII is T-34/85

The main qualities of tanks are its armour, mobility, and firepower.

Armour: 1-4.3 inches.

Speed: 24 mph road, 12 mph cross-country.

firepower: 3.5 inches gun.

Let"s see why Tiger tank is not the best.

Its armour, though thick, was not good very innovative. Unlike T-34/85, the armour is not sloped, which means that its armour is literally 4.3 inches thick at its maximum. This affects the power/weight ratio, which was 11.1hp/ton.
The weight of the tank is 60.1 tons, making it one of the most heaviest tanks in action during WWII. This causes the tank to be unable to cross many bridges in Europe. Its interleaved running gear also has tendency to get blocked. "It"s width was also a problem because narrow transport tracks had to be fitted (a slow and laborious process) before it could be loaded onto railroad trucks."-Quoted from my source.
It"s unit cost was $1,053,360, which is expensive, especially when German economy was under strain during WWII. I will acknowledge the fact that Tiger was also impenetrable and its firepower is fearsome, but it doesn"t change the fact that its heavy and expensive.
Armour: 0.9-3.5 in
Speed: 31 mph road, 12 mph cross-country.
Firepower: 3.3 Inch

T-34 was one of the most successful and best tank in the world. It had sloped armour for all-round shot deflection. It had one of the most famous suspension in the world, the Christie suspension; Its engine was diesel, which was less inflammatory than gasoline. Its power to weight ratio was 14.1hp/ton, which is pretty good. It had successfully combine all the qualities of the tanks: Reliability, armour, firepower, and speed.
The weight of T-34/85 is 35 tons. This enables T-34/85 to cross many bridge in Europe. T-34/85 is also reliable and its fuel consumption is less than Tiger. T-34 oil consumption is c.225 litres per 100km road, which is less than Tiger"s oil consumption (912 liters per 100 miles). It"s interesting to note that while the Tiger was fearsome, many of them became out of action simply due to lack of oil.
T-34/85 unit cost was 193,000 Ruble, which was cheaper than Tiger tank. This allows Soviet Governments to buy more T-34/85, and overwhelm the Germans in the end.


I would like to argue that the Tiger is in fact the best tank of WWII.

The one thing I'll give the t-34/85 credit for is it's mobility; it was faster and had a longer range. This, however, does not make up for its lack of firepower and armor when comparing to the Tiger. The Tiger had the ability to penetrate the t-34/85's frontal armor at 1,300m. The t-34/85, however, could only penetrate the Tiger's frontal armor at 500m. (This same pattern is shown when comparing armor on other areas of the tank, with the thickest armor on the Tiger completely impenetrable even at point blank range.) This coupled with the German's superior optics would allow the Tiger to engage and destroy the t-34/85 before it could get close enough to actually do any damage. You also have to consider that the German tank crews were better trained than their Russian counterparts, especially at the beginning of the war, and even later in the war they were at least on par if not still superior to the Russian crews. It is true that many more t-34/85s were made, and Russia did manage to beat the Germans, but there is a reason the Germans had a 7-1 kill ratio with their tanks. The t-34/85 is comparable to the Panzer IV, but not the Tiger.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you

I will now begin the rebuttal.
My opponent had stated that Tiger tanks are superior to T-34/85. His statement contradicts the title "The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2". What we are arguing here, is whether the Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2, NOT however, whether Tiger tank is superior to T-34/85.
"You also have to consider that the German tank crews were better trained than their Russian counterparts." You would also have to consider the fact that Russian philosophy was not based on quality, but based on quantity. So basically, Russian philosophy was this: "Instead of fighting my opponents 1 on 1, I will simply overwhelm my opponent"
I will now add more argument
Engine: T-34/85 engine is 38-liters water-cooled V-2-34 V12 diesel, which is very sturdy and reliable. This allows little maintenance over the engine.

Tiger, unlike T-34, is/was not very durable. After the Operation Citadel (Which was a failure for Nazis), Tiger had to move frequently for defensive position. This wore out Tiger chassis,engine, and transmission, which meant that most of the Tigers on the East Front weren"t operation on full complement. Also, after mid-1944, Tiger became less invincible The Sherman Firefly and Allied heavy tanks became to emerge; they were capable of destroy Tigers, thus Tiger"s original advantage was gone. Also, to counter Tiger"s gun range and their armour, T-34 commanders used their mobility to close the gap, and target Tiger"s thinner armour: Side armour.

These are the quotes from the German commanders and general regarding T-34:

"Very worrying"-Heinz Guderian.
"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.



Thank you.

While the Russian philosophy may have been based on numbers, leading to Germany's eventual destruction, that does not make it the best tank. It would be similar to saying that if a soldier equipped with an assault rifle was attacked by 10 enemy soldiers with pistols, and was killed, the pistol is the superior weapon. Con made the point that the Tiger was too heavy to cross European bridges. To combat this the Tiger was equipped to travel through relatively shallow rivers and streams that could otherwise only be crossed by a bridge. This could be helpful in the case that if a bridge were destroyed, the Tiger could travel through a shallow river, while other tanks would be forced to find a way around. A commenter made a point that con used different units when comparing fuel consumption, making it out to be a better ratio than it actually is. The t-34/85 still has a lower consumption rate than the Tiger, however. On the Christie suspension, the Americans tested it extensively and found that it was vulnerable to even small arms fire or mortar rounds and was rejected by the American military, being unfit for their tanks. The Sherman Firefly and other heavy tanks DID start to challenge the Tiger, but were not able to perform at the level of later Tiger variants such as the King Tiger, which had thicker armor and better weaponry than the original Tiger I. This can be seen from the Total loss-kill ratio of the Tiger throught the war.

Tiger losses-kills (all variants): 1715-9850

This is evidence that while not invincible, the Tiger clearly outperformed any tank that came into its sights.
Debate Round No. 3



My opponent made a point by pointing out Tiger has superior firepower and armour, which made it have higher killing ratio; BUT at the cost of mobility and maintenance. As you can see in Round 2, Tiger"s average speed on road were 24 mph. Comparing this to T-34"s 31 mph, Tiger is certainly slower.

"On the Christie suspension, the Americans tested it extensively and found that it was vulnerable to even small arms fire or mortar rounds and was rejected by the American military, being unfit for their tanks.". Christie Suspension may be "vulnerable" to firearms, but it make up for it by having greater maneuverability and more stable ride.
"The Sherman Firefly and other heavy tanks DID start to challenge the Tiger, but were not able to perform at the level of later Tiger variants such as the King Tiger, which had thicker armor and better weaponry than the original Tiger I." King Tiger may have thicker armor and better weaponry, but there"s a reason it was produced in low quantity (About 485). Many of them were taken out of action not by enemy fire but by engine failure or a shortage of gas (Which was, by the way, 400 gallons of gasoline for every 100 miles. It"s also mechanical unreliable and ponderous due to its engine being constant strain.
Tiger"s purpose was originally for offensive, not defensive. So when German came to defensive, Tiger had to move constantly around to fight the enemy. Constant movement wore tank"s component, which was why many Tiger tanks were using their full complement.
Many of my points against Tiger had already been made in Round I don"t have anything else to state now.

Weapons of World War II by Alexander Ludeke


The Tiger's speed may have been lower, but it wasn't a slow tank by any means. From your statistics it was only 7mph slower than the t-34, which overall isn't that significant.

The Christie suspension may have had greater maneuverability, but greater maneuverability won't help you if you can't move at all because a rifleman shot out your suspension.

Due to Germany's lack of resources near the war's end, they did produce very few King Tigers and they did run out of oil and fuel, but that doesn't reflect on the quality of the tank, simply the current state of Germany. The tank itself was a masterpiece, the country it was produced in was not.
Debate Round No. 4



My opponent had stated that fuel consumption does not reflect on tank"s quality. The fuel consumption DOES actually affects the tank"s quality. For example, excessive consumption of fuel will put pressure on logistic chain, especially for invaders. What"s better, A tank that will run out of oil within a maximum of 75 miles, or a slightly inferior tank that will run out of oil within a maximum 185 miles? I ask my opponents and commentator to consider this question. (I also remind you that the topic of the debate is the BEST, not the most powerful/superior)
Now the reliability problem. While King Tiger (Or Tiger II) has superior armour (7.3 inches) and firepower (3.5 in KwK43 L/71), it had a huge problem of mechanical reliability. What"s better, a tank that will break down few time within short time or a tank that will break down every once in a while?

T-34/85 is the best tank of WWII. While its opponent, Tiger, surpass it in terms of firepower and armour, T-34 possesses qualities that Tiger does not have. It"s reliable, simple to make, and cheap. Its oil consumption is lower than Tiger (And King Tiger), which allows it to travel longer in the battlefield. It successfully balanced together 3 essential quality of a tank: Firepower, armour, and speed. Its legacy is also considerable. Considering that while Tiger was fearsome, it did not see much use after WWII. Meanwhile, T-34 was continued to be used in the battlefield all the way to end of the 20th century (There was some unreliable report of it in action during Arab Spring and stuff..)


Thank you.

The Tiger I had a range of about 68 mi and about the same for the Tiger II, depending on factors such as terrain of course. The T-34 had a range of 188mi, however, the t-34/85 had a range of only 86mi, which while superior to the Tiger's, is not that great a difference for the T-34/85 to be considered the best tank. The reliablity of the russian tanks is also not that good.

Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.

-"Major-General of Tank Armies, Khlopov, 2nd Department,"Evaluation of The T-34 and KV Tanks By Engineers of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds USA, Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army (n.d.) via"The Russian Battlefield, retrieved"November 23,"2011

As for why they were used after the war, they were cheap. That is the only reason they were used and if you find a list of countries that use them, you will find that they're all poorer countries, such as Cuba, Afghanistan, and North Korea.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by CooCooClockofDoom 3 years ago
T-34 oil consumption is c.225 litres per 100km road, which is less than Tiger"s oil consumption (912 liters per 100 miles)" I don't think con realized this, but he is using two different units of measurment in this statement. 1 kilometer is equal to about .62 miles, meaning that a 100km road would actually be 62.13 miles long, and a tank driving 100 miles would have traveled 160.9km.
Posted by Poe-vahkiin 3 years ago
There is no 'best' tank. The diversity of tanks and their characteristics makes each tank suit certain purposes better than others, and also make them far worse for other situations. It all depends on the situation given that dictates the effectiveness of a tank.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Luharis 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that the con side used stronger arguments, and while the pro may have explained why the Tiger is superior to the T-34, he did not explain how it was the best overall tank of all the tanks in the 2nd world war.