The Tiger had the time to show that it was just too complicated, too heavy and too slow to be affective. But boy could that puppy take hits and give hits. But it did have a weak point directly in the rear like most tanks. The Shermans used to gang up on it by taking on it with 4 or more Shermans by coming at it from 4 angles. While one would come in straight on (pretty well a dead given), two would angle in to both sides while a fourth would be able to do an end run faster than the Tiger could swing it's turrent. The Shermans would lose maybe 2 or 3 before the one got the hit from the rear which ended the Tiger. This sounds like the attrition would be in the Tigers favor except the Sherman had about a 10 to one numeric favor or better.
The Tiger´s engine was too weak and it caused misfires when the tank wanted to turn its front towards the enemy. But the Tiger was also a rare appearance, only 1000 were made. However, 80 % of Tiger and Tiger II were destroyed by artillery or airstrikes or were abandoned and blown up by the crew due to technical failures. So, the Tiger usually survived a battle. Also, Panzer IV were often mistaken for Tigers.
The Panzer was probably the best overall tank that operated the longest in WWII. I wonder if Germany had completely forgotten about the Tiger and made more Panzer IVs if it would have had an affect. Maybe not. It might have bought a month or two but probably a day or two until the Air Power took hold for the Allies.
The original Sherman wasn't that good but it had numbers. But at some point, they up armored it and it kept it's spriteness with it's bigger gun. At that point, it became equal or better than almost anything out there.
The T-34 had numbers on it's side and a big enough gun to get the job done. But it was suseptible to the Panzers main gun. While the T-34 was slightly better than the original Sherman, it was not as good as the Panzer IV but made it up in numbers and the tenacity of the crews.
The T-34 was a superior tank compared with Panzer IV A-D variants, Shermans and M24 (in Korea). It was strong, well armored, fast, reliable in the winter and very cross-country. US-tanks had a high silhouette and low operational range. The T-34 caused the Wehrmacht to order that every solider, regardless of his branch, had to go through anti-tank exercises. The Russians loved to gather some T-34 and cause trouble behind enemy lines. So it was possible at any time that a bunch of T-34 suddenly appears in your back. The Panzer IV got additional armor and a new, longer gun (F variant), so it could compete with the T-34. The T-34 was that dangerous that the Germans considered to copy it. But Germany had not the recourses to make as many T-34 as Russia. So they made the Panther. The T-34 also was produced in several variants, for example the T-34/85 that came with a 85 mm gun.
While the Pershing was used little, when it was, it stood hands over foot above both the Tiger and Panzer IV. It could take hits without being penetrated and take both of the other two out with one shot. The Panzer was a Medium Tank but the Tiger and the Pershing were both Heavy Tanks Tanks. But the Tiger was just way too heavy to really be that useful. The Pershing was not. Some claimed the T-34 was better but in Korea, that was proven false where the Pershing went head to head against the T-34 and mopped the countryside with them. The Pershing was used enough to show that it was the superior tank of WWII. It was good enough that it went on to be upgraded to the M-48 and M-60 where the M-60 still serves front line service throughout the world in many armies of the world.
So I give the nod to the Pershing hands down.
You are not firing through a tank and destroy another. This belongs to the realm of fairy tales. Only 20 Pershings, one Super Pershing saw combat in Europe and several were destroyed, including the Super Pershing.
The Pershing was withdrawn from Korea because it was not suited well for the terrain.
