The question is what is the best tank. Given equal resources, not being bombed day and night, there is no doubt the Germans would've had twice the numbers in battle as there were. the numbers alone are staggering. It took damn near the entire modernized world to stop the Germans and their damned engineering capabilities.
The question is the best, thats true, but the best is the best al round tank, and that should include its cost of production. The costs of production for german tanks was quite staggering. Though it is not entirely accurate to do so, the best estimate i can come up on the cost of a t-34 is around 40000RM, versus 312000RM for a tiger. A Panther cost 190000 whilst a a MkIV cost just over 100000. A Sherman cost around 80000. So the question is, are you better off with 1 tiger, 1.6 Panthers, 3 mkIvs, 4 Shermans or 8 T-34s. Given the average exchange ratio on the eastern front was about 3:1 against the russians, and somewhere around 2:1 against the Americans, the low cost options utilized by the allies over the high cost uber tanks of the germans starts to make sense
The T-34 was what, 3-4 years developed by the time of Kursk, the German attack was held up waiting for an unproven tank yet that tank left an impression of destruction that is still hotly debated today. This is not a question of numbers as the Russians had far more manpower to make the tanks, fight in the tanks, and ultimately, die in the tanks. In a straight up fight, nothing made that saw service in the war could expect to win against a Tiger(there are many questions regarding the actual ability of the crews operating the IS-2s and JS1-2's).
The reason the Germans found it necessary to develop the Panther, can be found directly from their experiences in encountering the T-34. It was found to be a near perfect blend of firepower, mobility, and protection, which are the three main ingredients to effective tank design. The panther paid rather more emphasis on firepower and protection, at the expense of mobility, which the germans could afford to do because they were not being asked to execute significantly mobile operations by the time the panther was being introduced. Panthers never performed outstandingly in the attack, though they were adequate in this role.
The tiger was not inspired by the T-34, but it was upgunned and uparmoured as a result of German experiences with the Heavy allied tanks of 1940, principally the Char B and the Matilda. To me it represented the heaviest in firepower and protection, but was a very poor tank in terms of mobility and range, and also suffered in any sort of attack role. During the fighting in the Ardennes the unit supporting Peipers attack on the Americans left with 45 Tigers, and a week later returned with none. These were not encircled...they simply ran out of fuel, or more embarrassingly broke down. I think just 7 succumbed to enemy action.
So, it is quite wrong to insist that ina "straight up" fight the german tank would always win.....it depends on the circumstances, and often the weaknesses in German designs, their lack of range and mobility, and to a certain extent their poor serviceability, meant they fought at a distinct disadvantage. That, in part is why they hardly ever got to fight in a "straight up" fight....it was inherent in their design failings that they seldom got that opportunity.
And even though your last claim is essentially nothing could stand up to the german tank forces, in fact the Germans lost nearly all the battles after 1943 that they were involved in. They put up a helluva fight, and shot up more tanks than they lost, but they still lost.....
That a faltering and crumbling infrastructure couldn't keep up the production in 1944 is not a fault of the tank design itself...rather a knock against the situation it was constructed in.
I agree with this to a point, and yet the very designs you are talking about are reflective of the regime that produced them. Often overlooked, it is telling to note that the germans commanded the second biggest economy in the world in 1938, easily many times that of their future principal enemy, the russians. If you were to index the German Industrial potential in 1938 at 15, the Russian Industrial period at that same time was just 5....yet they at least matched the germans in tank outputs, by making far better use of their resources, and that included designing tanks that were built for mass production. German tanks were not, as is amply shown in Speers comments about the monstosities the heer was demanding at that time.
So the germans in their tank designs like so many of their other technological endeavours became intoxicated with size and firepower, and paid a heavy price in the outputs they achieved. This lack of produceability ultimately lost them the war, but it also made the outnumbered germans in the field highly vulnerable. The vaunted superiority in design of tanks like the Tiger simply could not compensate for the faults inherent to the design, many of which displayed themselves off the battlefield, but nevetheless had an effect on the battle.....
If you are going into battle, die if you lose, what vehicle do you want to be in?
If I was faced with a single Tiger, I would opt for the 8 T-34s that I know I could have inexchange. Statistically the tiger will kill 3 of the t-34s, or in other words ther is a 37.5% chance of my tank being knocked out. However statistically, these eight T-34s will have killed the Tiger 2.7 times, meaning ther is a 270% chance of me being killed if I am in the Tiger
How many T-72s are equal to 1 Abrahms, or 1 Leopard 2s? Therin lies my point. This question aint industry or sheer numbers. WHAT IS THE SINGLE BEST TANK?
Well in terms of what happened in Iraq, the majority of tanks destroyed in 1991 were not T-72s at all, they were T-55s, though they there were quite a few T-72s destroyed. However, as usual, this does not take into account the circumstances....the Iraqi tanks lacked proper night vision equipment and lacked many of the high performance rounds used by the US. We can draw very little in design comparisons from the experiences in Iraq, though there is no doubt in my mind the Abrams is a much superior tank. If ther is little to be drawn in analysis of this battle in a contemporary context, then there is nothing to be learnt from the iraqi experiences in the WWII context.
Incidentally, a much better picture of just how capable "modern" Soviet armour actually is, is obtained by examining the Israeli usage of the T-55, T-62s and T-72s that they captured and used for quite a few years themselves. They did update their electronics, and communications, but as tanks, they found them to be very satisfactory.