In defence of Tiger: Not usually my thing - firm believer first & foremost that Tiger was 'Just another tank' - but worth watching the swing of the pendulum doesn't go too far. 'They could have made more of 'x' instead of Tiger'. Well, not really (though mention of battleships was made, that might queer the discussion). In terms of AFVs, you cannot say one 50t Tiger will swap for two 25t Mk iv or similar. Base steel is not the issue - each tank requires one gun, one engine, one transmission, a set of sights, bearings, etc. Special materials are where the bottlenecks occur in the real world. Crews also do not magically appear, nor POL. What choice did they have? Easy to decry the 'wunderwaffen' feel of some German stuff, but with resources that increasingly obviously could not equal their opposition's capability, where else does a warlike state turn than to technological solutions? Tiger not the best example of this as it's roots were pre-war, but that attempt to create quality over quantity is reasonably strategically defensible. The suspension: Yes, often say myself 'how many postwar tanks have interleaved wheels?'. None indeed, an evolutionary dead end... but... the concept behind it, before hitting the real world of frozen mud & impossible to access repairs, was understandable. The aim was a stable ride for very heavy machines using 30s/40s technology. (They obsessed over it for Panther, which is where to look if really interested in what was being done) & it was envisioned by engineers who thought their machines would have a proper support network of transporters & specialised equipment. German testing was thorough, including very long cross-country & road runs - but Russian ground conditions have caught out many previous military endeavours. Panzer IV was maxed out. End of life, overweight, tyre-shreddingly, unbalanced & long-gunned to buggery. It may be the only machine in continuous wartime production, but despite assorted experiments from hydrostatic drives to recoilless big guns it was not a logical future platform as allied heavies came on stream. Right or wrong on specifics, Panther & Tiger were a requirement rather than a luxury overindulgence. Nobody really knew how much war was to come. 'Over-engineered'. This one's a bugger, as while I'd not dispute Tiger's unreliability, what, exactly, was 'over-engineered'? Just plain overweight maybe more the word: all that ambition and 'MBT with BFG' concept lead to weight beyond what contemporary German engines & transmissions could happily handle. The Maybachs used were remarkable but due to space constraints were thin-walled & fragile beasts. 'Under-engineered' might describe them better as they struggled to meet demands with what was physically possible in the period. Difficult terms, though - is 1940s engine tech pushed to the max over-engineered, or just as much engineering as was possible. T34 etc. might have been simple by comparison, but again, Germany required a 'better' solution to make up for other short-comings. The suspension was a bit weird in engineering terms, but not apparently a prime source of complete vehicle failure. It had a normal steering wheel & associated faffing- no biggie. A very large HV gun was put into the field on a fully turreted 'proper' tank. Not bad really. The transport/action track sets I cannot defend. Silly. Swings & roundabouts. Had its flaws like any other machine. Neither a panacea nor a laughable mess. Just. Another. Tank. And on the 'could a 75 work against Tiger?' - could we not be one of those 'penetration' obsessed forums? I dunno if it's a chap thing, but no war was fought on paper using scientific tables. Plainly, M4s, Churchills, Cromwells, T34 etc. etc. fought Tiger, and won. (above & beyond its poor reliability.) If I sat you in the best possible 50t motorised armoured box and flung enough c.15lb projectiles at you at c.2000ft/s; you'd give up eventually whether penetrated or not. As MK's example shows above, there are so many other ways to make the fleshy bits inside lose the will than cutting the armour.