Its apples and oranges to compare a 56 ton Tiger I heavy tank (which was not Germanys main MBT of WW2 by any stretch) to a 26 ton T34/76, of which the Soviets produced in huge quantities.
The Tiger I was formed into special heavy tank companies and were far far fewer in # than the Panzer III/IV was.
The Soviets understood what wins wars, and thats mass producing "good" AFVs by the 10s of 1000s and deploy them to the front lines.
One need look only as far as Kursk to see they were correct in the strategy. All the Tiger Is deployed did not stave off defeat, good as they were.
As well, the Soviets fielded many other very good AFVs in 1944-45: JS-2, KV-85, T-34/85, Su-100, JS-152 to name just a few, and built them in very large #s. They also had decent guns in the 85-122mm range and shells that were perfectly serviceable. The KV-1 was also in service in 1941-43.
That and the mainstay of the Panzer forces was the Mk IV, even late in the war. Not the Tiger.
The Germans were so unimpressed with the T-34 there was serious discussion about COPYING IT DIRECTLY in 1942. General Heinz Guderian said of it "we had nothing to match it".
As for the M-10? it had a slightly higher ROF because the crew could reload in an open topped vehicle. Marders, M-10s, Su-76s, Archer, and other TDs (and fixed AT Guns), had this advantage, that was mainly ergonomic, and much depended on crew quality. The guns themselves (75-76mm) were very similiar in loading speeds with no other factors involved.
Tiger Is cross country performance: it was average at best, it was slower, and a gas guzzler, one of the reasons it was deployed into special companies was its inability to keep up with Panthers and especially the much lighter Panzer IVs. At 56 tons thats hardly surprising. In the Ardennes offensive, Peiper placed the heavy tanks to the rear of his column, so they would not slow his advance. It was a very formidable AFV, but like all fighting machines, it too had its drawbacks, as did the T-34 series, and all the others.
Regards.
