Different tools for different jobs. The entire argument or debate on "which tank was best" should always evolve in to "which traits were better for what role", etc.
Stop and ask yourselves a few questions based on the info below:
Scenario: You're a tank unit commander in late WWII, say May 1945. The Soviets have proclaimed they are not stopping in Berlin and they are now heading towards France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, and eventually Spain and Britain. They're already firing on US and British forces. You've been tasked with taking a unit of tanks (say 50 tanks?) and spear heading a counter attack eastward and you can have any tank you want thanks to the stock piles available. Any tank can be yours to have in your unit. You will have plenty of infantry and air support, and the supply units will be close behind to repair and maintain your tanks all the way to Moscow.
Think of the armor, think of the main gun (AP and HE abilities worth while???), think of the MG's, think of the optics, turret traverse speed, turn radius, think of the fuel range, think of the speed, think of the mobility/maneuverability, think of ammo capacity and ammo storage, think of crew safety/comfort, think of the massive number of Soviet tanks you're going to face, etc, etc... are you going to pick a T34 of any sort??? Seriously, think about it.
I can think of a number of tanks I'd pick over the T34/'43 or the T34/85mm, starting with the Panther G.
I still think if the Germans would have put stopped putting all the resources in to BS projects they did (including the King Tiger and other "wonder weapons") and instead build more Panther G's, the Soviet would have lost far more tanks and men than they did. Heck, even refining the Panzer IV a bit more (better topics!) would have done Germany more good than wasting resources on some of the "wonder weapons" they did.