Absolutely agree. My only point being that mechanical reliability issues wouldn’t be so obvious when you are seeing a working tank and seeing the effectiveness of the 88 in particular. The tanks that were not on the battlefield because they broke down on the way to it - and the tanks that weren't there because they weren’t built because building more Tigers and King Tigers was too hard for the Germans to do - weren’t in view on the battlefield. In that sense there was observation bias.The US army had 4WD jeeps, and mechanized artillery; the Germans used lots of horses for moving their artillery. And the US army had Pershing tanks, too. The main problems of the Pershings, were quantity availability and hazard transporting them posed to the bridges used to cross rivers (both issues which the Germans faced with their bigger tanks).
According to my uncle, the Army chose to move all other equipment across a new pontoon bridge before risking destroying the bridge in an accident transporting heavy Pershings. With the result that by the time the Pershings reached the front again, you were almost up to the next river. My uncle said he saw an engagement between a Tiger and a Pershing, which saw each other at the same time. The Pershing was able to traverse its gun faster, and got off the first shot - which failed to destroy the Tiger. But before the Tiger was able to return fire, the second round knocked the turret off the Tiger - to my uncle’s great relief. I suppose the Pershing’s gunner tweaked the aim of the second round, and successfully hit the Tiger right at the interface between the turret and the body.