What were the pros and cons of the tanks by allies/axis during WW2?

The German tanks were, in fact, pretty impressive. They were armed with guns capable of killing opponents with a single shot from long range, and were well armored, as well, particularly the front slope. They were notoriously hard to maintain and repair, however, and were not vdery reliable.

The T-34 the Soviets used not as well armed nor as well armored, but was faster and more agile than the German tanks they were up against. The M-4 Shermans the US (and the British, and the Soviets) relied upon during the war were poorly armed and armored in comparison to the German tanks, but were also faster and much more mechanically reliable. Both the Sherman and the T-34 were moderately reliable and were easy to repair and maintain. The British had a number of different types, and some were both well armed and well armored, but they were slow and not reliable.

The big advantage for the allies which spelled doom for the germans was not the quality of the individual tanks or other weapons, but rather was in quantity. The US could build twenty tanks for every tank the Germans could build. Add to this fact the production capacity of the British and Soviet tank factories, and you can see that the Germans were doomed.

Actually at the beginning of the war the German tanks were outclassed in the terms of armor and firepower by many of the allied tanks. However, in their tactical employment the German tanks dominated all rivals early in the war. The German Blitzkrieg doctrine stressed the use of rapid movement, mission-type tactics and combined-arms where tanks operated with mobile infantry and air support; It was based on communication and required the Germans to equip their tanks with radios, which provided unmatched command and control for flexible employment.

In contrast, for example, almost 80 percent of French tanks lacked radios, essentially because their battle doctrine was based on a more slow-paced, deliberate conformance to planned movements similar to those used in WWI. This required fewer radios at all levels. French tanks generally outclassed German tanks in firepower and armor in the 1940 campaign, but their poor command and control doctrine negated these advantages. By 1943, two-way radio was nearly universal in all armies.

There are strategies in using tanks. American strategy was to use tanks to demolish front line pillboxes and infantry positions, which is why they favored the swift and easily repaired Shermans. Shermans had thin armor, and didn't stand up well to more heavily armored Panzers. In Russia the T-34 tank was superior to every German tank until the deployment of the heavy Tiger tank. But the problem with Germany is that the economy was too weak to produce enough tanks, so the Tiger hardly mattered. There are excellent documentaries on YouTube about this.

This is a vast subject, and even were I to write 10,000 words I could only scratch the surface. But here are a few generalisations.

German tanks: The Tiger, Panther and King Tiger were superb pieces of engineering, which was both their best and worse feature. One on one they were a match for any Russian tank and vastly superior to any British or American one. But they never fought one on one, but against considerable odds. Firepower and armour excellent, speed and manoeuvrability acceptable. But mechanical reliability appalling. Also, they were built as if they were works of art, and built to last. The former meant that there were too few of them (only 1,300 Tigers were ever built), and the latter was a waste of time and resources.

Russian tanks. Simple, crude and plentiful. The early T34s suffered from the small turret which meant that the commander was also the gunner, but the later T34/85 fixed this. The T34/85 had a good gun, good protection, and was the fastest main battle tank of the war. It's crude design and manufacture (I've seen a T34 with gaps in the welding I could stick my hand into) meant that is was available in large numbers and easy to botch-repair in the field. Russian heavy tanks such as the IS2 were also formidable, especially in terms of firepower.

American tanks. Rubbish. The M4 Sherman was the worst tank fielded by any nation after 1942. Under-gunned, under-armoured and without the sort of speed that might've compensated for this, it's own crews called it a death trap. It's sole virtue was that is was easy to produce in huge numbers.

British tanks. Tended to be very well armoured, but slow, and lacking a huge punch. The Churchill is typical - though it had the unexpected ability to climb steeper slopes than any other tank, which on one occasion enabled it to flank a strong German position in Tunisia.

Italian and Japanese tanks. Not worth mentioning.

well war is probably the causes of our biggest advances in anything we can kill better than we can save you capture one have a look and improve yours its so simple its what everybody does don't you understand its been done since bows and arrows its what spies are for they know a lot but in war you get a chance to see the real article like the enigma machine it was an incredible piece of genius code making eventually the allies captured on though it took a huge amount of intelligence to break the code but they did by creating the first computer in the UK so you see the Tiger tank was unbeatable but the Russians come up with a better one and routed them at Kursk