Had the Soviets instead produced large quantities of a Sherman copy”: Especially when the Soviets were always complaining about the weakness of the Sherman. And the fact that the Sherman was design AFTER the T34, of course…

“It never quite reached the level of German military thinking”: We spoke about that before. The Soviet succeeded to change and improve in their tactics, the Germans never. From the Counter-offensive so costly at the beginning, ten the no-surrender battle, to the “shield and sword” tactic, follow by the huge offensives of 1944, the Soviets showed a constant and stunning adaptation during all the war. And you can add the Partisan Warfare in the back of the Germans. Exploiting the blitzkrieg (attacking the weak points) like in Stalingrad, huge attrition war like in Leningrad, trapping like in Kursk, mobility and aggression in Moscow (in 1942!!!!), the Red Army showed the Germans how to dance.

“Even after Hitler's stupidity at Stalingrad and Kursk” Stalingrad, at the end and the decision not to withdraw –even it is not sure Paulus could have done it- sure. Kursk, no way. It is a German GENERALS defeat. Repeating tactic the Soviets knew and took counter measure to defend, bad planning, all they could do wrong they did. When Hitler decided that was enough, the Russian had still 2 Armies in reserve…

“Kharkov”: And? Defensive like Stalingrad…But unlike Stalingrad, no counter-offensive, withdraw to Berlin, with almost no stop. Out manoeuvred and out classed by innovative general as Koniev, Rokosovsky and Zukov, the German were first stopped, stabilised then push back… Where the Soviets adapted, the Germans were never able to find an alternative to the Blietzkrieg.

“The sheer weight of Russian manpower practically eliminated the importance of tactics and manoeuvre in the East.” That is funny. Why this sheer weight didn’t eliminated the tactic and manoeuvre at the start of the Russian Campaign? The Russian had even more “weight”…

“It should be noted, though, that the Russian military was thouroughly exhausted by the end of the war”: That is new… The proof of this can be found in what event? The Russian Soldiers sit and went on strike?, their military production stopped?

“Many people blame Italian incompetence for the Axis defeat”: And many people are wrong. The Axis defeat is due to a lack of adequate material from a prolong war of attrition.
When the Germans failed to destroy the Red Army at the Russian borders, as planned by the Blitzkrieg, when they were obliged to go deeper and deeper in USSR, finally when they were not able to impose the rules any more (5 litres of petrol for one delivered at the front), when finally the lack of strategic bombers, real tanks (the Panther was an ANSWER to the T34) to confront a menace unforeseen, as general like Von Rundstedt predicted and feared, the Germans lost the war.

Like the French in 1940, the Germans lost the 1943-45 war because they were fighting the wrong war…

The Italians (but not only) were blame by the Germans for their own mistakes. Like if all the Allies units had the same qualities and equipment…