Quote Originally Posted by Brenus
“Okay maybe it was better than T-34, but surely wasn't better than two or three T-34s.” The Panther was a improved copy of the T34, so it was better design… However, the Panther had so kind of troubles with gear box and sometimes taking fire without reasons.
And if the German tanks were so good, why nobody used them after the war? I found a manual for the maintenance of the Panther in French, and I know the French Army used them for a while, however, comparing with the Sherman and the T34, it is just a foot note in history.
The best tank produced was the T34. From the first model up to the latest model, it proved its adaptability. New turret, new gun, increasing the crew number, largest caterpillars, it proved itself as tank, tank hunter, artillery platform. It worked under all climates, from Leningrad to Rostov, going in Manchuria, Korea then in Vietnam.

The problem is when we debate of the Eastern Front, we, westerners –excluding here the former Communist countries- are still under influence of the re-writing of history by German generals and historians.
History isn’t writing by the winners, but by the survivors. That lead the German generals to blame Hitler, Himmler, Goering for all mistakes, even theirs. Because the Russians were al well communists, and because communists were BAD, no skills and heroism could be given to them, and of course all their production was a copy of what we, westerners produced…
So, no, sorry, the concept of mechanised troops was designed by the Russians. To combine of infantry and tanks was a Russian concept, not a German one. The proof? Most of the German artillery was still horse-powered, even in 1941.

The so-called German supremacy came from surprise and gambles. It worked against France when the attack came from the Ardennes. But if the French HQ had given a real look of the aerial pictures taken by the Block 174, it would have been a disaster for the Germans.
The gamble to finish off the Red Army near the borders failed and, as predicted by people as von Rundsedt (who recognised that the Blitzkrieg concept couldn’t work in countries like Russia).
I agree. I said "maybe it was better", but in my opinion T-34 was by far the best all-round tank of the ww2. Reliable, easy to use, good armor, good penetration, cheap... But a lot of people say that panther was better, so I leave to everyone to make their own mind.

I think one of the important reasons of french defeat was their own commanders. They were veterans from the ww1, and they didn't adapt to the new type of warfare. They prepared to wage defensive war against the germans, like they did in ww1, relying on the maginout line. Only de Gaulle advocated for a new approach, but being a young general at that time, no one listened.
So when Hitler encouraged Stallins purge of the army, maybe in a way, he was doing him a favor. Maybe introduction of the more flexible and more willing to learn young commanders is why russians adapted so quickly the german tactics and produced so quickly effective counter-tactics, which the germans couldn't counter.