[WKUHilltopper]

The “fairy tale” was that, early on, the Germans had great and indestructible tanks. They didn’t. It was their tactics that made them great. They were “crap” compared one-on-one to British and French tanks. It wasn’t until the Germans came up with the Panther and Tiger could they be considered “great” (assuming they wouldn’t break down).

[yarddog]

I remember an interview on “The History Channel”. It was of a German survivor of North Africa. He said that after the British got American Lee and Grant tanks, they were superior to anything the Germans had.

I think he said something about their “sponsons” being superior. I actually don’t know what a sponson is.

[central_va]

The Panzer Mk IV is a solid tank. Just as good as contemporary tanks it fought against.

It also made jagdpanther.

[xkaydet65]

Lloyd Clark’s Blitzkrieg makes a very strong case that French tactical and strategic performance aside, it was the effort of German infantry, the Landsers, that was decisive in the Spring of 1940. The breakthroughs that allowed for the Panzer penetrations, particularly at Sedan were the result of infantry actions.

[dfwgator]

In the early days of Barbarossa, a German general encountered a T-34 tank, and upon inspecting it, said, that if the Russians produced them on an assembly line, Germany would lose the war.

[tumblindice]

The Panther was pretty much a copy of Soviet T-34, but on steroids. I read an account by a British WWII tanker who said they should have just copied the copies ...... Until they came up with the `Firefly' Sherman, shown here: their Shermans and other tanks were simply outgunned. That's a compliment from the folks who pretty much invented tanks.