I disagree. The Germans were never going to be able to match U.S/ Soviet tank production. The Mark IV was marginally better than the Sherman, but not as good as the upgunned T-34. But look at the effect of the Tigers in Normandy, North Africa and Russia. It was all out of proportion to the numbers. The individual Tiger was a force multiplier by itself. Quality had a quantity all its own.
I will agree the Germans should not have over-engineered eith the Tiger or the Panther, and therefore produced more of them. or would I have been opposed to concentrating on Panther production.
But having said that, I beleive the Germans took the correct approach. And that philosophy is alive and well in the M1Abrams and its’ variants.
Nice turn of phrase. ;-)
It would be interesting to learn, of all the Panzer Vs and Tigers produced, how did they meet their ends?
In other words, how many survived the war, how many were defeated by other tanks, destroyed by artillery fire, or just broke down (i.e., ran out of gas) on the road?
And you'd need to look at Eastern versus Western Fronts.
The reason I say this is because, if you compare to reports from the time, those later German tanks seem to have acquired more significance in historical perspective than they were originally admitted to have.
For examples, consider the "Battle of the Bulge" in late 1944.
Hitler threw the latest and best he had at allied lines, including his biggest tanks.
And the result was?