WW2 Tanks.... A question....

[Peebothuhlu]

I think as weapons of war mid- to late war German tanks as second rate.   The fact that they were individually powerfully armed and well protected and intimidating to confront completely overshadowed the fact that they were as ill thought out as stone pillars trying to stop tidal waves.      They were wastefully engineered, with poorly considered balance between economy of resource consumption and individual capability, and between tactical power and strategic mobility.   They consumed far more resources than their combat power demanded.  They were woefully lacking in the sort of strategic mobility needed to get them to where they can tactically do some good.

 There's... a lot to reply to with that.

Firstly, I was just positing a 'What if" kind of reply innitially.

So, that you think German machines are 'Second rate' (I am guessing compared to the Western Allies? Or are you comparing them to the Eastern forces?) is fine and I agree that pretty much every german tank had its issues. I would then say that evry tank feilded during said conflict definately had issues.

Any machine is going to be a ballance between all the competeing requirments demanded of it.
All the tanks feilded during the war had myriad different criteria aroud which they were initially designed, buiult and then taken into combat.
Even as their very prescence changed the battles around them. As allies and enemies adapted to their introduction and use.
I think the German machines reperesent the thinking of their makers and as such are an interesting way of 'Getting inside their heads' of said instigators, designers, builders and eventualy users. (Since feild information was given back to said designers which infulenced them as they continued to develope said vehicles.)
'Wastefuly engineered'? The German's applied a very 'Roman' principle to their designs. They wre made well and made to last (Not counting the teething problems of any fledgling technology)
I would posit that all types of German tanks were made as cheaply as possibe given the stipulations of their design.
Every german tank was quite different, given the many factors leading from their inception to their implementation.
As for 'Tactical' and 'Strategic' mobility?
Tactically most German machines could handle most terrain well. With each new iteration/generation getting better and better at handling more types and difficulties of terrain.
As I've semi-jokingly stated in other forums... We'll all agree that doing anything in Russia during certain seasons is simply a 'Don't do it!" kind of thing.
Strategically? Even the largest of German machines (Jagd Tiger etc) could and did fit onto German rail cars. Could and did travers most German (And other countries) transport/raod systems.
I would assert that they consumed the amount of rescourses required of them to perform their tasks.
Remember, a Pz III is a completely different design phylosophy than a Pz VI, Both litterally created to perform in different ways at different types of tasks.
As for over all strategic mobility? So many other factors come into play that it's... kind of meaning less.
I will point out the battalion of Panthers utilized by the French after the war as stop gap defensive machines untill their own industry and technical skills were back up to full strength.
The french acknowledged the flaws in the Panther's final drives and so used rail extensinvly and almost exclusivly to move the vehicles over any long distance. 

Here's the video of after war maneuvers of Panther, Sherman, Churchill and a Swedish machine (L-60?) showing the different machines capabilties.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzjdwJfe40M&t=903s

Again, I only speak of my ideas and opinions. I've no real education about such matters.

Not at work.