Professional military historians mostly focus on grand strategy and industrial planning. After all, wars are often decided by greater issues than the relative differences between the British "Brown Bess" musket or the French Charleville. Rather, unless there is a significant difference in technology or training, the equipment of opposing infantry companies mean little to the outcome of a battle or campaign. However, in popular history of the Second World War, many observers will focus and overanalyze the respective technical differences of small arms, tanks, and aircraft, postulating "what if" questions ad nauseum.
Case in point are the countless books, blogs, video games, and even films that seem to portray the German military as a technical superpower, the Allies only winning the war as a result of mass industrial output and sheer weight of manpower. The American M4 Sherman or Soviet T-34 gets pitted against the Tiger I, II, or Panther in a one on one battle, with little regard to the tactics or strategic situation or the actual logistical merits of the Allied vehicles. In many ways, the sheer simplicity of the T-34 and the M4 Sherman's easy of maintenance and transport. Some 80,000 T-34s of all types were produced alongside nearly 50,000 M4s, compared to a mere 6,000 Panthers. The numbers don't lie; the German industrial system could not cope with the sheer overextension of its military and manpower.
Analysis of the Russian archives since the 1990s has revealed that the supposedly lopsided casualties inflicted by the Wehrmacht on the Red Army are overexaggerated; by 1944, the Soviets were using deception and skeletal units to mask their true numbers and capabilities. It was hard for proud German Generals to admit that, often, Hitler's bad decision making had been spurred by their own overconfidence and shortsighted strategy. When the Axis powers failed to win key victories in 1941 and 1942, while the strategic and numerical advantage was against the Allies, there was little hope they could win this massive conflict. Simply put, the outcome of a war isn't always decided by numbers or technical proficiency. Often, there are more factors than a popular narrative would like to reveal.
Case in point are the countless books, blogs, video games, and even films that seem to portray the German military as a technical superpower, the Allies only winning the war as a result of mass industrial output and sheer weight of manpower. The American M4 Sherman or Soviet T-34 gets pitted against the Tiger I, II, or Panther in a one on one battle, with little regard to the tactics or strategic situation or the actual logistical merits of the Allied vehicles. In many ways, the sheer simplicity of the T-34 and the M4 Sherman's easy of maintenance and transport. Some 80,000 T-34s of all types were produced alongside nearly 50,000 M4s, compared to a mere 6,000 Panthers. The numbers don't lie; the German industrial system could not cope with the sheer overextension of its military and manpower.
Analysis of the Russian archives since the 1990s has revealed that the supposedly lopsided casualties inflicted by the Wehrmacht on the Red Army are overexaggerated; by 1944, the Soviets were using deception and skeletal units to mask their true numbers and capabilities. It was hard for proud German Generals to admit that, often, Hitler's bad decision making had been spurred by their own overconfidence and shortsighted strategy. When the Axis powers failed to win key victories in 1941 and 1942, while the strategic and numerical advantage was against the Allies, there was little hope they could win this massive conflict. Simply put, the outcome of a war isn't always decided by numbers or technical proficiency. Often, there are more factors than a popular narrative would like to reveal.