In the back of my mind I questioned the quoted authors' authoritative and comprehensive knowledge to be able to make the statements they did.
That the German machines had weaknesses is widely accepted; that they've not influenced tank development since is questionable at best. The later
German machines by themselves were not the most influential aspect of the German armored weapon. The German approach to crew responsibilities, crew layout
communication and tactics while using largely technically superior ( albeit overly complex ) weapon systems made their opponents pay attention. If myths
came of it they probably earned them.

Did the authors base their statements on exhaustive first hand accounts from veterans from the major combatant nations? Field reports from maintenance
and recovery organizations ( they see the armored combat carnage better than anyone) Or were they making assessments based the relics at Aberdeen?
Mr Sewell is ex-Military( CW2 ) and a respected specialist and modeler but I don't know how much of his comments were based on conjecture and anecdotal
information or from interviews of people who were there. I saw the list of cited works at the bottom of the article and while I'm unfamiliar with them
except for having a copy of von Senger und Etterlin's book the works cited appear somewhat slanted.

I don't consider myself a great 'fan' of Micheal Wittmann, for one I don't care for the hype but certainly he was a skillful fighter.

If you want to read a very engaging account of armored warfare particularly during the second world war I highly recommend

"Tank Men - The Human Story of Tanks at War" by Robert Kershaw ISBN 978 1 444 71483 8

The author cites many veteran's first hand accounts, perceptions and fears of those who were there as well as their reactions to the significant machines
when they encountered them in battle. Reading the book solidified my long held belief that any tank in combat is the last place I'd want to be. Fascinating modeling subject
but little else.

Jerry