They were designed for WW2 style armour battles against numerically superior enemy. Note that this philosophy is exact the same one that failed in WW2 itself because it is exact same one that stand behind Tiger, Tiger 2 and even Maus, but considering the continuation between III Reich and West German military and industry i don’t think it is surprising.
Current war shows that the direct confrontation with a peer power look entirely different, like the article says, 5% of tanks are destroyed by the enemy tanks. NATO just didn’t had any opportunity to check their 50 year old projects, all the wars they’ve been waging were against much weaker militaries, and even their originally pretty faulty “against the T-XX” projects been influenced and changed by that.
They were designed for WW2 style armour battles against numerically superior enemy. Note that this philosophy is exact the same one that failed in WW2 itself because it is exact same one that stand behind Tiger, Tiger 2 and even Maus, but considering the continuation between III Reich and West German military and industry i don’t think it is surprising.
Current war shows that the direct confrontation with a peer power look entirely different, like the article says, 5% of tanks are destroyed by the enemy tanks. NATO just didn’t had any opportunity to check their 50 year old projects, all the wars they’ve been waging were against much weaker militaries, and even their originally pretty faulty “against the T-XX” projects been influenced and changed by that.