I would echo some of the other comments that I thought the article was biased, and some areas factually incorrect. Without tearing the whole thing to pieces, I would like to pick up on one aspect regarding the Panther
"Tanks excel based on balance: the Panther had superior firepower, good armour protection, and poor mobility. That's not balance."
That is not correct. What it should have said was:
Superior Firepower, good armour protection, good mobility, some design flaws which effected reliability.
The Panther had excellent mobility and was far better at traversing over soft ground than almost all US and UK tanks. In addition it provided a better quality of ride.
The suspension design imposed a greater maintenance and repair burden compared with allied vehicles, plus the final drive connection to the front sprockets was not man enough for the job. The time of year, intensity of operations and crew quality dictated whether these aspects became significant.
By way of an afterthought, on the subject of the Tiger II, again it had very good mobility, but as the final drives were the same as the Panthers, it was even less reliable in this aspect.
Vulture