@Jordisk is factually incorrect, too. Mengele wasn't much of a medical researcher. More realistically, he was a sadistic serial killer cosplaying as a medical researcher to get free access to real live victims whom he could torture to death with horrifying mutilations and diseases with no negative consequences whatsoever.
I mean, this is a guy whose 'contributions' included obsessive examination of people with heterochromia, that
amazingly important medical condition that
as we all know proved so foundational to our understanding of human nature and heredity.
(Rolls eyes)
Oh, and the part where he'd do shit like randomly infect one of a pair of twins with typhus "to see what would happen" when everybody fucking well knew what would happen because typhus was a well known disease. And lopping people's limbs off for the hell of it when, again, amputations were a well understood field of medical science. Or sew a pair of children together in an attempt to create conjoined twins.
Visionary.
(spits in disgust)
Nazi medical experimentation didn't teach us all that much that humanity actually needed to know, or benefited from knowing.
...
There were areas where the Nazi regime actually did something for the first time and it was,
viewed as a technical achievement, impressive. Being appallingly evil does not automatically confer stupidity and weakness in all fields of human endeavor. But in medical research? It made them stupid and incompetent.
Because "we want to learn medical facts, and don't care what happens to people" does not actually attract smart physicians and scientists who are unshackled from petty morality. It attracts sadists and crackpots who don't value human life enough to actually care about healing people.
The Soviet Union was far more self destructive than the Nazis. They were only saved from being reduced to Russia on the western borders by LL.
The Nazis enjoyed tremendous advantages that had nothing to do with their political system. Without awareness of these advantages, it is not feasible to compare how self-destructive the two political systems were.
Pretty much the issues that every other tank in Europe had. In the case of the one-man turret, that was never really a big issue in the first place, since tank-to-tank wasn't even that common anyway.
I don't think the one-man turret would only be a problem in tank battles. Having a slow-firing main gun is awkward no matter what you're doing. Having a situation where the guy who's supposed to be sticking his head out, deciding where the tank goes, and keeping a watch for the enemy is
ALSO the guy who's personally loading and firing the gun... Yeah, that's a problem in any battlefield situation where the enemy has the capacity to threaten the tank, even if the threat involves crazy badasses with satchel charges jumping you or something. Let alone the possibility of running into concealed antitank guns or something.