Pasholov's statement is a bit of nationalistic chest-beating. It's not uncommon amongst a lot of modern-day Russian military historians. The "Great Patriotic War" has become an increasingly-politicised topic in Russia, and that can often color Russian assessments of the USSR's military performance compared to that of its Axis adversaries.

This thread may be of some interest to you: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/adcthf/comment/edgj0fb

Yes, part of the Allied numbers comes down to American and Soviet industrial capacity. Part of it comes down to better American industrial management and more efficient manufacturing techniques (see Anthony Parshall's excellent talk on this). But much of it comes down the the fact the Germans and Americans had made very different choices. Germany was undercutting other production to build resource-intensive tanks like the Panther and Tiger II. Meanwhile, the Americans and Soviets went with a production strategy and doctrine that put more emphasis on medium tanks and tank destroyers that could be made in greater numbers.

There are a few common, and generally-deserved criticisms of German armor during WWII:

• Overweight and unreliable: Many of the heavier tanks in the German arsenal, like the Panther/Panzer V got heavier and heavier in the design process. Unfortunately, their automotive components weren't scaled up accordingly. This lead to tanks that quite literally broke themselves. In some of the early Panthers, if you went for a road march, there was a good chance the final drive or transmission would break before the tank even ran out of gas! Although these issues were (somewhat) rectified in the later Panthers, they remained fragile vehicles that had to be babied -- neutral steering or "turning on a dime" was done only in emergencies by Panther crews, who feared overstresing their weak gearboxes. In general, German tanks couldn't be road-marched into battle. To save on wear and tear, they were moved by rail near to the battle, then driven the last few miles. By contrast, Allied tanks like the M4 Medium (aka the Sherman) and the T-34 were considerably more reliable, allowing them to be driven great distances on roads -- in fact, one of the early demonstrations of the T-34 prototype was a long and successful road march across the western Soviet Union.

• Poor ergonomics and human factors: This one is a bit more mixed. In some respects, the Germans had very good ergonomics. The three-man turret of the Panzer III is roomier and much better laid out than the two-man turret of the T-34-76, or the one-man turret of some early-war French tanks! However, there some screwups. The Panzer IV's layout is cramped and made some crew tasks difficult. The Panther V didn't give the gunner an unmagnified sight, which made it impossible for him to shoot quickly from the short halt or quickly acquire targets. All the same, Soviet ergonomics were consistently worse than those in German tanks -- T-34 is cramped, very difficult to get out of, and extremely tiring to drive due to the stiff controls.

• Difficulty of maintenance: German tanks were often difficult to repair since components were often put in awkward places. Although the designs of mid- and late-war often made sense from a maintaince perspective, little thought seems to have been given to making the tanks easier to service. For example, changing the transmission on a Sherman involved a wrench, the help of gravity, a crane, and a few hours of work. Meanwhile, pulling the transmission off a Panther took enormous effort and quite a bit of time, since several components had to be moved to even get to the gearbox.

• Difficulty of manufacture: Allied tanks were generally made with an eye towards cheap and easy production. Effort was made to use as many pre-existing, already-produced parts as possible. The "Sherman" M4 Medium was based on the chassis of the "Lee/Grant" M3 Medium, which in turn was based on the pre-war M2 Medium. Although the Germans made some efforts at rationalization (e.g. using the Panther chassis for several AFV designs), they never achieved anything similar.

• Poorer industrial design: This is less of an issue with the tanks and more of an issue with how the Germans ran their factories. The Americans applied modern industrial management and production line techniques they'd used in the auto industry to wartime production. American industrial designers passed these techniques on to the USSR, as well -- indeed some of the wartime "production miracle" is owed to American industrial expertise. The Germans did not...See Anthony Parshall's excellent talk for more on this.

Now, this isn't to say that German tanks were all bad, or subjectively "worse" than Soviet tanks, or that Soviet tank design was amazingly good.

Soviet tanks also had some serious, albeit not debilitating, issues:

• Soviet armor was sometimes excessively hard, leading to brittle armor that could spray the crew with tiny metal frgaments (spall) when it was hit.

• Soviet tanks were difficult to get out of in emergencies. During WWII and the Korean War, tankers in T-34s, it wasn't uncommon for only 1-2 members of the crew to survive being knocked out.

• Although the Soviets were aware of ergonomic concerns their tanks tended to be much more cramped and more poorly laid-out than American and German designs.

One thing I need to look into more is the relative maintaince demands of different tanks. Athough they were easy to maintain, Soviet tanks required a great deal of maintaince for every hour of operation. Of course, every tanks needs some care and feeding, so the question is whether or not Soviet maintaince needs were uniquely high. For example, after 100 hours of engine operation, a Sherman needed a very detailed engine inspection.