I disagree kind of, because when WM tech to tanks, they cannot play defensive. Their tanks need to move and clear the way. So there is this disconnect with WM now, too much changes and counter fixes that WM is a bit lost faction, and the worst performing come late game.
WM is a faction defined by the defense, counterattack and new line of defense in depth.
Having generalist units like the Panzer IV does not negate this, and all factions require some form of offensive oriented units.
But the key to playing successfully as WM is understanding the nature of maneuver warfare, simply shooting and moving. WM is a shooting army that has some of the best firepower at range and wants to maneuver to keep the enemy at range where they can be reduced until they must retreat. Then the WM player can move up and reestablish new positions while the enemy is off the field of battle, forcing them to attack again.
The Soviets are an attrition style army that attempts to destroy the enemy in detail, by singling our enemy units and overwhelming them aiming to wipe out the unit so that the Soviet army can have an advantage in numbers that steadily grows until a decisive battle can be made where the Axis can no longer hold the line and are wiped out.
The USF are a maneuver warfare army like the WM, but favor maneuver over shooting, attempting to close with and destroy the enemy in order to take ground. Moving and attempting to gain local advantage in numbers is similar to the Soviet style of play, but where Soviets attempt to use combined arms and numbers to brute strength the enemy, the USF attempts to use speed to achieve a decisive advantage by striking where the enemy is weaker or from an undefended angle or with a unit type the enemy is specifically vulnerable to (tank destroyers vs tanks for example).
OKW basically play like Soviets, but with more powerful units that are more expensive, but still favoring attritional battle and destruction in detail.
British are basically like WM, but with funnier accents and silly hats.