75 years ago Germany and its satellites attacked the USSR

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**tneva82**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I was looking at the stats for how much damage and casualties the Allies inflicted on Germany during the Normandy campaign, and it's astonishing. Nearly 60 German divisions wiped out, and an entire theatre of German operations removed from the map, as they were chased back to Germany.

And the Allies did this with 30 divisions...

Then look at number of divisions German had on eastern front. Dwarfed the western front. And generally quality was better on the eastern front where more veteran divisions were...

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

tneva82 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I was looking at the stats for how much damage and casualties the Allies inflicted on Germany during the Normandy campaign, and it's astonishing. Nearly 60 German divisions wiped out, and an entire theatre of German operations removed from the map, as they were chased back to Germany.

And the Allies did this with 30 divisions...

Then look at number of divisions German had on eastern front. Dwarfed the western front. And generally quality was better on the eastern front where more veteran divisions were...

The point I'm making is that the Western Allies gained more for less, not only in Europe, but in the Pacific as well. Macarthur's Pacific campaign made astonishing gains for relatively few casualties.

The allies destroyed nearly 60 German divisions in Normandy,, especially with Operation Cobra, and a few days later, Paton's at the German border...

The Russians inflicted huge casualties on the Germans, I don't deny that, but they suffered massive casualties themselves, because Germany and Russia were technically inferior to the Western Allies.

And before somebody starts

I'm not ignoring the Tiger tank, the panther, or the T-34.

Germany and Russia suffered massive casualties because most of the fighting was done by infantry, infantry still fighting like it was WW1.

Britain and America, especially America, were modernised with superior numbers of trucks and jeeps, superior logistics, and superior industry.

Your tiger tank is superior to the Sherman, but if you can't get fuel for it, spare parts, or get it to go, then it's useless...

And of course, unlike Russia, Britain got other people, notably the Commonwealth, to fight its battles for it.

Of the 3 nations that started WW2, Germany, France, UK, only Britain came through unscathed at the end. I call that a British victory

**Freakazoitt**

If you look at the what the USSR was producing at that time. uniforms, tanks, trucks, weapons. it was the less expensive as possible but performed what was supposed to perform. really, for the USSR it was nearly apocalyptic war

truck was already too simple, but it was simplified twice more

according to the plans, the infantry planned to be armed with automatic rifles (later decided to semi-automatic), but came back to simple Mosin. It wasn't best for fast shooting but it was easy to produce so everyone can be armed and also factories can produce submachine guns without suffering making a Mauser-like bolt
Uniform was cheap. Not too fashionable and modern. But ok for lying in the muddy trenches and warm in the winter. Tarpaulin boots instead of leather boots. But everyone had that boots. Veshmeshok was just a piece of cloth, but it contained everything soldier need and was lightweight

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Freakazoitt wrote:
If you look at the what the USSR was producing at that time. uniforms, tanks, trucks, weapons. it was the less expensive as possible but performed what was supposed to perform. really, for the USSR it was nearly apocalyptic war

truck was already too simple, but it was simplified twice more

according to the plans, the infantry planned to be armed with automatic rifles (later decided to semi-automatic), but came back to simple Mosin. It wasn't best for fast shooting but it was easy to produce so everyone can be armed and also factories can produce submachine guns without suffering making a Mauser-like bolt
Uniform was cheap. Not too fashionable and modern. But ok for lying in the muddy trenches and warm in the winter. Tarpaulin boots instead of leather boots. But everyone had that boots. Veshmeshok was just a piece of cloth, but it contained everything soldier need and was lightweight

I'm not saying the Russians didn't have great equipment, quite the opposite, but between 1941-42, they lost thousands of tanks, millions of men, fuel refineries, factories, millions of rifles and ammunition, trucks, machine tools, etc etc and had their industry relocated to the Urals, as you know.

In that book I mentioned earlier, there was some interesting stats:

During the Battle of Moscow, half of the Russian tank strength was British Matilda and valentine tanks. Even though they were inferior to the KV and T-34, the Russians were so desperate, they took them.

Half of the Red Air Force was British Hurricane fighters

And Britain supplied tons of machine tools to the Russians.

Britain could do this because its industry was far superior, and obviously, Russian industry had suffered a heavy blow.

It may surprise people to know, that until 1943, british tank production was better than any nation (including Germany) until American industry kicked in.

**MarsNZ**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I was looking at the stats for how much damage and casualties the Allies inflicted on Germany during the Normandy campaign, and it's astonishing. Nearly 60 German divisions wiped out, and an entire theatre of German operations removed from the map, as they were chased back to Germany.

And the Allies did this with 30 divisions...

Then look at number of divisions German had on eastern front. Dwarfed the western front. And generally quality was better on the eastern front where more veteran divisions were...

The point I'm making is that the Western Allies gained more for less, not only in Europe, but in the Pacific as well. Macarthur's Pacific campaign made astonishing gains for relatively few casualties.

The allies destroyed nearly 60 German divisions in Normandy,, especially with Operation Cobra, and a few days later, Paton's at the German border...

The Russians inflicted huge casualties on the Germans, I don't deny that, but they suffered massive casualties themselves, because Germany and Russia were technically inferior to the Western Allies.

And before somebody starts I'm not ignoring the Tiger tank, the panther, or the T-34.

Germany and Russia suffered massive casualties because most of the fighting was done by infantry, infantry still fighting like it was WW1.

Britain and America, especially America, were modernised with superior numbers of trucks and jeeps, superior logistics, and superior industry.

Your tiger tank is superior to the Sherman, but if you can't get fuel for it, spare parts, or get it to go, then it's useless...

And of course, unlike Russia, Britain got other people, notably the Commonwealth, to fight its battles for it.

Of the 3 nations that started WW2, Germany, France, UK, only Britain came through unscathed at the end. I call that a British victory

Your rather patriotic post ignores a pretty key reason why the UK and the USA were able to outproduce continental Europe. Your cities were intact. Sure, the UK endured the Blitz, which compared with other bombing campaigns was practically irrelevant and didn't even target the UK's capacity to produce the necessities of war. Germany on the other hand endured 3 years of devastating bombing, whereas Russia had to pack up and move their factories east, all while fighting a war on a scale neither the US nor the UK had ever even imagined. Technical inferiority? T-34s, Panthers, Infrared systems, rocketry, modern firearms - all areas where Russia or Germany were miles ahead of the West. Geographic superiority certainly, technical? No. Incidentally the Soviets were the first (and only) nation in the war to withstand Germany's new mobile warfare - this after the West concluded the second world war would be fought the same way as the first.

Also the earlier post about the much vaunted "BEF the only mechanised force in the world", you forget the only thing that saved the BEF was Hitlers incompetence.

**welshhoppo**

Curiously enough German production actually increased in 1944 and 1945, because Speer was a God of industry, despite the bombing campaigns.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

welshhoppo wrote:
Curiously enough German production actually increased in 1944 and 1945, because Speer was a God of industry, despite the bombing campaigns.

That, and the hundreds of thousands of slave labourers Speer had at his disposal.

**Mr Morden**

Of the 3 nations that started WW2, Germany, France, UK, only Britain came through unscathed at the end. I call that a British victory

Britain was devastated by the war - financially and economically, arguably it has never completely recovered - it had rationing until 1954!

British tank production was better than any nation (including Germany) until American industry kicked in

Trouble with that was the tanks produced were inferior to all other nations, especially in terms of their armament.

**welshhoppo**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
Curiously enough German production actually increased in 1944 and 1945, because Speer was a God of industry, despite the bombing campaigns.

That, and the hundreds of thousands of slave labourers Speer had at his disposal.

I didn't say he was an honourable God of industry.....

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

MarsNZ wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I was looking at the stats for how much damage and casualties the Allies inflicted on Germany during the Normandy campaign, and it's astonishing. Nearly 60 German divisions wiped out, and an entire theatre of German operations removed from the map, as they were chased back to Germany.

And the Allies did this with 30 divisions...

Then look at number of divisions German had on eastern front. Dwarfed the western front. And generally quality was better on the eastern front where more veteran divisions were...

The point I'm making is that the Western Allies gained more for less, not only in Europe, but in the Pacific as well. Macarthur's Pacific campaign made astonishing gains for relatively few casualties.

The allies destroyed nearly 60 German divisions in Normandy,, especially with Operation Cobra, and a few days later, Paton's at the German border...

The Russians inflicted huge casualties on the Germans, I don't deny that, but they suffered massive casualties themselves, because Germany and Russia were technically inferior to the Western Allies.

And before somebody starts I'm not ignoring the Tiger tank, the panther, or the T-34.

Germany and Russia suffered massive casualties because most of the fighting was done by infantry, infantry still fighting like it was WW1.

Britain and America, especially America, were modernised with superior numbers of trucks and jeeps, superior logistics, and superior industry.

Your tiger tank is superior to the Sherman, but if you can't get fuel for it, spare parts, or get it to go, then it's useless...

And of course, unlike Russia, Britain got other people, notably the Commonwealth, to fight its battles for it.

Of the 3 nations that started WW2, Germany, France, UK, only Britain came through unscathed at the end. I call that a British victory

Your rather patriotic post ignores a pretty key reason why the UK and the USA were able to outproduce continental Europe. Your cities were intact. Sure, the UK endured the Blitz, which compared with other bombing campaigns was practically irrelevant and didn't even target the UK's capacity to produce the necessities of war. Germany on the other hand endured 3 years of devastating bombing, whereas Russia had to pack up and move their factories east, all while fighting a war on a scale neither the US nor the UK had ever even imagined. Technical inferiority? T-34s, Panthers, Infrared systems, rocketry, modern firearms - all areas where Russia or Germany were miles ahead of the West. Geographic superiority certainly, technical? No. Incidentally the Soviets were the first (and only) nation in the war to withstand Germany's new mobile warfare - this after the West concluded the second world war would be fought the same way as the first.

Also the earlier post about the much vaunted "BEF the only mechanised force in the world", you forget the only thing that saved the BEF was Hitlers incompetence.

It's not a patriotic post, because earlier, I acknowledged the superiority of the KV Tanks, T-34s, Panthers, JS-2, Tiger etc etc

UK industry suffered pretty badly during the Blitz - key industrial areas suffered a heavy blow, and of course, Britain had to protect its vital shipping lanes in the Battle of the Atlantic, and supply Russia via Murmansk.

The British and Commonwealth focus stopped Rommel at Torbruk, so you can make the argument that Britain and Commonwealth did it before the Russians.

And technical superiority? Britain was miles ahead with the innovations it developed, and of course, the USA with its M1 automatic rifle, had an infantry weapons to match the best of Germany and Russia.

I'm not trying to down play the huge sacrifice that Russia made during WW2 - I'm just saying it's more complex than the idea that war was won or lost on the Eastern Front...

Britain had plans to invade Italy in 1942. Yes, 1942. The Royal Navy had won supremacy in the Med, the 14th Army was being raised to crush the Afrika Corps, and then launch that invasion...but then Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, and the rest is history...

Who knows how the war would have went if Britain had invaded Italy in 1942?

**Freakazoitt**

Mr Morden wrote:

Trouble with that was the tanks produced were inferior to all other nations, especially in terms of their armament.

Yep, British tanks have shown terrible results for its guns when used by Soviets. 40mm gun was insufficient to harm enemy defences, even machinegun position. Soviets tried to make explosive shells for that gun but caliber was too small. As anti tank weapon it was terrible. Also, tanks were easy to burn, difficult to bail out, not sealed from explosion wave and had some technical problems. Later Matilda used as a "shield" for direct storming at enemy positions and lighter British tanks were used in Caucasus (I dont know reason why there)

**jhe90**

Even hitting Italy then would still be a tough nut to crack. Mountains, the terrain is good on the defensive. The spine. Its long and thin. Not easy attacking.

**Kilkrazy**

That became evident during the course of the campaign. Even after the Italians surrendered, the Germans were able to mount a tough defence.

**aldo**

Don't be silly, the country that won the war was clearly Italy, their clever ruse to mess out Barbarrosa's timing was what won the war in the end.

No?

**jhe90**

Kilkrazy wrote:
That became evident during the course of the campaign. Even after the Italians surrendered, the Germans were able to mount a tough defence.

Exactly. At any time of year or timing. Italian campaign was always gonna be a tough one to pull off.

**Frazzled**

Soladrin wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
Paradigm wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Spoiler:

Paradigm wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I was going to post a thread on this very subject, but you beat me too it.

Two questions I was going to focus on:

1. Could Barbarossa have succeeded?

Personally, I don't think so at all. Russia's landmass, raw mass in the military and industrial fields and the sheer scale of the task presented to the Nazis rendered the whole thing an exercise in futility. Even with the best gear, the best laid plans, the best intelligence and no need to divert troops and resources anywhere else, it still would have been an impossible aim.

On the other hand, it absolutely could have gone far better for the Germans than it did in reality. The whole operation lacked any clear war aim, beyond wiping the USSR as an entity, and even the military objectives were muddled beyond belief. Three targets at once undermined any advantage of blitzkrieg as the Wehrmacht was spread far too thinly, capturing Moscow or Leningrad or even Stalingrad would do very little to destabilise Russia politically or physically, and throughout the campaign this problem onlygot worse, Hitler letting his ideological priorities get in the way of conducting an effective war. His unwillingness to listen to the generals telling him how unsound these plans were exacerbated what was already an insurmountable task. Combine that with poorly managed resources, lack of preparation for the climate and environment, and it's easy to see why it all well apart.

Credit must also be given to the Red Army, though their initial losses were immense and they spent a few months very much on the back foot, when they did manage to rally some kind of organised counterattack as early as September 41 they did it damn well. David M. Glantz has written a lot on this, well worth checking out for a somewhat different perspective; the failure of the attack was as much in what the Red Army did right as what the Wehrmacht did wrong.
[spoiler]

For many people, Barbarossa's success is judged on the destruction of the Soviet Union. But Germany could have inflicted a major blow, and negotiated a very good treaty with Russia, just like what they did in 1917 with Brest-Litovsk.

Germany didn't have to take out the USSR for Barbarossa to be a success. Bismarck would have known when to stop...

In Bismark's time, I'd agree. But I don't see any situation in which a) Stalin would be open to negotiating with the Nazis and b) Hitler would accept anything less than the total annihilation of the Slavic people and the communists. The war on the Eastern Front was 100% ideological in character, there was never going to be surrender on either side. You see that at Stalingrad, where the Russians hold the line despite everything, you see that in Berlin when Hitler orders every man able to carry a gun into the front line rather than contemplate surrender.

Stalingrad showed how much names mattered. It was Stalins city. To Hitler a big red flag.
Both fought a titanic battle over the very concept of the war. Stratigic but the name. The name mattered as a symbol of defying the enemy, holding the line.

Any price would e paid to win. The Soviet defence was nothing short of heroic.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
The Panzer Lehr division also took a lot of damage from the Allied bombings that came right before the invasion, and Hitler set them further back than the chief coordinator of Normandy's defense, Rommel, wanted. Those two factors combined to make the German armored divisions in France unable to prevent the formation of an Allied beachhead.

It's very arguable if they would have done any good being closer any ways. The threat of naval bombardment was even worse then aerial.

Even a destroyer could land 5 inch miles inland. And that's smaller on list.
Cruisers 8 inch further
Battleships up to 20km + with main artillery. And they only need a near hit.

All of those could destroy a tank.

Not really, Destroyers were firing 130mm shells max, a 130mm HE shell isn't going to knock out a tank without a direct hit.

Nearby hit. As the Russians found, the shockwave from a five inch gun is just the thing to knock the turret off a tiger.
While I would be less concerned about naval artillery once I were inland, the concept of concentrating your armor in a nice killbox for the thousands of roaming Thunderbolts, and Typhoons seems a situation ideal for watching your armor go boom.

**Mr Morden**

Freakazoitt wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:

Trouble with that was the tanks produced were inferior to all other nations, especially in terms of their armament.

Yep, British tanks have shown terrible results for its guns when used by Soviets. 40mm gun was insufficient to harm enemy defences, even machinegun position. Soviets tried to make explosive shells for that gun but caliber was too small. As anti tank weapon it was terrible. Also, tanks were easy to burn, difficult to bail out, not sealed from explosion wave and had some technical problems. Later Matilda used as a "shield" for direct storming at enemy positions and lighter British tanks were used in Caucasus (I dont know reason why there)

I should have said major European nations and excluded Italy - whose tanks were even worse.

Matlida's were well armoured and proved very hard for early German tanks to defeat as they also did not have very powerful armament in the battle of France, the French tanks were armoured monsters by comparison to most others but without co-ordination they were able to be bypassed or ignored for the most part.

The Sherman was another tank that early versions burned - reading accounts by British "tankers" they loved the Stuart ("Honey") for its reliability - I don't know figures but I would not be surprised if more thanks were lost on all sides by mechanical problems than from enemy fire.

The British tanks being used in the Caucasus may have been just what the Russians could get into battle - they were throwing everything they had to try and stop the advance of the Germans.

**Frazzled**

Soladrin wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
Some UK destroyers packed up to 4.7 inch gun turrets.

Tribal class.

That is actually smaller than 130mm :p

Ok. 120mm I think. But the gun could still lay down a rapid barrage. Was powerful and even uf not the tank. Shread any support trucks or light armour.

With a good gun crew it was fast, duel mounted too. Good naval guns can fire very fast and accurate when needed.

Accurate at a moving target at over 5km range on land is a bit of an overstatement.

A direct hit would feth up anything except a tiger or heavier though thinking about it. Maybe not destroy it utterly but either knock out it's turret, tracks or just give everyone inside a massive concussion depending on where the shell hit.

Then again, russians did try putting naval guns on tanks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-100Y_Self-Propelled_Gun

Try? They put big guns on their tiger killers and swept to Berlin with them. My relatives make BIG guns.

Behold, the Basilisk, er...ISU 152 with a 6 inch gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISU-152

And A little something for those King Tiger lovers, and scared the crap out of the allies when they were paraded in May Day after the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS_tank_family

The point I'm making is that the Western Allies gained more for less, not only in Europe, but in the Pacific as well. Macarthur's Pacific campaign made astonishing gains for relatively few casualties.

Please never mention that politically protected loser ever again. His "campaign" through the Phillipines was a waste of casualties for no gains, and his earlier Phillipines campaign was practically criminal in how poorly it was run. Pompass ass could barely do anything right, but his family connections kept him in command.

**Kilkrazy**

Yes, fighter-bombers naturally have a much wider range of action than naval gunnery, which stops about 15 miles or so inland.

**Frazzled**

welshhoppo wrote:
Curiously enough German production actually increased in 1944 and 1945, because Speer was a God of industry, despite the bombing campaigns.

For a few months it increased. However the oil industry fell completely, first by bombing, then by vodka fueled Rooskies seizing the oil fields.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, fighter-bombers naturally have a much wider range of action than naval gunnery, which stops about 15 miles or so inland.

Plus they can loiter, and with forward observers become brutally effective. Thats the real advantage of the Western Allies vs. both the Germans and RUssians-their communication network.
It was developed to the extent company level control of artillery and air support, to support individual platoons. The Germans didn't have the communication capacity for it, and the Russians couldn't dream of doing such (hence why they had so many heavy assault guns-who needs artillery when you have more tanks than God?)

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Frazz, I consider MacArthur to be America's greatest general. I find your comment about him...disturbing

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Freakazoitt wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:

Trouble with that was the tanks produced were inferior to all other nations, especially in terms of their armament.

Yep, British tanks have shown terrible results for its guns when used by Soviets. 40mm gun was insufficient to harm enemy defences, even machinegun position. Soviets tried to make explosive shells for that gun but caliber was too small. As anti tank weapon it was terrible. Also, tanks were easy to burn, difficult to bail out, not sealed from explosion wave and had some technical problems. Later Matilda used as a "shield" for direct storming at enemy positions and lighter British tanks were used in Caucasus (I dont know reason why there)

Soviet tanks in 1941 suffered from lack of radios, training for the crew, and in the T-34s case, cramped conditions.

Later on in the War, the Comet Tank was as good as anything in the European theatre, the 17pdr could take out any tank, and of course, the Centurion proved its worth against Soviet tanks in the 1960s and 1970s...

British tanks had their faults, but Russian tanks were far from perfect.

And German tanks? Logistical nightmare. Good luck trying to get spare parts for a Tiger or a Panther.

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazz, I consider MacArthur to be America's greatest general. I find your comment about him...disturbing

My pop would punch you right in the mouth. He'd buy you whiskey once you realized the error of your ways though. The Marines had no respect for MacArthur.

Soviet tanks in 1941 suffered from lack of radios, training for the crew, and in the T-34s case, cramped conditions.

Later on in the War, the Comet Tank was as good as anything in the European theatre, the 17pdr could take out any tank, and of course, the Centurion proved its worth against Soviet tanks in the 1960s and 1970s...

British tanks had their faults, but Russian tanks were far from perfect.

And German tanks? Logistical nightmare. Good luck trying to get spare parts for a Tiger or a Panther.

Indeed in armor penetration tests the 17 lber was found to be absolute tops until the 90mms and above started to be used.

Penetration (assuming the best armor piercing shot as he went into detail on the different rounds available):
90mm
17lber with special shot
US 76mm with special shot
Soviet 85mm with special shot (interestingly the Soviets used the most of the tungsten heavy shot but later in the war as earlier the priority was for machine tools.).
US 75mm with special shot

**LordofHats**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazz, I consider MacArthur to be America's greatest general. I find your comment about him...disturbing

You have to understand that over here, MacArthur is generally understood to be something of an donkey cave. All of Patton's attitude and none of his charm as it were.

It helps of course that the man totally was a donkey cave, had an extremely disturbting bordering of fascist view of the relationship between the military and society, and wasn't quite as talented as PR has made him out to be.

He was a far better administrator than general.

**Mr Morden**

Agreed the 17pdr was a very powerful gun but only late war did they manage to get it on a British tank - the Firefly was a great tank but that was a Sherman variant.

The main British tank mid-late war was th churchill and that started with a 6pdr and could not be fitted with a 17pdr IIRC?

The Germans had major issues with reliability, too many different tank types, lack of fuel but Allied air power was so dominant as well.

**Frazzled**

Cromwell and Churchill tanks I believe, with Challengers (17lbers) appearing in mid 1944. But it looks like Shermans and Fireflys were where the real numbers were. later the Comet came out and of course Britain's gift to tanks-the Centurion, which would later put paid to Soviet armor for decades.

**Kilkrazy**

I think British tanks have a worse press than they actually deserve, partly because the T-34 obviously was so good, and the later German "glamour" models (Tiger and Panther) get such a lot of wargamer attention.

The Matilda 2, Valentine and Crusader were perfectly adequate and very much standard designs of the early war, two man turret, 40mm gun. The T-34 also had a two man turret.

The Churchill was rather a disappointment, especially the early models, but the Cromwell and Comet were decent tanks. The big problem was not getting a really good replacement for the 6-pdr gun until the 17-pdr came into service in 1944. That said, the 6-pdr remained effective against Panzer IV until the end of the war, and against the sides of the Panther. Its main drawback was a weak HE shell.

**Freakazoitt**

Churchill was designed to be teleported to WW1 and fight there.

**Mr Morden**

Frazzled wrote:
Cromwell and Churchill tanks I believe, with Challengers (17lbers) appearing in mid 1944. But it looks like Shermans and Fireflys were where the real numbers were. later the Comet came out and of course Britain's gift to tanks-the Centurion, which would later put paid to Soviet armor for decades.

Churchill is 1942 onwards - Dieppe (40mm gun), El Alemein, Italy, NW Europe and of course Kursk! (lend lease)

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I think British tanks have a worse press than they actually deserve, partly because the T-34 obviously was so good, and the later German "glamour" models (Tiger and Panther) get such a lot of wargamer attention.

The Matilda 2, Valentine and Crusader were perfectly adequate and very much standard designs of the early war, two man turret, 40mm gun. The T-34 also had a two man turret.

The Churchill was rather a disappointment, especially the early models, but the Cromwell and Comet were decent tanks. The big problem was not getting a really good replacement for the 6-pdr gun until the 17-pdr came into service in 1944. That said, the 6-pdr remained effective against Panzer IV until the end of the war, and against the sides of the Panther. Its main drawback was a weak HE shell.

Also, don't forget 6pdrs firing the armour piercing discarding shot. Very nasty against German armour.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazz, I consider MacArthur to be America's greatest general. I find your comment about him...disturbing

You have to understand that over here, MacArthur is generally understood to be something of an donkey cave. All of Patton's attitude and none of his charm as it were.

It helps of course that the man totally was a donkey cave, had an extremely disturbting bordering of fascist view of the relationship between the military and society, and wasn't quite as talented as PR has made him out to be.

He was a far better administrator than general.

His Hollandia campaign and of course Inchon, were marks of genius.

I smell a new thread topic

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazz, I consider MacArthur to be America's greatest general. I find your comment about him...disturbing

My pop would punch you right in the mouth. He'd buy you whiskey once you realized the error of your ways though. The Marines had no respect for MacArthur.

Soviet tanks in 1941 suffered from lack of radios, training for the crew, and in the T-34s case, cramped conditions.

Later on in the War, the Comet Tank was as good as anything in the European theatre, the 17pdr could take out any tank, and of course, the Centurion proved its worth against Soviet tanks in the 1960s and 1970s...

British tanks had their faults, but Russian tanks were far from perfect.

And German tanks? Logistical nightmare. Good luck trying to get spare parts for a Tiger or a Panther.

Indeed in armor penetration tests the 17 lber was found to be absolute tops until the 90mms and above started to be used.

Penetration (assuming the best armor piercing shot as he went into detail on the different rounds available):
90mm
17lber with special shot
US 76mm with special shot
Soviet 85mm with special shot (interestingly the Soviets used the most of the tungsten heavy shot but later in the war as earlier the priority was for machine tools.).
US 75mm with special shot

Prepare yourself for a one man invasion of Texas!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, getting back to Barbarossa, I read an interesting article about how the Luftwaffe hadn't fully recovered from the Battle of Britain, and that by 1941, they were struggling operationally.

Yes, the Red Air Force was nearly wiped out, but this video provides good info about its comeback.

**Vaktathi**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Of the 3 nations that started WW2, Germany, France, UK, only Britain came through unscathed at the end. I call that a British victory

Hrm, maybe they weren't totally burned to the ground the way other nations were, but the war broke the grip of Britain on its Empire and left it with massive debt and financial pressure and material shortages for years. France was certainly scathed, with huge parts of the country having been fought through and was occupied for years, and its overseas empire likewise fatally weakened.

The US was the only big winner that emerged largely unscathed and significantly better off.