Churchill's major blunders.

World War II British Military
#81

Obviously the USA was producing everything the UK needed. Otherwise, why would Churchill have said that the only thing that really worried him during the war was the U-boat threat? Clearly he was worried that the U boats would cut off all the stuff coming from America, without which the UK would have been on its knees and begging for peace with Hitler by late 1939 following the closure of all its industries and farms when war broke out. Don’t ask me for figures or sources because it’s on a high school site or Wikipedia or something. Anyway, everybody knows it’s true.

Also, without the American factories with American staff in Britain producing American designed Merlin engines and American designed Spitfires and Hurricanes and so on, all of which were piloted by Americans, Poles, Czechs, French and anyone but Poms before, during and after the Battle of Britain, Britain would have been defeated soon after 7 March 1940 when its first cheque for all the American stuff bounced and America repossessed all its goodies.

You certainly do need to learn more.

For example, Australia wasn’t producing anything because all the iron ore in the world was in Manchuria and Australia had been cut off from Britain by Japan’s capture of Aden.

This would not have happened if Churchill hadn’t sent 350 tanks from Malaya to the USSR where they were completely wasted as the starving Russians ate them before they (the tanks, not the people, but it was a fine line) could be sent into battle, where they wouldn’t have been any use anyway as Stalin would have foolishly wasted them on the Nazis he was actually fighting instead of the Japanese who had not yet entered the war.

Just like Churchill idiotically and incompetently sent the tanks, and lots of planes, to the USSR to help it in the war it and Britain were fighting against the Nazis instead of sending them to Malaya where there wasn’t a war but maybe there could have been some time. Or maybe not. Could there be greater proof of Churchill’s incompetence?

Seattle. Or Quebec.

Germany first, Shermany first!

Who cares?

The war against Japan should have had priority for Britain because … … … well, … … … you know … … it was, like, totally awesome and … … I mean, after abandoning the Pacific and Indian Oceans Britain should have pulled out of the Med and sent all its forces to Ceylon because … … … well, … … … that’s where the tea comes from and the Tommies loved a cuppa … … and … … … … … … . . . you know …

#82

Regarding the Sherman’s gasoline engine, as remarked here, “wet-stowage” of ammunition largely alleviated the problem and studies conducted showed that few Shermans “brewed-up” once ammunition was stowed properly. It should also be noted that nearly every German armored fighting vehicle also used gas.

#83

error

#84

error

#85

Please cite where you are getting these figures from. What is your source for all this?

As you can see the Germans produced about 60,000 tanks. Over 19,000 of them served in the west, leaving less than 41,000 in the east.
The Soviets produced 99,000 tanks and received over 6,000 tanks from Britain and the US and all remained in the USSR. Stalin produced almost the same number of Sturmoviks (36,000) as the German tanks in the USSR and over a half million cannon, which accounted for many tanks.

Your numbers do not sound outrageous to me. But what are you defining as “tanks?” All Armored Fighting Vehicles? Main Battle Tanks/Light tanks only? or are you including Tank Destroyers and Armored Personnel Carriers/Self-Propelled Guns used in an AT capacity as well?

The Germans always had fewer and mostly inferior tanks and after Kursk the Soviets had air superiority.

A bit of a contradiction from one of your previous posts, isn’t it? Previously you wrote:

Soviet tank losses remained very high and Stalin still saved his thousands of precious T-34 as much as he could for the invasion of Europe. Even when they finally broke out of Leningrad late in the war, Stalin was sending his disposable tankers in obsolete tanks against the much improved German tanks, even when he was literally swimming in T-34s.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?11740-Churchill-s-major-blunders./page5

So which is it?

The Germans may have had fewer, and if TD’s are taken into account, inferior AFV’s. But their 75mm long barrel guns along with the 88mm were excellent tank killers. We’re not even talking about infantry using Panzerfausts, anti-tank mines, etc. A competent, well-armed army on the defensive certainly will inflict higher casualties on their enemy mounting offensives…

There were several Soviet Soldiers for every German soldier. The Soviets had over 300,000 American trucks and fuel to supply their tanks and troops, while the Germans were very short on fuel, trucks, etc, Yet the Soviet Generals under Stalin’s coaching managed to lose staggering numbers of tanks, men and planes up to the end of the war and could not capture Courland, in spite of repeated, costly attacks, until Germany surrendered.

Of course. It’s called attrition. That was essentially Soviet doctrine against an enemy that was inferior in natural resources, industry, and manpower. And while there were many deficiencies in the Red Army operationally, they were also capable of mechanized warfare on a level the Germans could only dream of after 1943. The main point you’re missing is that after 1941, Stalin no longer “coached” anyone and gave back his armed forces an unprecedented amount of control and operational freedom they had only known prior to the purges of the architects of Deep Battle…

Without any American or British help, Stalin would have simply continued withdrawing and Germany gradually exhausted its equipment and men, spreading them thinly in the immense USSR. Both would have been extremely weak by the time the Americans attacked them.

Fantasy and hindsight at best! No one can predict with certainty what would have happened and a consolidated conquest of the richest, most abundant parts of the Soviet Union. One of Hitler’s main goals! As he believed Germany could only match the United States’ potential of industrial production through consolidation of what was to have been the Eastern border of the Reich…

#86

Sorry but I don’t see the contradiction. The Germans had fewer and mostly inferior tanks and the Soviets had heavy losses mostly because oof their leader’s incompetence.
In my opinion the German 88 mm was inferior to the soviet 100 mm AT gun (or the Italian 90 mm gun for that matter), but was used much more efficiently. The Stalin tank had an excellent gun but was used less dextrously than the few Tigers. There were many fewer Stukas than Sturmoviks but were put to better use.

Like I said the Germans were mostly on the Offensive during 1941 and 42 and yet their losses were always smaller. For example, during the first 6 months of the War with the USSR and destroyed 20,000 tanks and 21,000 planes and lost a tiny fraction of that, in spite of having fewer planes when they invaded the huge URSS than when they invaded tiny France, so that airc support was much less effective in the USSR. For example, while Guderian received almost continuous support by Hs-123s and Stukas during his thrust to Calais, he was left almost alone, without planes, ammunition, fuel and food in a sea of Soviet tanks and artilery in Yelnya, which cost him a lot of tanks and about 40,000 men.

Sorry, my sources include everything I’ve been able to gather over 22 years from books, the internet, etc, I know that the numbers are not very accurate as I found enormous discrepancies in the sources, even from the same country, so I call it a guesstimate, because that is what makes sense to me. Under tanks and self propelled cannon are all the vehicles with a cannon and tracks: heavy, light and medium tanks, self propelled antipersonnel and antitank cannon, heavy and light tank destroyers (Hellcats, STUGs, Jagdtigers, etc,). I ommitted cannon or recoilless rifles on wheels (without tracks) and armoured personnel carriers on tracks without a cannon.

#87

Which German tanks were inferior to which Soviet tanks? “Because of their leader’s incompetence?” There are a lot of negative conclusions on can draw in regards to Adolph Hitler’s decisions. But for the most part, it would be hard to blame him for Germany having “inferior” tanks.

In my opinion the German 88 mm was inferior to the soviet 100 mm AT gun (or the Italian 90 mm gun for that matter), but was used much more efficiently. The Stalin tank had an excellent gun but was used less dextrously than the few Tigers. There were many fewer Stukas than Sturmoviks but were put to better use.

If you’re trying to make the point that the 88mm was a vastly overrated weapon system, I couldn’t agree more. IIRC, the German 75mm gun variants mounted on the Panther, TD’s, and the Panzer Mark IV were actually better armor penetraters. The British 17-pounder was better against tanks, and the American 90mm gun actually surpassed the 88 in both an anti-aircraft and anti-armor role (once it was modified to fire at ground targets in AA gun form or mounted on the M-36 Jackson TD and M26 Pershing). But that’s not the point.

The Germans were the first to design their AA carriages as a duel-purpose weapon allowing the gun to depress and fire at ground targets as well as train and encourage their crews to do so, and were the first to mount their medium AA guns on tanks in significant numbers…

Like I said the Germans were mostly on the Offensive during 1941 and 42 and yet their losses were always smaller.

Mainly because they were fighting armies that had wholly outmoded, even unrealistic, doctrines and were unprepared for a modern mechanized “war-of-movement.”

For example, during the first 6 months of the War with the USSR and destroyed 20,000 tanks and 21,000 planes and lost a tiny fraction of that, in spite of having fewer planes when they invaded the huge URSS than when they invaded tiny France, so that airc support was much less effective in the USSR. For example, while Guderian received almost continuous support by Hs-123s and Stukas during his thrust to Calais, he was left almost alone, without planes, ammunition, fuel and food in a sea of Soviet tanks and artilery in Yelnya, which cost him a lot of tanks and about 40,000 men.

I’m not sure what your point is here…

Sorry, my sources include everything I’ve been able to gather over 22 years from books, the internet, etc, I know that the numbers are not very accurate as I found enormous discrepancies in the sources, even from the same country, so I call it a guesstimate, because that is what makes sense to me. Under tanks and self propelled cannon are all the vehicles with a cannon and tracks: heavy, light and medium tanks, self propelled antipersonnel and antitank cannon, heavy and light tank destroyers (Hellcats, STUGs, Jagdtigers, etc,). I ommitted cannon or recoilless rifles on wheels (without tracks) and armoured personnel carriers on tracks without a cannon.

Well, I would find it hard to believe that you’ve memorized everything posted and I’m quite sure you can simply list a text where you got those numbers from.

#88

QUOTE]Allies: US 320,000, USSR 157,000 (36,000 Sturmoviks), GB 131,000, Canada 16,000 Total 608,000 (about 50,000 of which were 4 engine bombers made only by the US and GB. Note that GB alone produced
more planes than Germany, 15,000 of them 4 engine bombers!)[/QUOTE]

Well your numerous sources accumulated over 22 years seem to miss a few things, you keep making general comments and still provide no sources. Name the books and passages, post the websites addresses.

Non British and American 4 engined bombers, without thinking too much and only including those that actually flew operationally.

German
Heinkel 177
FW 200 Condor

French
Farman F.220

Russian
Petlyakov Pe-8
Petlyakov TB-7
Tupolev TB-3

Italian
Piaggio P.108

Like I said the Germans were mostly on the Offensive during 1941 and 42 and yet their losses were always smaller. For example, during the first 6 months of the War with the USSR and destroyed 20,000 tanks and 21,000 planes and lost a tiny fraction of that

You have stated previously about how bad obsolete aircraft are when faced with modern ones when comparing British and Japanese Fighters.
The Soviet Union had a huge tank force and Airforce but they were obsolete and in many cases just plain rubbish (Russians lost a huge amount of tanks through breakdown and aircraft were caught on the ground). New Equipment was entering service but it was not available during Barbarossa in any meaningful way.

Guesstimated Tank & Self Propelled gun Production:
Axis: Reich 60,000, Italy 3,000, Japan 3,000. Total 66,000 (only 6,000 Panthers and 1,347 Tigers and 492 KingTigers)+3,600 captured vehicles that they used in the war
Allies: USSR 99,000, US 80,000, GB 28,300, Canada 2,600: Total 210,000

Canadian Vehicle production WW2
Alongside 815,729 trucks, Canada produced over 3,600 Valentine, Ram, and Grizzly tanks, 2,000 Sexton self-propelled guns, almost 42,000 Universal and Windsor armoured personnel carriers, over 6,500 Lynx, Fox, and Otter armoured car types.
Slightly more than your 2600.

America also produced 80.000 landing craft, 1,500 naval vessels, 5,600 merchant vessels

This is what is meant by providing source
The Big ‘L’–American Logistics in World War II, Edited by Alan Gropman
1997. National Defense University Press, Washington, DC
Page 146.
This can then be used by others to assess with more info how accurate it is. Just saying 80,000 landing craft (stupidly high number) with no source makes it look ridiculous.

Over the 1940-1945 period, these shifts and the associated increases in industrial capacity and capacity utilization resulted in the production of almost 300,000 military and special purpose aircraft (including 97,800 bombers), almost 87,000 tanks, some 72,000 naval ships, and 4,900 merchant vessels

I could probably go on all day picking at your claims but its being done so frequently I don’t need to.

Just post some sources with your claims.

#89

German tanks in France and in Barbarossa were much inferior to the ones they faced. In France they were saved by the overwhelming air support but in the USSR they had a hell of a time. The few panzers I through IV, and the few tanks from Poland, France, etc, that took place in Barbarossa were quite inferior to the Ts they encountered. The Germans were shocked to find the simplicity and effectiveness of the T-34. The problem with the superior Soviet tanks is that they were left without air support, fuel and ammunition (their supply lines were efficiently crushed by the Germans). Like I said even the Tiger (extremely expensive, heavy and produced in very small numbers) was less maneuverable than the Stalin tank. The German tanks may have had better craftsmanship, but their maintenance was far more complicated, so they were often out of combat. German tanks also had narroer tracks that performed poorly in russian mud and ice. The Germans used some captured T-34 and found them quite practical and put them to better use than the Soviets.

The Heinkel 177 was not a 4 engine bomber, but a twin engine fiasco with welded engines that lit up spontaneously, rendering it almost useless. They produced a couple of hundred Condors (hitler used a few of them for his personal use), which is why I said practically no 4 engine bombers. The same can be said about al the small amount of Soviet 4 engine bombers, etc,
When I spoke about the few and obsolete Buffaloes the British had to fly against 568 Japanese planes in Malaya I pointed out that the pilots were so good that they even managed to shoot down a few zeroes with those planes.
Regarding Soviet aviation: Stalin had several hundred MiG 3s when Germany attacked, but he sacrificed his experienced pilots in obsolete planes and he saved the MiG 3s for brand new graduates with a few flight hours that were promptly dispatched. Besides most of their planes being obsolete, their tactics were absurd. The brilliant Pokrishkin was almost lost in Soviet bureaucracy when he pointed out the huge flaws in the tactics. He was an excellent pilot who became an ace of aces using mostly inferior Airacobras but had to fight against his superiors for years, as much as against the Germans.
Stalin had thousands of I-16s, which I consider superior to the Buffaloes. Their main drawback was an obsolete 2 blade propeller. It is ironic that a relatively inexpensive 4 blade propeller could have enhanced considerably the performance of thousands of planes.
The fact that 2,000 planes and a similar number tanks were destroyed in the first days of Barnarossa is only the fault of Stalin, who placed them so close to the border and allowed the Luftwaffe to perform hundreds of reconaissance flight (ordering the AA to hold their fire) in the weeks before the attack.
Sorry but I am not going to provide a long list of references. Incidentally my lousy figures (which I mentioned are in no way exact) seem to include more items and to be more complete and balanced than any individual reference you can quote and to provide a much better panorama of the imbalance between the Axis and the Allies.

#90

And all of this has what to do with Honorable Winston Churchill, and his alleged incompetence and major blunders ? Samjok, you need to return to the topic. ( I asked everyone in Louisiana, and they agree with me.)

#91

With my Moderator hat on, this is one of the few things you can get banned for on this site - so start posting your sources!

#92

samjok you missed the point about the bombers.

You made a claim no one else built any 4 engined bombers not that they were only built in small numbers. This then calls your whole figures into dispute as you made a definate statement which was not true. There was no statement that other countries produced them but not in significant quantitys you instead chose to say only the USA and UK built them (I did not even go to the length of pointing out Canada built 4 engined bombers as well for the Allies).

State ‘facts’ correctly and you may get an easier time. The HE 177 had two engines joined to a common shaft in an absymal way but it still had 2 engines driving each prop.

How many T34 and KV1 did the Germans encounter in 1941, the vast majority were T26, T28, T35, BT Series. The Pzkpfw VI was in service in 1942 the IS tanks entered service in 1943, alot of lessons can be made in that time (german tank designers did not always take the hints though).

My reference for the Ships built was the US government who I assume since they paid for them all would know how many they built, you still have not provided a single verifiable source for any of your claims and figures. You provided one source which was a school homework site done by a middle school teacher who did not provide sources either and despite being quizzed many times on it your only answer was

It is unfortunate that the British site does not include references about the 350 tanks, but I find it hard to believe that it is an invention and that the British military would spend a fortune building a fort and not provide any tanks to counter the invasion, that Percival had predicted would take place first in the north, where the Japanese needed to establish airbases and then in Singapore, where the only fort was built

You have made numerous claims to support your theorys about Winston Churchill and his blunders (which has led to the thread being derailed as you try to justify with words and no sources except that they are an accumulation of 22 years of Internet and Book knowledge)

Sorry but I am not going to provide a long list of references

I provided sources with my info where justified to counter your claims, you will not or can not provide any.

#93

[b]Official Mod Warning

samjok[/b]: I’ve asked once nicely, pdf27 has asked a bit more sternly since my request for you to post some sources or links (as well as reasonable requests by other posters such as leccy) have been ignored. The third time, like in baseball, will be the third strike and “your out!”

#94

I think you’ve missed the sub-texts in the topic title, which are “(a)Why samjok is smarter than Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Mussolini, all their military advisers and commanders, and (b) why samjok could have run the war a lot better than all of them without having to provide any evidence that he could except for responding to direct and detailed questions by launching into a new burst of unrelated and unreferenced and often improbable or demonstrably wrong assertions which nonetheless prove to samjok why samjok is smarter than Churchill, Roosevelt …”

(I asked everyone down at the pub and they all said they agree with me, as long as I keep buying them beer.)

#95

Only one?

#96

samjok, I’m far from an expert historian, but the above blanket statements and simpleton over-generalizations show that you are just sort of B.S.'ing here. German panzers were not “much inferior” to French tanks in the overall scheme of things. Yes, the French had two very good tanks, but they of course contained fatal design flaws limiting their effectiveness and versatility whereas the German Panzer Mark IV that operated in France during Fall Gelb/Rot was still in service at the end of the War–albeit with upgrades. French tanks like the SOUMA and Char B tended to have thicker armor and the excellent 47mm gun, but were limited in numbers and spread out typically in the wrong places away from the main German effort or “Schwerpunkt”. But they also were not designed for intense tank-versus-tank combat nor to compete with the operational intensity the German Heer threw at the French in May 1940. The turrets were small and had an overtaxed, poor French commander doing the jobs of three men. The Char B had a small fuel tank strictly limiting it’s operational radius and endurance. And many French tanks were equipped with radios whose batteries could not be recharged in the field making them useless. I suggest doing some reading on the subject like Alistor Horne’s To Lose a Battle.

The Soviet tanks that were “superior” were available in limited numbers at the start of Barbarossa, and Heer troops found some T-34s from the outset. They armor and guns may have impressed them, but since many T-34s broke-down initially due to mechanical teething problems, the Germans might not have considered them much of a long term threat. And when the T-34 achieved reliability, the Germans quickly countered with improved guns and even make a better version culminating in the Panther. I could go on, but I’m growing weary of responding to your poorly researched, factually incorrect and over-simplistic ramblings. Your lack of citations and posted sources is becoming a big problem here…

#97

You are correct, I did indeed miss that inference, though I did notice the “with one hand tied behind my back” addendum.

#98

You don’t have to provide a long list.

You haven’t even provided a short list.

Or even a reference at all in most cases.

Try providing just one reference per assertion.

Your confident assertion about Churchill sending 350 tanks from Malaya to the USSR, and your subsequent assertions about what a waste of the tanks this was, is disproved by the references I cited at #64.

My quoted references and the sources examined to check your assertions are better informed than the sole unreferenced school history site you rely upon for your claims.

I think that Percival, Bennett, Smyth, and Tsujii which I checked and the sources I quoted at #64 in your words “seem to include more items and to be more complete and balanced than any individual reference you can quote”.

I note that you have chosen to ignore #64, as you do with everything that is inconvenient to your rambling assertions to support your fantasies which shift like the sands of the desert in the face of informed challenges and convert from grains of sand into birds which rise Phoenix-like from the ashes of your assertions and take wing to new fields of fantasy.

So, for once, stand your ground and demonstrate with references beyond the school history site how Churchill is responsible for moving 350 tanks from Malaya to the USSR.

Because that is a simple and easily verifiable fact upon which you based your early allegations of incompetence against Churchill.

#99

It is most gracious of you to acknowledge your minor oversight.

Oh, were it that another in this thread could acknowledge his hugely more grevious and vastly more numerous errors.

Forgive me for perhaps seeming to correct you again, but I fear that you may have misconceived the ‘one hand tied behind my back’ addendum. I shall try to put this unsavoury matter in my customary delicate fashion by asking you to consider whether the offender started with one hand tied behind his back, or whether that was the position after he freed himself from the bonds applied to stop him interfering with himself, and shrugged off the boxing gloves applied for the same purpose. With one hand free, a wanker has free rein.

#100

This is the third strike, I’m out. Sorry to have taken your time.