Churchill's major blunders.

[tankgeezer]

@Rising_Sun

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.

My dear, esteemed colleague, I had meant that the above captioned addendum related to the Deponent’s implied assertion that he was in all ways known to Western culture, superior in leadership, and organizational ability,to include the reading of Tea leaves, to those August, and Right Honorable Gentlemen cited in your earlier post. The addendum giving reinforcement to that implied assertion by indicating the Deponent would be in all these ways superior even if debilitated by the binding of one limb. It must be noted that this may be accompanied by the presence of the condition “Pedis in Oris”

[burp]

@Nickdfresh

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…

Sorry for my intervention. The Germans are really impressed by T-34 and KV-1, even if these tanks are plagued by reliability problems. Remember that Guderian define T-34 like “Very worring” and Mellenthein said that “We have nothing comparable”. Against KV-1 and T-34, guns of PKW III e IV are useless at distances major than 500 meters, KV-1 is quite impenetrable. The only chances of Nazi tanks is to call air support or drive the Russian tanks in sight of towed 88 mm guns. So even if Soviet tanks broke something, they are still able, with only turret operational, to pose a real threat to advancing Germans armored columns.
I think that, in 1941-1942, the problems of Soviet tanks reliability is one of the explaination for Nazi tank superiority, but is not the main reason, we must consider that:

• Germans have soldier trained better and officiers more aggressive;
• Germans in 1941 has aerial superiority, and this means that Ju-87 Stukas are able to seek and destroy a huge number of tanks;
• every Nazi tank has radio link to platoon command tank and a good intercom, only Soviet platoon tank leader have radio equipment;
• Nazi tanks have a better layout, less cramped than Soviet tanks, driver, command and loader work better with greater spaces organized in a better way;
• Nazi tank commander simply gives orders focusing on his duty, while Soviet tank commander “waste” time to aim and shoot gun;

Imho, Churchill at the end makes some mistake, but overall it was a good commander and makes the right decisions.

[Nickdfresh]

@burp

Sorry for my intervention.

No need to apologize, your intervention is welcome…

The Germans are really impressed by T-34 and KV-1, even if these tanks are plagued by reliability problems. Remember that Guderian define T-34 like “Very worring” and Mellenthein said that “We have nothing comparable”. Against KV-1 and T-34, guns of PKW III e IV are useless at distances major than 500 meters, KV-1 is quite impenetrable. The only chances of Nazi tanks is to call air support or drive the Russian tanks in sight of towed 88 mm guns. So even if Soviet tanks broke something, they are still able, with only turret operational, to pose a real threat to advancing Germans armored columns.
I think that, in 1941-1942, the problems of Soviet tanks reliability is one of the explaination for Nazi tank superiority, but is not the main reason, we must consider that:

• Germans have soldier trained better and officiers more aggressive;
• Germans in 1941 has aerial superiority, and this means that Ju-87 Stukas are able to seek and destroy a huge number of tanks;
• every Nazi tank has radio link to platoon command tank and a good intercom, only Soviet platoon tank leader have radio equipment;
• Nazi tanks have a better layout, less cramped than Soviet tanks, driver, command and loader work better with greater spaces organized in a better way;
• Nazi tank commander simply gives orders focusing on his duty, while Soviet tank commander “waste” time to aim and shoot gun;

…

I agree the Germans were most impressed by the T-34 and KV-1. But they encountered them is relative small numbers initially IIRC. And yes, obviously the Heer had a huge advantage both tactically and operationally over its early enemies. But used properly, tanks such as the T-34, KV-1, the SOUMA and Char B could inflict tactical setbacks on even the Heer. While the initial phases of Barbarossa appeared to be a German steamroller pushing Eastward, they still suffered some real losses as they had in both Poland and France despite inflicting total, quick defeats…

[leccy]

Even a relatively few tanks such as the 50 ish machine gun armed Matilda I’s backed by around 15 Matilda II’s and the odd Light Mk VI could cause some tactical problems for the German forces, with some possibly far reaching ramifications.

[stug111]

I suspect that samjoks ranting is due to him being indian and he seems to be simmering with resentment that the uk didnt turn india into an economic industrial and military powerhouse or that india would have been that if it was not for the uk mismanaging their imperial jewel in the crown. Either way i suspect that this is the reason for his indian centric revisionism …

As for his frankly bizzare tangents and incoherent ramblings … i would say that this is a symptom of ignorance and im sure these tactics work in a verbal debate as one would forget half of what he said while trying to comprehend the other and im sure he no doubt feels that he “wins” thru sheer confusion !

in saying that i have to say that i do think that a few hundred crap tanks would have made all the difference and would probably have halted the ija tanks driving over a couple of battalions of gurkhas as they marched in line and a few hundred hurricanes would have been very useful but even they were no match for zeros and as i recall even spitfire v`s struggled against them while defending darwin.

hows that for a rambling incoherent ost of my own ! :mrgreen: