HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
British Heritage
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Historical Events & Eras > World War II

Notices and Announcements

World War II Discuss WW2. .

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 25 Apr 12, 13:40
Mil_dude's Avatar
Mil_dude Mil_dude is offline
Sergeant Major
Canada
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 317
Mil_dude is on the path to success [1-99] Mil_dude is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljadw View Post
Bodyguard of lies :why am I not surprised:it seems that MD loves airport novels (Le Carré is better) and that he never has read the devasting reviews of Bodyguard of lies by M.Howard and Trevor-Roper
Canaris being an Allied agent is an invention,and the importance of Schwarze Kapelle was insignifiant .
Stali had no intelligence right to in the OKW and the informations from the GRU about the German OOB were totally unreliable:they were talking (for Germany,Finland and Romania) of 268 divisions,11600 aircraft,10080 tanks and 20000 pieces of artillery,and of 5 German airborne and 4 cavalry divisions
Cave-Brown was also a swindler,flying luxurious hotels at night from the fire-ladder,leaving behind his clothes and unpaid bills.
Like many works it got mixed reviews, considering the nature of the subject for it's time it was quite good. I think one of Roper's complaints was there was too much detail which seems to be a bit of an odd complaint about a book involving historical events.

And how are his personal habits relevant to his professional work?
  #302  
Old 25 Apr 12, 13:48
Mil_dude's Avatar
Mil_dude Mil_dude is offline
Sergeant Major
Canada
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 317
Mil_dude is on the path to success [1-99] Mil_dude is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Monty View Post
T-26 may well have been rated quite highly five years prior but five years is a long time in tank development! You can laugh if you like but over and over we get quotes and documents pertaining to the lack of maintenance of the equipment. The Red Army was short of just about every item needed to fight and maintain its forces in position - again I can reference Mawdsley, Glantz, Overy and Ellis for things like this. We could look at the T-34 .... yes that T-34, and see a tank having serious teething problems and being subjected to a redesign to cure them. Even without that, numbers are pretty meaningless without context. The Red Army had a lot of poorly trained officers, lacked comprehensive battlefield communication systems and was in the process of a major reorganisation (again!)
and yet when it actually had a chance to engage in combat the Red Armies tanks ran and the men fought fiercely. According to Kershaw the main problem in the summer of 1941 for the Red Army was locating the Axis forces and being able to position their own units. This was due to the utter chaos that erupted after the attack.

Quote:
You've been given the link to Glantz's overview 'The Soviet-German War 1941-45' and it needs to be read.
I've missed that, there's a lot of detail to follow here in a short space of time.

Quote:
You haven't read enough books to make such a claim for Kershaw. Check Glantz and you'll see a list of 'forgotten' battles as well as the well known ones.
That's debatable. Kershaw has extensive sources including both Glantz and Suvorov, he comes across as not having an axe to grind either way on the discussion.
  #303  
Old 25 Apr 12, 14:47
ljadw's Avatar
ljadw ljadw is offline
General of the Forums
Belgium
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zottegem
Posts: 7,679
ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500]
ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mil_dude View Post
Like many works it got mixed reviews, considering the nature of the subject for it's time it was quite good. I think one of Roper's complaints was there was too much detail which seems to be a bit of an odd complaint about a book involving historical events.

And how are his personal habits relevant to his professional work?
1) Even the other swindlers (sorry:journalists) admitted that he was a swindler :in his necrology,the Washington Post was writing that he also had a talent for travelling at other people's expense
2)A comment on Bodyguard of Lies was :reviewers noted a tendency to write dramatic tales without full regard for the facts:a very good understatement,the translation is :he was inventing things (well,he was a journalist),he was a modern Baron von Münchhausen,but even the baron would not dare to repeat the lies of Winterbotham that Churchil knew about the incoming attack on Coventry,but sacrificed the people of Coventry to keep the secret of Ultra .
If Brown (who gave himself the aristocratic name of Cave-Brown) knew the truth about Coventry,he was a liar,writing lies to sell more copies.
If he did not,he was incompetent,because a serious historian would not write such a story,without being able to prove it .But,of course,demanding that journalists should be able to prove what they are writing,is asking to much .
  #304  
Old 25 Apr 12, 18:27
Full Monty's Avatar
Full Monty Full Monty is offline
General of the Forums
EU
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Dick Barton
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 26,444
Full Monty has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mil_dude View Post
and yet when it actually had a chance to engage in combat the Red Armies tanks ran and the men fought fiercely. According to Kershaw the main problem in the summer of 1941 for the Red Army was locating the Axis forces and being able to position their own units. This was due to the utter chaos that erupted after the attack.
They didn't run - see the quote from the review I mentioned earlier. The other historians mentioned quote unit reports about tanks not being maintained, artillery parks lacking transport, infantry weapons lacking ammunition etc. I wonder what Kershaw's sources are - primary German, primary Soviet or secondary?

Quote:
I've missed that, there's a lot of detail to follow here in a short space of time.
Indeed, and it's why I suggested you take a break from posting to catch up a little. The topic won't go away and I doubt the rest of us will either (although I try)

Quote:
That's debatable. Kershaw has extensive sources including both Glantz and Suvorov, he comes across as not having an axe to grind either way on the discussion.
Well, you made the claim about Kershaw covering battles that other historians didn't. If you haven't read many other historians you can't make that claim can you! I haven't read 'War Without Garlands', although I have read 'It Never Snows In September' by Kershaw, but I'm sure it's a piece that has its place in the historiography of 'Barbarossa'. However, no historian can be entirely objective which is why it's wise to read as widely as possible and important not to dismiss any author just because of his/her pov or which works make it into his/her bibliography (which I see all too regularly around here, even on this thread). One point I would make is that Glantz and Suvorov, like them or loathe them, are secondary sources. The mark of a heavyweight historian is the primary sources he/she draws on - unit records, after action reports, commander's diaries, minutes from meetings etc. etc. - otherwise he/she runs the risk of parroting the flawed analysis of those who have gone before.
__________________
Signing out.
  #305  
Old 26 Apr 12, 03:14
ljadw's Avatar
ljadw ljadw is offline
General of the Forums
Belgium
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zottegem
Posts: 7,679
ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500]
ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500] ljadw is a jewel in the rough [500]
I have "War without Garlands" and,I was disappointed (my mistake :I knew only one Kershaw :Ian Kershaw):the whole thing is not bad,but it is on a 1970 level(for beginners),a lot of personnal recollections,some times ,I had the impression to reread Carrell
I did not learn nothing new
Some of his figures also are questionable:about the LW on 22 june in the East :1400 operational aircraft of which 1280 serviceable .(is there a difference between operational and serviceable ?)
And,than,he is contradicting his own figures.He gives :
650 fighters
831 bombers
324 dive-bombers
140 reconnaissance
200 transport and others
Total :2145
I have seen more reliable figures( with as source Boog):
3904(3032 operational)
of which 2510 combat aircraft (1945 operational)
A big difference.
It is giving an impression of slovenliness
His sources :a lot of old ones (the Fatal decision :1956)
From a total of 44 published sources ,only 4 "Russian"
Glantz :the initial period of war on the eastern front
Krivosheev
Danishevsky :the road of battle and glory (1964:I have my doubts about the reliability of a 1964 Soviet source)
Parrish :the battle for Moscow :the 1942 Soviet general staff study
  #306  
Old 26 Apr 12, 11:37
Pruitt's Avatar
Pruitt Pruitt is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
Distinguished Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 100 Greatest Generals, 2008 
Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign Summer Campaign 
Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
 
Real Name: Richard Pruitt
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sulphur, LA
Posts: 18,963
Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Operational are in service, but count aircraft down for maintenance. Line them up beside the field and they burn quite as well as the serviceable.

A tank that has had its coaxial Machine gun pulled is not serviceable, but could still easily function. When the SS Panzer Corps was sent to Arnhem one was instructed to turn over all operational vehicles to the other division and they would travel to Germany to get new ones. The division immediately removed pieces of equipment to insure the number turned over was minimal. When the British landed, these vehicles were all made serviceable in short order. then the units sent back into Germany returned with new vehicles!

Pruitt
__________________
Ted Nugent quote to the Troops: "It may be a week until deer hunting season, but its open season on a**holes all year long!"

Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?
  #307  
Old 26 Apr 12, 11:45
Bluenose's Avatar
Bluenose Bluenose is offline
Lieutenant Colonel
UK
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Warwick
Posts: 1,491
Bluenose has demonstrated strength of character [100] Bluenose has demonstrated strength of character [100] Bluenose has demonstrated strength of character [100] Bluenose has demonstrated strength of character [100] Bluenose has demonstrated strength of character [100] Bluenose has demonstrated strength of character [100] Bluenose has demonstrated strength of character [100] Bluenose has demonstrated strength of character [100] Bluenose has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
I have "War without Garlands" and,I was disappointed (my mistake :I knew only one Kershaw :Ian Kershaw):the whole thing is not bad,but it is on a 1970 level(for beginners),a lot of personnal recollections,some times ,I had the impression to reread Carrel
It is primarily a personal account book (I believe it actually says this in the introduction). I had not gone though his sources, but his conclusions are certainly in keeping with Glantz and others and definitely the opposite of Suvorov with regard to Soviet intentions.
  #308  
Old 26 Apr 12, 12:54
Mil_dude's Avatar
Mil_dude Mil_dude is offline
Sergeant Major
Canada
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 317
Mil_dude is on the path to success [1-99] Mil_dude is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Monty View Post
They didn't run - see the quote from the review I mentioned earlier. The other historians mentioned quote unit reports about tanks not being maintained, artillery parks lacking transport, infantry weapons lacking ammunition etc. I wonder what Kershaw's sources are - primary German, primary Soviet or secondary?
According to Kershaw they ran and his sources are varied, over thirty history texts by authors like Glantz and Suvorov, unit accounts, personal accounts and film documentaries.

Quote:
Indeed, and it's why I suggested you take a break from posting to catch up a little. The topic won't go away and I doubt the rest of us will either (although I try)
You're just using evil lawyer tricks and trying to snow me under with a huge amount of information.

Quote:
Well, you made the claim about Kershaw covering battles that other historians didn't. If you haven't read many other historians you can't make that claim can you! I haven't read 'War Without Garlands', although I have read 'It Never Snows In September' by Kershaw, but I'm sure it's a piece that has its place in the historiography of 'Barbarossa'. However, no historian can be entirely objective which is why it's wise to read as widely as possible and important not to dismiss any author just because of his/her pov or which works make it into his/her bibliography (which I see all too regularly around here, even on this thread). One point I would make is that Glantz and Suvorov, like them or loathe them, are secondary sources. The mark of a heavyweight historian is the primary sources he/she draws on - unit records, after action reports, commander's diaries, minutes from meetings etc. etc. - otherwise he/she runs the risk of parroting the flawed analysis of those who have gone before.
A lot of what I'm reading seems to be recycled from one author to another, Kershaw does go to primary personal accounts, which is an important part of history.
  #309  
Old 26 Apr 12, 12:58
Mil_dude's Avatar
Mil_dude Mil_dude is offline
Sergeant Major
Canada
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 317
Mil_dude is on the path to success [1-99] Mil_dude is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljadw View Post
1) Even the other swindlers (sorry:journalists) admitted that he was a swindler :in his necrology,the Washington Post was writing that he also had a talent for travelling at other people's expense
2)A comment on Bodyguard of Lies was :reviewers noted a tendency to write dramatic tales without full regard for the facts:a very good understatement,the translation is :he was inventing things (well,he was a journalist),he was a modern Baron von Münchhausen,but even the baron would not dare to repeat the lies of Winterbotham that Churchil knew about the incoming attack on Coventry,but sacrificed the people of Coventry to keep the secret of Ultra .
If Brown (who gave himself the aristocratic name of Cave-Brown) knew the truth about Coventry,he was a liar,writing lies to sell more copies.
If he did not,he was incompetent,because a serious historian would not write such a story,without being able to prove it .But,of course,demanding that journalists should be able to prove what they are writing,is asking to much .
It's been years since I read it and considering the fact it was one of the first books of its kind that cited sources and dealt with material that had largely existed in the shadow world of the classified since the end of WW2 like SEO, I think Cave-Brown deserves a little more credit.

From what I remember at the time it came out, some of the stink was about him airing things some people in the know didn't want revealed...ever.
  #310  
Old 26 Apr 12, 13:22
Full Monty's Avatar
Full Monty Full Monty is offline
General of the Forums
EU
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Dick Barton
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 26,444
Full Monty has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mil_dude View Post
According to Kershaw they ran and his sources are varied, over thirty history texts by authors like Glantz and Suvorov, unit accounts, personal accounts and film documentaries.
I'm sure they are varied, but who does he cite for the information on 'running tanks'? (don't answer if you can't). In another thread we had quite a discussion on this topic with figures as low as 27% and as high as 80% being bandied about. But as the piece I quoted shows, 'runners' or not most of the Red Army's tank formations were reduced to ineffectual shadows within three weeks of the offensive beginning.

Quote:
You're just using evil lawyer tricks and trying to snow me under with a huge amount of information.
I could do that if I really wanted to ....

Quote:
A lot of what I'm reading seems to be recycled from one author to another, Kershaw does go to primary personal accounts, which is an important part of history.
Which may be good, depending on when those accounts were collected. 'Oral History' is an absolute minefield for historians as people's memories distort the past increasingly as time passes. It's human to remember the past as it should have been, not as it was. Kershaw's 'It Never Rains In September' has to be read carefully and the personal accounts set in their proper context. From what I've read about 'War Without Garlands' it's much the same.
__________________
Signing out.
Sponsored Links

  #311  
Old 26 Apr 12, 13:22
The Purist's Avatar
The Purist The Purist is offline
ACG Forums - General Staff
England
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
Summer Campaign Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 CWiE 1939-45 Campaign 
 
Real Name: Gerry Proudfoot
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In my castle by the sea.
Posts: 11,128
The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Purist has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mil_dude
According to Kershaw they ran and his sources are varied, over thirty history texts by authors like Glantz and Suvorov, unit accounts, personal accounts and film documentaries....
No, they didn't run, at least not the entire fleet. Glantz doesn't say the fleet was in running order either. We also know this from Sovirt sources where as much as 33% or more of the tanks in the frontier districts were off the road. In some cases the numbers exceeded 50%. Entire field parks of tanks (and artillery) were over run by German troops with equipment sitting in neat rows, all lacking spares or fuel or other necesseties to make them functional. Until you can connect the dots between what, for example, Glantz is used for and the conclusions drawn, simply stating Glantz is used as a source has little impact.

He may have referenced Glatnz's summary of the unit make up of mech corps in the forward zone but not Glantz's conclusions on how this fit with the Soviet deployment as a whole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mil_dude
...A lot of what I'm reading seems to be recycled from one author to another, Kershaw does go to primary personal accounts, which is an important part of history.
Personal accounts also need to be used with extreme caution as the recollections of troops at the front is often faulty, a very narrow view of events or used out of context and, in many cases, simply incorrect.
__________________
The Purist

Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

Last edited by The Purist; 26 Apr 12 at 14:02..
  #312  
Old 26 Apr 12, 13:25
Mil_dude's Avatar
Mil_dude Mil_dude is offline
Sergeant Major
Canada
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 317
Mil_dude is on the path to success [1-99] Mil_dude is on the path to success [1-99]
I'm on to Chris Bellamy's Absolute War, he's obviously no fan of Suvorov as he devotes a section on how wrong Suvorov is. One of his arguments is that Suvorov's claims support the contention of some that Hitler was acting to protect western civilization from communism when he attacked the USSR. I find this a big stretch for one as I don't really consider what the Bolsheviks were doing in Russia to be communism which is about equality and fraternity and was supposed to evolve naturally not be imposed at the end of a gun. The Bolsheviks imposed a system that was even more repressive and regressive than what had been going on under the Tsar IMO, as Rosa Luxemburg stated...the cure was worse than the illness. Also I don't think that Hitler or the Nazis in general were motivated by anything more than hatred and fear, in that regard the Bolsheviks may have been a better choice. Hitler wasn't trying to protect western civilization, he was regressing Germany back to some of the most dark elements of its cultural history, just as Stalin and the Bolsheviks were in the former Russian Empire.
Norman Davies puts it well when he stated that when you go to either extreme of the political spectrum you end up with a government that is harmful to the interests of its own people(and others).

Also Bellamy includes a map that places the Red Army exactly where Suvorov states it was with the bulk of the 1st Echelon right at the border and the second echelon moving towards the frontier. He states the same thing that The Purist and others do here that this was in preparation for a pre-emptive or counter-attack in the event of a German attack and I have to admit this is a possibility. But if this is the case I find it very confusing that in deploying the Red Army in such a way that so little thought was given to placing it on the proper alert status and disposition. In a situation where the Red Army was going to respond to an Axis attack it would need reacte almost immediately or be overwhelmed and overrun...which is what happened. You could do it, but you'd need your forces on a trip-wire alert ready to go the moment the Germans attacked. Meaning little or no leave, standing patrols and air cover around the clock, especially at dawn which is one of the most preferable times for an attack. The VVS should have been dispersed as widely as possible and under cover. The fact that the Soviet force was in such an exposed state does lend some credence to the claim there was a fair bit of incompetence going on in the high command, but I'm not sure if that was due to Stalin's arrogance or a fundamental lack on the part of Soviet officers. I'm still inclined to see it as a screw up on Stalin's part, thinking he'd taken the measure of Hitler and his intentions in the summer of 1941 and getting it completely wrong, but the other case is also possible. So like so many things I think it comes down to probability in the end and IMO there's still a higher probability that Stalin was getting ready to launch his own offensive in the summer of 1941, with a good bit of uncertainty that may never be resolved.
  #313  
Old 26 Apr 12, 13:35
Full Monty's Avatar
Full Monty Full Monty is offline
General of the Forums
EU
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Dick Barton
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 26,444
Full Monty has disabled reputation
Regarding maps, they can deceive. Soviet armies may be shown as being 'up to the border' but as the 'blobs' on the map Glantz produces (And the text that can be associated with it) the deployments were actually very deep, up to 80km in places.
__________________
Signing out.
  #314  
Old 26 Apr 12, 13:40
Mil_dude's Avatar
Mil_dude Mil_dude is offline
Sergeant Major
Canada
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 317
Mil_dude is on the path to success [1-99] Mil_dude is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Purist View Post
No, they didn't run, at least not the entire fleet. Glantz does say the fleet was in running order either. We also know this from Sovirt sources where as much as 33% or more of the tanks in the frontier districts were off the road. In some cases the numbers exceeded 50%. Entire field parks of tanks (and artillery) were over run by German troops with equipment sitting in neat rows, all lacking spares or fuel or other necesseties to make them functional. Until you can connect the dots between what, for example, Glantz is used for and the conclusions drawn, simply stating Glantz is used as a source has little impact.
Maybe, tank availability was a constant issue with most armed forces during the war, if you read about O'Connor's drive to catch the Italians in late 1940 early 1941 one of the biggest challenges he faced was keeping enough of his tanks running, especially on the rough going cutting the corner in Cyrenaica. From the sources on the Germans state of affairs I've read recently including Kershaw there was a 75% availability of tanks(meaning 25% broken down/under repairs). Given the Soviet huge quantitative(as well as qualitative with some models) advantage the Red Army may still have been in good shape.

Quote:
He may have referenced Glatnz's summary of the unit make up of mech corps in the forward zone but not Glantz's conclusions on how this fit with the Soviet deployment as a whole.
I'd need to go back and check the reference, but he did use Glantz for some pretty specific details. He also took care to not come down on one side or the other regarding Stalin's intentions in 1941.

Quote:
Personal accounts also need to be used with extreme caution as the recollections of troops at the front is often faulty, a very narrow view of events or used out of context and, in many cases, simply incorrect.
Like anything I guess the broader the sampling the better the confidence of the results, it would be interesting to go through all the individual accounts and check for consistency.
  #315  
Old 26 Apr 12, 13:46
Full Monty's Avatar
Full Monty Full Monty is offline
General of the Forums
EU
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Dick Barton
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 26,444
Full Monty has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mil_dude View Post
Maybe, tank availability was a constant issue with most armed forces during the war, if you read about O'Connor's drive to catch the Italians in late 1940 early 1941 one of the biggest challenges he faced was keeping enough of his tanks running, especially on the rough going cutting the corner in Cyrenaica. From the sources on the Germans state of affairs I've read recently including Kershaw there was a 75% availability of tanks(meaning 25% broken down/under repairs). Given the Soviet huge quantitative(as well as qualitative with some models) advantage the Red Army may still have been in good shape.
Not necessarily. Tank reliability was indeed an issue, but O'Connor's tanks were campaigning, something that always stresses AFVs to their limits. If Soviet armoured formations are suffering similar reliability issues during peacetime it speaks of real problems with logistics and maintenance.
__________________
Signing out.
Closed Thread

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:49.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.