From the reviews on Amazon it doesn't sound like a book I would spend money on. "Panzer Heist" ???sitalkes wrote:On page 31 of "Hitler's Great Panzer Heist" (2007), A. Tucker-Jones says "By early July 1941, for the defence of the British Isles, the Army could muster 1,141 infantry and cruiser tanks; however, only 391 were considered fit for action. British repair facilities at this stage remained lamentable and a month later 25% of the infantry tanks were still out of action, as were 157 of the 400 cruiser tanks." If this was the situation in August 1941, how many (or what proportion of) Britsh tanks were serviceable a year earlier?
Anyway, what does "considered fit for action" mean exactly?
I have no reason to believe that such a large percentage of British tanks was "out of action" in September 1940. The light tanks, for all their other shortcomings, were mechanically reliable, and insofar as there were problems with the Cruiser and Infantry tanks, apart from the Valentine they were not new designs with unknown problems, and the British maintenance crews had plenty of time to work on them.
In general, I have to say I'm not much impressed by all this "creative accounting" trying to demonstrate that Seelöwe had some chance of success because the Royal Navy wasn't really there and the British army was largely untrained and in any case had almost no equipment or ammunition, and of course British generals were incapable of giving or carrying out the simplest orders, etc. etc. etc.
Let's stick to verifiable facts.