And yet, I'm not the only one saying it. Even in this thread Don Juan has pointed it out to you. My personal experiences allows me to understand that, as time passes, people believe what they want to believe rather than what is historically accurate.Gooner1 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2018 15:50Rather you attribute your own failings in memory as being exact same shared by everyone else.
Given the previous point, I have to say I find the stupidity and ignorance in that really quite funny!Gooner1 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2018 15:50Have to say I find the arrogance and hypocrisy in that really quite funny!MarkN wrote: ↑12 Dec 2018 14:52Indeed. Clearly you were wrong. Not just on what I would or wouldn't learn by reading the obituary, but also in your schoolboy error in thinking that deliberately diverting the discussion onto Rea Leakey's war record somehow mitigates your other schoolboy errors.
The problem is NOT Rea Leakey's war record, nor even his account of various events. The problem is the way you are approaching this discussion and your understanding of history.
Nah, quite so. Leakey remembers 1RTR losing 3 pantsers and only getting 1 German one in return. That was THE point you lept upon. The Australian OH concurs with all the other evidence that I posted. It does not concur with Leakey.Gooner1 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2018 15:50Nah, not really. Leakey recalls "we were disturbed to see our 2-pounder solid shots bouncing off their armour. But some of our shots found soft spots and the crew of their leading tank baled out."So. More evidence that Leakey's memory was a bit leaky.
The 'our shots' just came from somewhere else (probably), that he wasn't aware of, possibly one of the Italian 47mm anti-tank guns being manned by Australians.
Again, the problem is the way you are approaching this discussion and your understanding of history.
No, bouncing of a pantser hull is indeed one of the many possibilities.
Leakey did NOT see a round bouncing off an enemy panster, he saw the tracer from a round veer off course. What the round did at that point in time is entirely speculation: shatter, bounce, penetrate, bury itself into sand, and so on and on...
Once again, the problem is the way you are approaching this discussion and your understanding of history.
Thank you. So, not entirely "bloody useless" then. But no, it does not establish "Leakey as someone who knows what [he's] talking about." It's just another in a long line of non-sequiters from you.Gooner1 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2018 15:50Correct. That account was during Operation Compass. It establishes Leakey as someone who knows what their talking about.Whilst it is true that your quote from Leakey may have nothing to do with 11 April 1941,
And also the 2-pdr was not useless when fighting Italian tanks.
And once more, the problem is the way you are approaching this discussion and your understanding of history.