ljadw wrote: ↑05 Jun 2022, 20:48
About Guderian : On P 139 of Panzer Leader he wrote the following :
''Thus,the German Army,though doubling its nominal strength in armoured divisions,did not acquire double the number of tanks, which was after all that counted .''
This disqualifies Guderian as a serious tank commander , because, as every one knows ,the PzDivisions of May 1940 had less tanks than those of September 1939, but were not worse than their predecessors .The same for the PzDivisions of June 1941 .
The total number of tanks was not doubled, but it was increased by 25%over the number of tanks at the start of Poland.
More nonsense...How are you defining "serious"?
For that matter, if you do not have "bad" & "good", how can you have "serious?"
Again, allowing your personal biases to interfere with your jujudgment.
ljadw wrote: ↑05 Jun 2022, 20:48
About non combat losses : on P 111 of Armoured Champion: the Top Tanks of WW 2,
one can read the following
''The evidence presented by the after-action reports of the Soviet mechanized corps,suggests that more than half of the Soviet tank losses were due to mechanical breakdowns and the abandonment of damaged and bogged-down tanks .''
Useless data. Which Soviet mechanized corps? What year? Where any of these tank "losses" recovered & repaired? How many were recovered & repaired?
You raise more questions than you provide answers.
ljadw wrote: ↑05 Jun 2022, 20:48
This debunks the myths of the decisive importance of the quantity and quality of tanks, of their design, of the tank doctrine .
False, it reinforces the decisive importance of the quantity & quality of tanks, of their design, of the tank doctrine.
ljadw wrote: ↑05 Jun 2022, 20:48
One can not in peacetime decide how one will use tanks in a war .
Sure one can, every nation that has tanks, decides in peacetime, how they will use those tanks in war.
ljadw wrote: ↑05 Jun 2022, 20:48
How tanks were used in war time depends on the enemy (always forgotten by the tank lobby ) ,by the mission, by the terrain, by the weather , by the available amount of fuel and ammunition and by the protection of the tanks by the infantry and artillery .
Even more nonsense & False.
Tank use in war time is dependant only on those who control them.
In war time -
Tanks are used for training, where there is no enemy.
Tanks are used in all types of terrain, even in those types of terrain not considered "tank country."
Tanks are used in all types of weather, even in mud, snow, and ice.
Tanks have been sent into combat with little fuel & ammunition.
Tanks with no fuel have been used as static pillboxes.
Tanks with no ammunition have been used as recovery vehicles, railroad switch engines, ammunition carriers, tractors, etc.
Tanks have been sent into combat with little infantry & artillery protection.
Tanks have been sent into combat with no infantry & artillery protection.
ljadw wrote: ↑05 Jun 2022, 20:48
That the Pz III had an anti-tank gun does not mean that the intention was to use him exclusively or mainly against enemy tanks ,because this would not be decided by tank constructors, neither by the creator of the Panzerwaffe (which was not the impostor Guderian, but his boss Oswald Lutz ),but it would be mainly decided by the enemy .
Actually, having an AT gun with very limited HE capacity, does mean that it will be used mainly against tanks.
ljadw wrote: ↑05 Jun 2022, 20:48
If the enemy had no tanks on a certain front, the gun of the PZ III would be used for other things .
US used M1 Abrams against ISIS and the Taliban, who had no tanks .
You do not know the Abrams very well, nor are you familiar with it's ammunition...
The HEAT & HE rounds work quite well against bunkers & buildings. The German 37mm HE certainly did not.
The Canister round is very effective against infantry in the open. Did the Germans have a Canister round for their tanks?
ljadw wrote: ↑05 Jun 2022, 20:48
This applies also to aircraft,to submarines, to BBs,...
Aircraft can be used as tanks? Submarines can be used as tanks? Battleships can be used as tanks?