tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745817778350624453.post4433745942896767055..comments2024-03-28T17:58:25.581+13:00Comments on The Flaxen Saxon Chronicles: British Tanks of the Second World WarFlaxen Saxonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03431645401478120921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745817778350624453.post-87683981570587443572021-10-15T21:04:12.240+13:002021-10-15T21:04:12.240+13:00I suspect old Adolph was the main problem: with hi...I suspect old Adolph was the main problem: with his insistence of increasingly larger panzers. Also, not unrelated- the Germans, in their hubris, took on too many powerful enemies. cf The Great War. Flaxen Saxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431645401478120921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745817778350624453.post-76154921493392375822021-10-15T11:14:21.136+13:002021-10-15T11:14:21.136+13:00Hindsight is a harsh mistress. If we argue that Br...Hindsight is a harsh mistress. If we argue that British could have done better (true) then we should also recognize that the Germans could have done better too.<br /><br />Perhaps we should just accept that the Allies did well enough to win. Or perhaps the Germans did poorly enough to lose. They were lumbered with an increasingly insane Adlof Hilter after all.DiscoveredJoyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05300239909689336895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745817778350624453.post-76772724167260186622021-10-14T09:12:52.000+13:002021-10-14T09:12:52.000+13:00Welcome to the new normal. Dissenters will be shot...Welcome to the new normal. Dissenters will be shot! The chap who wrote the article Paul Joseph Watson has a YouTube channel. His vids are well worth a watch. Says a lot of sense wrapped in his own brand of sardonic humour. Flaxen Saxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431645401478120921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745817778350624453.post-42406311521977772752021-10-14T09:02:01.320+13:002021-10-14T09:02:01.320+13:00I will say this. The Churchill was an interesting ...I will say this. The Churchill was an interesting tank due to its amazing ability to climb hills. This enabled the tank to surprise the Germans during the North African campaign by negotiating terrain thought impossible for tanks. And who can forget Hobart's funnies. I take your point with the other tanks mentioned. As always the size of the turret ring let down promising designs. Flaxen Saxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431645401478120921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745817778350624453.post-83021666509485893832021-10-13T22:18:17.445+13:002021-10-13T22:18:17.445+13:00Interesting.
What weapons would you say are suita...Interesting.<br /><br />What weapons would you say are suitable for fighting your way out of the<br />NZ concentration camps? Or maybe into them on a rescue mission?<br /><br />https://summit.news/2020/08/14/new-zealand-says-it-will-put-all-new-covid-infectees-their-family-members-in-quarantine-facilities/<br /><br />It's unbelievable - the entire formerly civilised world has been taken<br />over by power crazed loons. How can they be stopped?<br /><br />DevonshireDozer)<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745817778350624453.post-79695148717929116442021-10-13T21:00:33.244+13:002021-10-13T21:00:33.244+13:00Enjoyed that, thanks. The British never achieved t...Enjoyed that, thanks. The British never achieved that crucial balance between armour, firepower and mobility until the arrival of the Comet late in the war. For most of the war they had tanks with one or the other but never all three. The fact that production took precedence over design during the early stages of the war didn't help either. As you point out, a massive increase in tank numbers was needed to make good the losses suffered in France and to provide for Britain's defence.<br /><br />I feel that the quirky, Vickers-designed Valentine deserves a mention. It was used both as an infantry tank and cruiser and was very reliable. It was built in greater numbers than any other British design, almost a quarter of total output (production ended in 1944), with many of them being shipped to the Soviet Union. The Red Army’s 131st Independent Tank Battalion praised the, “small but powerful” British tank for its spalling-resistant armour, forgiving handling, responsive suspension and quiet and reliable engine. In 1942 Stalin himself asked Molotov, his representative, in London to, "Tell the British to send more fighters and tanks, especially Valentines.” The Valentine made up for its flaws with robustness and sheer reliability. They were even present for the very last major ground offensive of World War II, when Soviet forces assaulted the Japanese Kwantung Army Group occupying Mongolia and northern China. <br /><br />Ditto the Churchill. It was moderately successful due to its heavy armour and hill-climbing abilities in every theatre for nearly five years in spite of initial teething problems, being slow and being slated for retirement in 1943!<br /> <br />Another British tank worth a mention is the under-gunned and under-armoured but speedy and reliable Cromwell cruiser, the basis for the Comet. It provided valuable service chasing the Germans as they retreated in North-West Europe in the final year of the war. By that time, British tank production was mostly standardised on Cromwells (only just ready in time for D-Day), Churchills and the excellent Comets. The Cromwell and Churchill might not have been as good as the Germans' best but they did the job and, like the Sherman, there were plenty of them.Stephen Mundanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08811290002758254767noreply@blogger.com