Worst 10 officers of each WWII power.

[Deleted member 94680]

If Chamberlain was such a naive peacenik, why did he declare war on Germany?

That would explain why he declared war on Germany then?

Where did I say he was never going to declare War? I said he was naively trying to avoid War. He was kind of painted into a corner by his poor decisions though, wasn't he? He probably could have avoided war altogether if he'd stood up over Sudetenland or been firmer between then and Poland. That was my point.

 

[bpbruce]

Thank you for feedback.
Beaverbrook was in position to either have it's pie, or to eat it. That he decided to eat it (= out-produce the Germans in fighters by 2:1) is a far better choice than to have it (= RAF FC is outnumbered in the air during the BoB). About the 'better equipment' being delayed - what is that equipment? IMO it can't be fighters, and RAF certainly introduced bombers that Germans were not in position to follow either in capability or in quantity within 6 to 18 months after the BoB ended.

It was obvious to the British during the Battle of Britain that they should have more fighters, and of course they went with crash production. Was Beaverbrook the right man to supervise this? Not all fighter planes were created equal, new machines with better altitude and more power kept being developed, and the Spitfire went from one of the best in the world 1939-1941 to Not All That compared to P-51s and P-47s. A better Typhoon might have matched those two, but oops teething problems. The Halifax had a bad start too.

If I was defending Churchill for appointing Beaverbrook, I'd say the appointment harnessed Beaverbrook's remarkable personal vanity and awesome infotainment clout in the service of convincing the British people that everything possible was being done to get more airplanes shooting down German bombers. Afterwards, a retirement 'for his health' before he does too much damage.

You make a good point about the merits of stressing production over development. Maybe the Brits would have been better off if they'd just skipped building any new designs after 1940, just masses of Spitfires and Mosquitoes and screw strategic bombing, just bomb the railheads, strafe roads, do tactical air support.

 

[Rickshaw]

Where did I say he was never going to declare War? I said he was naively trying to avoid War. He was kind of painted into a corner by his poor decisions though, wasn't he? He probably could have avoided war altogether if he'd stood up over Sudetenland or been firmer between then and Poland. That was my point.

You keep describing his decisions as poor. Why? Yes, he was trying to avoid war but with a purpose. He was buying time for his service chiefs to start building the sinews of war. Without appeasement, there would be no time to start building the fighters, bombers and tanks that the UK needed. Without appeasement, Hitler wouldn't have made the mistake of thinking the West was weak. It wasn't because Chamberlain listened to his service chiefs and instituted the biggest peacetime rearmament the UK has ever seen.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

You keep describing his decisions as poor. Why? Yes, he was trying to avoid war but with a purpose. He was buying time for his service chiefs to start building the sinews of war. Without appeasement, there would be no time to start building the fighters, bombers and tanks the that the UK needed. Without appeasement, Hitler wouldn't have made the mistake of thinking the West was weak. It wasn't because Chamberlain listened to his service chiefs and instituted the biggest peacetime rearmament the UK has ever seen.

Chamberlain wasn’t some machiavellian schemer. He was trying to avoid war by appeasing a man bent on conquest. The best way to avoid war would have been to take a strong line with Berlin, as opposed to giving in at almost every turn until it was too late. Hence poor decisions.

 

[TimTurner]

I am Catholic and to do that to your own sister ... It is Catholic Dogma the hell exists. It is not Catholic Dogma that anyone is in it. It is getting harder for me to believe that it is empty


Sorry I am strictly Gutenberg era and this thing of internet.... I am going to copy the post I was trying to reply and so sorry...

Even among the pantheon of villains that were his contemporaries, Doihara stands out as a particularly loathsome individual. His rise to infamy began with tricking his 15-year-old sister into posing nude for some photographs. Armed with the developed pictures, the loving brother touted them to a Japanese imperial prince who was so impressed he made her his number one concubine. In return for this favour, Doihara was posted as an assistant to General Honjo, military attaché to Peking.

It's astonishing I've never heard of this man before. But jesus christ. What he did to China...

 

[Rickshaw]

Chamberlain wasn’t some machiavellian schemer. He was trying to avoid war by appeasing a man bent on conquest. The best way to avoid war would have been to take a strong line with Berlin, as opposed to giving in at almost every turn until it was too late. Hence poor decisions.

Diplomacy unless backed by force is just mere posturing. Chamberlain appreciated that. He knew the UK was not able to undertake a war against Germany. So he bought time. His service chiefs provided the forces and when he felt they were ready, he declared war. Hitler always said that it was the invasion of Poland that did him in. One bite too many.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Diplomacy unless backed by force is just mere posturing. Chamberlain appreciated that. He knew the UK was not able to undertake a war against Germany. So he bought time. His service chiefs provided the forces and when he felt they were ready, he declared war. Hitler always said that it was the invasion of Poland that did him in. One bite too many.

Rather than derail this thread on discussions of the merits (or lack of) of Chamberlain’s Premiership, let’s agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Rickshaw]

Rather than derail this thread on discussions of the merits (or lack of) of Chamberlain’s Premiership, let’s agree to disagree on this one.

Fine.

 

[tomo pauk]

It was obvious to the British during the Battle of Britain that they should have more fighters, and of course they went with crash production. Was Beaverbrook the right man to supervise this? Not all fighter planes were created equal, new machines with better altitude and more power kept being developed, and the Spitfire went from one of the best in the world 1939-1941 to Not All That compared to P-51s and P-47s. A better Typhoon might have matched those two, but oops teething problems. The Halifax had a bad start too.

It was no Beaverbrook's fault that some British engineers were hell bent on making sleeve-valve engines or nothing, nor that Napier was without proper design team once Halford left, nor that Napier was not able to manufacture sleeves worth a damn. It was certainly not Beaverbrook's fault that Sir Sidney thought that 19% thick wing was next best thing after the sliced bread, nor that Sir Sidney didn't fasten the tails on his Typhoons properly. Supermarine's aircraft past Spitfire were also-rans, let's have Beaverbrook design them? No long range fighter - we can point our fingers at Portal and his lot, not at Beaverbrook. Halifax was also not designed by Beaverbrook, but by a design team 'owned' by one of welthiest persons in the UK.

If I was defending Churchill for appointing Beaverbrook, I'd say the appointment harnessed Beaverbrook's remarkable personal vanity and awesome infotainment clout in the service of convincing the British people that everything possible was being done to get more airplanes shooting down German bombers. Afterwards, a retirement 'for his health' before he does too much damage.

We can slice it anyway we want. What remains is that British fighter production was ramped up in such a manner that Germans were left far back in the rear wiev mirror, and that was one of things that contributed to RAF FC doing the job it was designed for.

You make a good point about the merits of stressing production over development. Maybe the Brits would have been better off if they'd just skipped building any new designs after 1940, just masses of Spitfires and Mosquitoes and screw strategic bombing, just bomb the railheads, strafe roads, do tactical air support.

Actualy, I like the idea of Spitfires and Mosquitoes only. Mosquito was also a strategic bomber - easy over 500 miles radius even with the cookie.

 

[Whiteshore]

Germany
Himmler as army group commander, had he been a regular general that screwed up that bad Hitler would have ordered him shot

Care to elaborate on how bad Himmler was? Speaking of Generals who were running around due to politics, Budyonny, Timoshenko, and Kulik were very bad Soviet generals who were loyal to Stalin but sucked as commanders.

 

[yulzari]

Cramped, 2 man model turret is a disaster (up to model IV), lousy radio, underpowered, puny gun, bogs in mud and snow, can road march forever but no spare parts available when something inevitably breaks, no HE rounds for the 4.0cm/60 or the 5.7cm/60 guns in the models provided, armour good, engines (at least the non-American ones), poor. That was what the Russians thought. That is against their own baseline BTs and T-34s.

Somewhere I have a comment that people love a thing when they have no benchmark about what "good" is against which to measure. That was about crappy American small arms from WW II. I think a similar case can be made about British tanks.

The Valentine was a good British tank from 1938-mid 1942. But 1943 onward the assessment might vary with more experience. (YMMV and should.)

I used to know an ex Red Army tank commander who loved the Valentine and worked hard to stay in a Valentine instead of a T34 all the way to Germany in 1945. Small. quiet and reliable with a gun that could take out German tanks from the flank by use of cover. We have opinions but he was there and using it. He preferred the 6 pounder to the 75mm but had HE in both cases whatever the books may say.

 

[McPherson]

I used to know an ex Red Army tank commander who loved the Valentine and worked hard to stay in a Valentine instead of a T34 all the way to Germany in 1945. Small. quiet and reliable with a gun that could take out German tanks from the flank by use of cover. We have opinions but he was there and using it. He preferred the 6 pounder to the 75mm but had HE in both cases whatever the books may say.

Maybe this explains what is known? (Forms part of the basis of what I wrote.)

The first Valentine tanks arrived in the USSR on October 11th, 1941. During their use, many defects were discovered. According to "memorandum on the issue of English Mk-III* tanks" dated November 20th, 1941, track pins broke very easily. Trials showed that the track pins broke due to excessive tightening of the tracks performed by British instructors. In the winter, it was discovered that the tracks had to be equipped with spurs, as the tracks were packed full of compressed snow and ice and lost traction. There were many instances of the tires slipping off the wheels. The tank was poorly protected from incendiary fluid, as there were openings in the turret roof and gun mantlet. The protection of the engine compartment was similarly poor.

This is verifiable.

GABTU considered the installation of the Soviet 45 mm gun as the best option. This work was assigned to Major-General V.G. Grabin's factory #92 in November of 1941. P.F. Muravyev was put in charge of the project. A Valentine II with registration number 27526 was selected for conversion.





A Valentine II with a 45 mm gun, December 1941.

According to the report, only the main gun and BESA machinegun were removed, replaced with the Soviet 45 mm gun and DT machinegun, solving the ammo shortage for both weapons. The 50 mm grenade launchers remained. Factory #92 designed new armour for the front of the turret and gun mantlet, far better than the British originals. The shorter brass catcher and other conversions allowed increasing space inside the turret, which the Valentine didn't have an excess of. The tank's ammunition capacity also grew.
from 59 2-pdr shells to 91 45 mm shells. The gun was indexed F-95.

The freed up main gun would be sent to repair bases and the machinegun would be given to infantry. The greatest benefit was the use of a domestic gun and sights, removing the dependence on foreign delivery. The sorely lacking HE shell was also introduced into the tank's repertoire.

That may explain the confusion over the main armament.

Bogging and slipping in mud and snow.

Spurs for the Valentine

Although less so than the Matilda, the Valentine still suffered from problems with traction. This problem was most prevalent during the winter, which was confirmed by trials of a Valentine II at Kubinka.

"Trials of the tank in winter conditions showed that the shape of the track links does not provide traction with the ground, as a result of which the performance of the tank is insufficient in winter."

The solution was discovered during the trials. Engineers from the attached research institute developed two types of spurs that were produced and tested. The first type involved welding on 35 mm long grousers. The second type was better designed and allowed removal when necessary. It was held in place by the stock track pin. According to results of the trials, both types of spurs were deemed reliable. Seemingly, both were sent into the army.



Two types of spurs developed in the winter of 1942.

Work on spurs did not end here. In November of 1943, a certain Zakharenkov proposed permanent spurs produced from "angled iron made into a wavy shape" and welded onto the track. Having studied the proposal, the proving grounds concluded that it did not make sense to produce this design. It was difficult to produce in the field and the nature of the spurs made them impossible to remove when driving on good quality roads.

In May of 1943, a group at the proving grounds research institute consisting of Technician-Lieutenant A.S. Lobakov, Engineer-Major A.M. Zenin and Engineer-Captain I.A. Kondrashev designed an improved type of removable spurs. The biggest change was in the shape of the grouser, which made driving on snow easier. Trials showed that this design radically improved performance on snow.

I do not doubt the testimony of the Russian tank commander, but (this ^^^) has some internal documentation to support the article's content.

McP.

 

[Changundramon]

Other than Göring and Himmler, Germany doesn't get mentioned on this topic. I'll go with a controversial one: Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb (AG North)- failed to take Leningrad even after a fast advance, but kept his troops busy committing crimes against civilians.

 

[marathag]

This is verifiable

Most LL Valentines were of Canadian manufacture, far better than the Vickers built Units. And this was from a Locomotive comapany, that never had built a tank before

 

[marathag]

Bogging and slipping in mud and snow

Also worse with US Rubber block track, but just after months from receiving complaints, Steel track blocks were made that were added (5% of links, IIRC)
that gave similar grip on ice, but still were too narrow, something not really solved till the E8 suspension that was showing in 1945
There had been plans in 1942 to use M6 HVSS Tank suspension, but this was not done for years with the totally redone E8 units

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Also worse with US Rubber block track, but just after months from receiving complaints, Steel track blocks were made that were added (5% of links, IIRC)
that gave similar grip on ice, but still were too narrow, something not really solved till the E8 suspension that was showing in 1945
There had been plans in 1942 to use M6 HVSS Tank suspension, but this was not done for years with the totally redone E8 units

To be fair giving the Sherman wider tracks would have increased its weight by a literal metric ton or so. Still from what I have read the Soviet Units that got Shermans mostly loved them due to their excellent ergonomics,very decent firepower,high crew.survivability, ease of maintenance, and solid armor(a Sherman had a half inch less effective frontal armor thickness than a Tiger)

 

[McPherson]

Other than Göring and Himmler, Germany doesn't get mentioned on this topic. I'll go with a controversial one: Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb (AG North)- failed to take Leningrad even after a fast advance, but kept his troops busy committing crimes against civilians.

There were so many INCOMPETENTs in the Berlin criminal gangster regime and the military chaos it unleased upon the world, that it is hard to prune the list to just ten people.

Let me think about it a bit.

 

[marathag]

To be fair giving the Sherman wider track would have increased its weight by a literal metric ton of so.

Yes, it would have.
But the E2 Jumbo proved that the basic Sherman Chassis( and track grousers that could be added to most Sherman tracks)) was good upto 42 tons, with little loss of mobility or reliability

 

[Coiler]

My take on Rommel is that he was a superb tactician and had operational maneuver warfare down to an art. But he was lacking in his grasp of overall strategy. And was severely deficient in logistics. Rommel was a great Corps Commander, who could deliver an outstanding battle plan. Once someone above him gave him the goal. But he's not the one that could define the goal

For the Allied version of that, I think Patton would be a great commander of an armored division, but wouldn't give him anything higher.

 

[SsgtC]

For the Allied version of that, I think Patton would be a great commander of an armored division, but wouldn't give him anything higher.

Patton did a damn good job as Commander of 3rd Army in Europe. Particularly his relief of Bastogne and the way he completely reoriented 3rd Army during the Battle of the Bulge. I don't think there are very many field commanders that could have pulled off that maneuver as well as he did.