What are you reading

I was reading this document (https://history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-20/CMH_Pub_104-20.pdf) which counted the Panzer 1 as a tankette. Do any of you think this is a better description for the vehicle than a light tank? It’s not much heavier than some Japanese tankettes and its armament and crew size is certainly similar.

This is the first time I’ve heard of classifying the vehicle as a tankette, which is why I find it noteworthy.

@Coldwarrior1984

Reading this, I feel strongly you’re confused about the nature of the German defenses in Normandy. In combination, I feel you are overestimating the Allies ability to place smoke as precisely and in the quantity that would have been required to have a chance to accomplish the goal you lay out. I also feel you’re overestimating the effectiveness of smoke even if I grant that none of the above was an issue.

I’ve been to Normandy three times with tour guides. I’ve read everything from Ambrose and Osprey on Overlord. I’m tempted to repeat my initial post about why you don’t hear or see this tactic being performed en masse in the many assaults in the Pacific or Mediterranean.

I’ll just sum this up and say that the German fighting positions were not composed primarily of Saving Private Ryan style bunkers but widerstandsnest with Tobruks across so much acreage that a simultaneous precision smoke affect against all of them for the required time to get everyone ashore is less realistic that just a mass smoke bombardment of the beach area.

Today or yesterday (depending on where you live) was the 80th anniversary of the Battle of the Phillipine Sea.

When the US landed in Saipan, the Japanese responded with a massive carrier attack (supported by aircraft from land bases), the first major Japanese carrier operation in a year and a half. Numerically, at least, this was the largest Japanese carrier force ever committed to battle and was faced by the largest and most powerful fleet ever put together in the history of warfare up to that point, America’s Fast Carrier Task Force.

Due to the sharp decline of Japanese pilot quality and a massive technological and numerical advantage from the American side, the Japanese 1st Mobile Fleet was dealt a giant defeat, losing 3 carriers and irreverisble numbers of aircraft for essentially no results.

The battle saw the combat debut of Admiral Jisaburo Ozawa, arguablly one of the best Japanese carrier commanders, in command of a major Japanese carrier force. Previously Ozawa commanded various fleets and formations containing carriers, but never the Kido Butai (or its successor, the 1st Mobile Fleet) in combat.

@Witt

Thank you so much! I appreciate your input.

If I was going into Tank on Tank combat I’m taking the M4 Sherman. Better sights, better visibility, an actual turret basket, better ergonomics, better mechanical reliability, and with the 76mm variant a very capable anti armor gun. As well as far more reliable armor due to high production quality standards. The M4 armor is reliable face hardened. The T34 could be correctly hardened, too hard so that it’s brittle or too soft.

If I was trying to drive a tank to get into a fight, the M4 is the obvious choice due to the much better reliability.

If I had to pick a tank to work on. M4 again due to its easy to repair design.

If I wanted to drive a comfortable tank well that’s no contest it’s the M4. Also it’s an easier to drive tank due to the vastly superior production quality.

So the M4 is a vastly superior weapons platform the only reason they seem comparable is on paper armor thickness and gun. Off of paper they aren’t close. Like pretty much all Russian military equipment they seem intimidating but ultimately are trash. Like how the T 72 got smashed by the M2 bradely and infantry fighting vehicle not even a tank.

Have you ever heard of the book called If The Allies Had Fallen? It examines many what ifs of World War 2, with all of them very grounded in reality. A lot of the chapters are written very differently, from basically scholarly analysis to what the history books would have said had the timeline changed in the way described. If you had read the book, what do you think? Thank you!

@wittmann:

Waterloo (200 year anniversary in June), by Bernard Cornwell.  Is an easy read and right up my alley.

Apologies Worsham: I have just noticed you said WW2 material.
I still have: Hitler’s Panzer Armies on the Eastern Front (by the bed), but have not opened it for 10 days. It is not the sort of book you can read cover to cover.

Any books are fine. I like to get pointed to good reads.

@frimmel:

Agreed. It is sometimes like he can’t remember what it is he wants to tell us. Or he has so much to tell he forgets not to say it all at once. I like that it is taken a lot from the common soldier’s experience but Ambrose does get off track frequently and a little too mired in the details.

Although that can be good too. In D-Day when he talked about all the stuff the guys carried I felt weighted down with equipment.

He’s still quite readable.  I just feel like Cornelius Ryan beat him to the punch and did a much better job.  Ambrose certainly goes for the empathy angle.

@frimmel:

@tcnance:

the war of the rats is a good book, made a movie out of it  cant remember the name but it is based on the german-russian front. it centers on 2 dueling snipers in stalingrad

Enemy at The Gates?

Exactly what I was thinking.