Did Britain enter World War 2 too soon?

[Barry Sanchez]

Yes, I acknowledged that in one of my posts. I appreciate that I'm backing some of my opinions up with evidence, which therefore makes them longer and harder to read, but it's all there.

 

No you are quoting what others have written.

[pap]

No you are quoting what others have written.

 

Yeah, unimportant figures like German generals and Hitler.

 

I can see you're trying to add to the debate, Barry. Kudos for that. However, when people are saying that this is a "good thread", it's probably down to people like Chapel End Charlie and VFTT laying down relatively substantive portions of their expertise for the rest of the forum.

 

Just guessing here, but I'd file much of our recent exchange, particularly the one-liners from yourself, as being very much the opposite of this. In the interests of keeping the thread interesting, I'd invite you to reference and back up your points with something approaching insight. You began this particular series of posts with the assertion that technical obsolescence was the key reason for initial German gains. I think it's a factor, definitely - but nowhere near as much as Stalin's tunnel vision when it came to the Germans.

[badgerx16]

You began this particular series of posts with the assertion that technical obsolescence was the key reason for initial German gains. .

 

I would suggest that is not the main reason, the Soviet command and control capabilities were atrocious - for instance in the tank regiments only the unit commander had a radio, the rest signaled with flags. As with previous campaigns, the principle of BlitzKrieg in Barbarossa was deep, fast, penetration, which disrupted the enemy's rear echelon and command troops, with vast encircling moves to 'kettle' the bulk of the enemy and leave them to the PBI. The scale of the success of the pincer movements was aided by the immobility of the Russian armies, and the reluctance of commanders to act on initiative for fear of the NKVD.

[pap]

I would suggest that is not the main reason, the Soviet command and control capabilities were atrocious - for instance in the tank regiments only the unit commander had a radio, the rest signaled with flags. As with previous campaigns, the principle of BlitzKrieg in Barbarossa was deep, fast, penetration, which disrupted the enemy's rear echelon and command troops, with vast encircling moves to 'kettle' the bulk of the enemy and leave them to the PBI. The scale of the success of the pincer movements was aided by the immobility of the Russian armies, and the reluctance of commanders to act on initiative for fear of the NKVD.

 

Yup. The fallout from the purges, in both terms of "men lost" and "men fearing for their lives afterward" is almost incalculable.

 

The position of Soviet forces certainly didn't help. They were on new and largely unfamiliar frontiers. If Stalin wanted to fight a purely defensive war, he was going the wrong way about it. His strategy was f**ked the moment the German armour got behind their extended Western frontier. Almost inviting encirclement.

 

Stalin never wanted to fight the Germans in Russia, but knew a war with Germany was inevitable. Put those two facts together, and you're left with the conclusion that Stalin meant to fight them in the West. Given Stalin's "directness" in dealing with other issues, my take is that they were attempting to re-arm to the point where a westward invasion was possible. Hitler simply acted first.

 

Whatever Stalin's motives, he made a huge mistake by arraying his forces on the frontier.

[Barry Sanchez]

Yeah, unimportant figures like German generals and Hitler.

 

I can see you're trying to add to the debate, Barry. Kudos for that. However, when people are saying that this is a "good thread", it's probably down to people like Chapel End Charlie and VFTT laying down relatively substantive portions of their expertise for the rest of the forum.

 

Just guessing here, but I'd file much of our recent exchange, particularly the one-liners from yourself, as being very much the opposite of this. In the interests of keeping the thread interesting, I'd invite you to reference and back up your points with something approaching insight. You began this particular series of posts with the assertion that technical obsolescence was the key reason for initial German gains. I think it's a factor, definitely - but nowhere near as much as Stalin's tunnel vision when it came to the Germans.

 

Pap I can do so, you came out and stated a post concerning the T34, I dont and have not doubted it capalilities (American tank anyway look that up as well) but the fact of how could they attack and advance through German lines when in 1941 they only represented 10% approx of the Russian Forces tanks.

 

Pap I dont need to quote anything, do a little research before you post, or ask Charlie if what I have posted is incorrect?

 

http://operationbarbarossa.com/p1_comparison.php

 

Here is a copy and paste, note the Russians vastly outnumbered the Germans but they had old equipment.

[Barry Sanchez]

"I think it likely they were planning to strike against Germany in an offensive war,"

 

You wrote and I asked with what? What would they attack the Germans with at that time?

[pap]

Pap I can do so, you came out and stated a post concerning the T34, I dont and have not doubted it capalilities (American tank anyway look that up as well) but the fact of how could they attack and advance through German lines when in 1941 they only represented 10% approx of the Russian Forces tanks.

 

Pap I dont need to quote anything, do a little research before you post, or ask Charlie if what I have posted is incorrect?

 

http://operationbarbarossa.com/p1_comparison.php

 

Here is a copy and paste, note the Russians vastly outnumbered the Germans but they had old equipment.

 

Let's get back to the question. Would the USSR eventually have attacked Germany if Germany had not launched Operation Barbarossa?

 

How does the proportion of T-34s in relation to the rest of the Russian tank force affect that question in any way?

[Barry Sanchez]

Let's get back to the question. Would the USSR eventually have attacked Germany if Germany had not launched Operation Barbarossa?

 

How does the proportion of T-34s in relation to the rest of the Russian tank force affect that question in any way?

 

We can all agree on that Pap and that was covered the last page or so, on tanks do I really need to answer that?

[pap]

We can all agree on that Pap and that was covered the last page or so, on tanks do I really need to answer that?

 

Right, so you agree with me that the USSR had pre-existing plans to assault German forces irrespective of Barbarossa?

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth, mate. "That" isn't too specific when I'm asking two questions. Clarity would be cool.

[Barry Sanchez]

Right, so you agree with me that the USSR had pre-existing plans to assault German forces irrespective of Barbarossa?

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth, mate. "That" isn't too specific when I'm asking two questions. Clarity would be cool.

 

No I'm saying it would have happened eventually, I am also saying Pap your thoughts (others) on that Russia was planning at that time to attack Germany is crap, I'm saying its absolute crap my mate as there is no evidence to support it.

You have failed to answer any questions put before you on this.

 

Stalin moved all of his factories East and produced on an unbelievable scale by the end of the war, at the start on the invasion they had little to no advance war machinery.

Where were the advance bases of the Russian Tanks Forces, Air Force and Armies?

[pap]

No I'm saying it would have happened eventually, I am also saying Pap your thoughts (others) on that Russia was planning at that time to attack Germany is crap, I'm saying its absolute crap my mate as there is no evidence to support it.

You have failed to answer any questions put before you on this.

 

Stalin moved all of his factories East and produced on an unbelievable scale by the end of the war, at the start on the invasion they had little to no advance war machinery.

Where were the advance bases of the Russian Tanks Forces, Air Force and Armies?

 

You're arguing against a point I never made. At no point have I suggested that Stalin planned to invade Germany at exactly the same time. Indeed, I argued that Hitler ruined Stalin's plans by attacking first. I'm not sure how you've arrived at your point of contention, but you're in agreement with me. I think it likely that Stalin would have continued to re-arm until he had technical and numerical advantage, attacking thereafter.

[badgerx16]

..... T34, ...(American tank anyway look that up as well) ....

 

Err, no. It used a Christie suspension but wasn't an American design.

 

As for the technical comparison of the 2 sides -

 

Sources suggest that the Germans had the following numbers :

PzKpfw I - 410

PzKpfw II - 746

PzKpfw 35(t) - 149

PzKpfw 38(t) - 623

PzKpfw III - 965

PzKpfw IV - 439

 

Total - 3332

 

Of these the PzI and PzII were recce vehicles and not used for tank v tank operations, and the P35(t) was pretty much obsolete by 1941. The P38(t) and PzIII had moderate armour and main gun ( 37mm ), and were slower than the Russians, and the PzIV versions at this time ( up to Ausf F1 ) were intended for infantry support and had a low velocity 75mm gun.

For the Russians, the bulk of their vastly superior numbers were, indeed, obsolete, but they still had several thousand BT-7s, which in theory were a match for the PzIII etc, with weaker armour but a better gun ( 47mm ), and faster. In addition there were the first tranche of the T-34, far better armour and gun ( 76mm ) but unreliable, and the KV-1 heavy monster. However, as with the Brits in the western desert, Russian tactics tended towards the cavalry charge with firing on the move, whereas the tactically more experienced and astute German crews would halt to fire - a far more accurate and effective tactic.

Even with their limitations, contact with the Russians taught the Germans some hard lessons and they very quickly pushed through a process of upgrading the armour and main weapons on the PzIII ( Ausf J got a 50mm gun and thicker armour at the front ) and PzIV ( Ausf F2 got a long barreled high velocity 75mm main gun ). They also very quickly ditched their PAK 37mm anti-tank guns in favour of 50mm systems, or even captured Russian 47mm & 75mm guns, of which they had amassed thousands in the opening weeks of the invasion.

Edited 11 December, 2013 by badgerx16

[Barry Sanchez]

What is your point then Pap? What are you saying, that Russia would eventually attack Germany at some point if Germany did not before? Are you Dan Snow?

[Barry Sanchez]

Err, no. It used a Christie suspension but wasn't an American design.

 

As for the technical comparison of the 2 sides -

 

Sources suggest that the Germans had the following numbers :

PzKpfw I - 410

PzKpfw II - 746

PzKpfw 35(t) - 149

PzKpfw 38(t) - 623

PzKpfw III - 965

PzKpfw IV - 439

 

Total - 3332

 

Of these the PzI and PzII were recce vehicles and not used for tank v tank operations, and the P35(t) was pretty much obsolete by 1941. The P38(t) and PzIII had moderate armour and main gun ( 37mm ), and were slower than the Russians, and the PzIV versions at this time ( up to Ausf F1 ) were intended for infantry support and had a low velocity 75mm gun.

For the Russians, the bulk of their vastly superior numbers were, indeed, obsolete, but they still had several thousand BT-7s, which in theory were a match for the PzIII etc, with weaker armour but a better gun ( 47mm ), and faster. In addition there were the first tranche of the T-34, far better armour and gun ( 75mm ) but unreliable, and the KV-1 heavy monster. However, as with the Brits in the western desert, Russian tactics tended towards the cavalry charge with firing on the move, whereas the tactically more experienced and astute German crews would halt to fire - a far more accurate and effective tactic.

Even with their limitations, contact with the Russians taught the Germans some hard lessons and they very quickly pushed through a process of upgrading the armour and main weapons on the PzIII ( Ausf J got a 50mm gun and thicker armour at the front ) and PzIV ( Ausf F2 got a long barreled high velocity 75mm main gun ). They also very quickly ditched their PAK 37mm anti-tank guns in favour of 50mm systems, or even captured Russian 47mm & 75mm guns, of which they had amassed thousands in the opening weeks of the invasion.

 

A massive component of the tank, it was rejected by the Americans but sold to the Russians, the T34 is a legend tank, not as good as they say, a symbol of resistance.

[badgerx16]

A massive component of the tank, it was rejected by the Americans but sold to the Russians,

 

That's like saying the inventor of the shock absorber invented the VW Golf. We also used it on the cruiser tank series from the A-13 up to the Comet - were they 'American' ?

 

the T34 is a legend tank, not as good as they say, .......

 

It scared the bejesus out of the German tank crews.

[Barry Sanchez]

That's like saying the inventor of the shock absorber invented the VW Golf.

 

 

 

It scared the bejesus out of the German tank crews.

 

No its not the undercarraige system is very important, the Christie system was a very very good system.

 

Not at the start of the invasion it did not, why would it? The Germans advance were surprised they had no real resistance at all, hence they made so much distance so quickly.

[pap]

It scared the bejesus out of the German tank crews.

 

It should have done. It was designed to beat them, and widely recognised as one of the most effective weapons of war.

 

I like this quote:-

 

Half a dozen anti-tank gun fire shells at him (T-34) which sound like a drumroll. But he drives staunchly through our line like an impregnable prehistoric monster... It is remarkable that lieutenant Steup's tank made hits on a T-34 once at about 20 meters and four times at 50 meters, with Panzergranate 40 (caliber 5 cm),link without any noticeable effect.

[badgerx16]

Not at the start of the invasion it did not, why would it? The Germans advance were surprised they had no real resistance at all, hence they made so much distance so quickly.

 

"Very worrying", Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army.

"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.

"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.

"This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry", General G. Blumentritt.

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CBJbQLTbArAC&lpg=PA138&dq=encounter+T-34+KV&pg=PA139&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

On the second day of Operation Barbarossa : "Half a dozen anti-tank gun fire shells at him (T-34) which sound like a drumroll. But he drives staunchly through our line like an impregnable prehistoric monster... It is remarkable that lieutenant Steup's tank made hits on a T-34 once at about 20 meters and four times at 50 meters, with Panzergranate 40 (caliber 5 cm), without any noticeable effect."

Edited 11 December, 2013 by badgerx16

[View From The Top]

If debating Wehrmacht armoured divisions compared to 1941 Soviet divisions it should be mentioned that German divisions had an excellent mix of tanks/mounted infantry and anti tank capabilities as well as the Luftwaffe. Something the Soviets did really manage until Spring 1943 and even then it perhaps still wasn't as good as the Germans.

 

Wehrmacht units, as well as SS, were excellent at playing the hull down role and inviting the Red Army on to them. Soviets really did suss that out until Kursk.

 

Man for man, officer for officer, equipment for equipment, German forces were superior to the Soviets right up to the bitter end. What they didn't have was vast numbers or a war machine unhindered by bombing or a war on two fronts.

[Barry Sanchez]

"Very worrying", Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army.

"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.

"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.

"This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry", General G. Blumentritt.

 

Thats all true but they certainly these people were not quoting that at the start, (once when they had seen it in action yes of course) at the end when production was far higher and they were facing many more, of course a formidable tank, when the Russians learned that a tank is not a horse they were immense in pushing the Germans back.

As machines go the Tiger moreso the mark II would have nailed this to a post but it was an expensive tank to build.

[Barry Sanchez]

If debating Wehrmacht armoured divisions compared to 1941 Soviet divisions it should be mentioned that German divisions had an excellent mix of tanks/mounted infantry and anti tank capabilities as well as the Luftwaffe. Something the Soviets did really manage until Spring 1943 and even then it perhaps still wasn't as good as the Germans.

 

Wehrmacht units, as well as SS, were excellent at playing the hull down role and inviting the Red Army on to them. Soviets really did suss that out until Kursk.

 

Man for man, officer for officer, equipment for equipment, German forces were superior to the Soviets right up to the bitter end. What they didn't have was vast numbers or a war machine unhindered by bombing or a war on two fronts.

 

Stalin slaughtered his own the same as Hitler did, both in War and in Peace. Numbers and Winter saved Russia not their tech.

[badgerx16]

Wehrmacht units, as well as SS, were excellent at playing the hull down role and inviting the Red Army on to them.

Or even luring them onto pre-prepared killing grounds for the anti-tank guns, especially the 88mm Flak Kanone.

[badgerx16]

Thats all true but they certainly these people were not quoting that at the start,

 

See the second part of my post, you may have missed the edit

 

As machines go the Tiger more so the mark II would have nailed this to a post but it was an expensive tank to build.

And extremely unreliable and difficult to maintain due to the German propensity to elaborately over-engineer their hardware.

[Barry Sanchez]

See the second part of my post, you may have missed the edit

 

And extremely unreliable and difficult to maintain due to the German propensity to elaborately over-engineer their hardware.

 

It was and again true but a fully working Tiger is a far better tank but yes for what it was supposed to do and it did do the T34 was brilliant, its seen now by the Russians as the best tank ever, its not and was not then it was horses for courses.

[badgerx16]

It was and again true but a fully working Tiger is a far better tank but yes for what it was supposed to do and it did do the T34 was brilliant, its seen now by the Russians as the best tank ever, its not and was not then it was horses for courses.

 

That's a bit of a fatuous argument, as the 'best tank EVER' is probably the Abrahams 2 or the Challenger 2 - the argument should be put in context. In which case comparing the PzVI Tiger with the T-34 is comparing apples with bananas; the Tiger was not a divisional MBT, it was deployed in special 'schwerer' battalions as a support unit, a more accurate comparison would be the JS series of Soviet heavy tanks. The T-34 as the divisional MBT should be more directly compared to the PzIV, to which it is superior in almost all areas, or the PzV Panther, which it inspired.

[Barry Sanchez]

That's a bit of a fatuous argument, as the 'best tank EVER' is probably the Abrahams 2 or the Challenger 2 - the argument should be put in context. In which case comparing the PzVI Tiger with the T-34 is comparing apples with bananas; the Tiger was not a divisional MBT, it was deployed in special 'schwerer' battalions as a support unit, a more accurate comparison would be the JS series of Soviet heavy tanks. The T-34 as the divisional MBT should be more directly compared to the PzIV, to which it is superior in almost all areas, or the PzV Panther, which it inspired.

 

Yes I agree hence the horses for courses, medium tank to medium tank, T34 or Panther?

[badgerx16]

Yes I agree hence the horses for courses, medium tank to medium tank, T34 or Panther?

 

I'd probably take the T34-85 head to head if the crews had the same level of competence.

Edited 11 December, 2013 by badgerx16
slight change of emphasis with hindsight

[Halo Stickman]

The monotonous vastness of the Soviet landscape was also a factor during the Germans advance. They would motor for days through an unchanging flat countryside without making contact with the enemy. The Soviets were very good at biding their time, conceding vast swathes of land holding no strategic value to either side. This allowed them the time to organise defences in areas that mattered; it also resulted in the Germans expending vital resources for virtually no significant gain. Almost as important as this, the vastness of the unchanging landscape with its enormous all-encompassing skyline – without an enemy in sight – had a debilitating psychological effect on many German soldiers

[View From The Top]

Panther. Awesome machine.

[Barry Sanchez]

The monotonous vastness of the Soviet landscape was also a factor during the Germans advance. They would motor for days through an unchanging flat countryside without making contact with the enemy. The Soviets were very good at biding their time, conceding vast swathes of land holding no strategic value to either side. This allowed them the time to organise defences in areas that mattered; it also resulted in the Germans expending vital resources for virtually no significant gain. Almost as important as this, the vastness of the unchanging landscape with its enormous all-encompassing skyline – without an enemy in sight – had a debilitating psychological effect on many German soldiers

 

One of the reasons the Russians pulled so far back was the vastness, exactly that, there was nothing for them to defend or hold onto but flat pasture land, what slowed the German advance was logistics and crap roads.

[Barry Sanchez]

Panther. Awesome machine.

 

I would have taken that yes, came into the war too late to have any real effect, thank Christ.

[badgerx16]

Panther. Awesome machine.

 

And we had the Sherman. LOL.

[Barry Sanchez]

And we had the Sherman. LOL.

 

Was the Sherman that bad?

[badgerx16]

Was the Sherman that bad?

 

No, unless you compare it to the T-34, the Panther, or even the PzIV Ausf G. The basic Sherman's main advantage was that it was being manufactured in the USofA in the automobile factories and could therefore be turned out in huge numbers. That, and the fact that in Italy and France we had overwhelming air superiority and the Germans were short on fuel. The later variants, such as the British Firefly with the 17 pounder gun, got to a point where they could try to go head to head with the German tanks, but it wasn't really advisable.

[Whitey Grandad]

Was the Sherman that bad?

 

The Germans called them Ronsons, 'lights first time, every time'. The sloping armour of the T34 was an important development.

 

I found this site for a comparison of tanks. Of course you can't consider the tank design in isolation of the tactics and organisation.

 

http://www.chuckhawks.com/best_tanks_WWII.htm

[Barry Sanchez]

The Germans called them Ronsons, 'lights first time, every time'

[Whitey Grandad]

The Germans called them Ronsons, 'lights first time, every time'

 

Petrol engines, innit.

[View From The Top]

The Germans called them Ronsons, 'lights first time, every time'. The sloping armour of the T34 was an important development.

 

I found this site for a comparison of tanks. Of course you can't consider the tank design in isolation of the tactics and organisation.

 

http://www.chuckhawks.com/best_tanks_WWII.htm

 

In Normandy they were referred to as Tommy Cookers.

[badgerx16]

Petrol engines, innit.

 

Plus vulnerable ammunition storage in the turret.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The Sherman, although inadequately armoured by then, could still be an pretty effective tank even as late as Normandy, if it was the British 'Firefly' version fitted with our 17 Pounder anti tank gun that is. This formidable weapon was quite capable of destroying the biggest meanest Panzers the German army could field.

 

Speaking of which, littun talked me into taking him to Bovington Tank Museum yet again last Sunday - this boy is Saints and tank mad - but both of us were somewhat disappointed to see that 'TIGER 131' (the star of the collection) was AWOL because it was away making a film with Brad Pitt don't you know.

 

Isn't it infuriating when a 56 ton lump of old iron gets to have a much more varied and exciting existence than you do!

Edited 11 December, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[badgerx16]

Speaking of which, littun talked me into taking him to Bovington Tank Museum yet again last Sunday - this boy is Saints and tank mad - but both of us were somewhat disappointed to see that 'TIGER 131' (the star of the collection) was AWOL because it was away making a film with Brad Pitt don't you know.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=78a_1384909185

[View From The Top]

The Sherman, although inadequately armoured by then, could still be an pretty effective tank even as late as Normandy, if it was the British 'Firefly' version fitted with our 17 Pounder anti tank gun that is. This formidable weapon was quite capable of destroying the biggest meanest Panzers the German army could field.

 

Speaking of which, littun talked me into taking him to Bovington Tank Museum yet again last Sunday - this boy is Saints and tank mad - but both of us were somewhat disappointed to see that 'TIGER 131' (the star of the collection) was AWOL because it was away making a film with Brad Pitt don't you know.

 

Isn't it infuriating when a 56 ton lump of old iron gets to have a much more varied and exciting existence than you do!

 

This Tiger broke down at Vimoutiers after aiding the breakout from Falaise and there it has stayed.

 

 

 

[View From The Top]

You can see why they had no fear of the Tommy Cooker.

 

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj97_pTIT1E

[Whitey Grandad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj97_pTIT1E

 

Interesting, thanks. Wasn't it Donald Sutherland in Kelly's heroes who said that the only way to knock out a Tiger was to hit them from the rear at the base of the turret?

[badgerx16]

Interesting, thanks. Wasn't it Donald Sutherland in Kelly's heroes who said that the only way to knock out a Tiger was to hit them from the rear at the base of the turret?

 

As long as you remember not to load the shells filled with paint !

[derry]

This country couldn't have gone to war in the late thirties and was pretty much as far as the air force and army concerned, run down with no political will to do anything. It was only a few far sighted individuals that conceived, lobbied and caused the ordering of advanced aircraft that were still in short supply in 1940. The same with the army. In 1940 we were still militarily weak but by the grace of radar, hurricanes and spitfires we fought off the Luftwaffe. The two years of rearmament allowed us to survive.

 

Should we have committed to defending Poland then going to war? The politicians who committed us were bluffing as our services were in no state to back that commitment. It was the same complacent short term expediency that our military is suffering today.

[pap]

This country couldn't have gone to war in the late thirties and was pretty much as far as the air force and army concerned, run down with no political will to do anything. It was only a few far sighted individuals that conceived, lobbied and caused the ordering of advanced aircraft that were still in short supply in 1940. The same with the army. In 1940 we were still militarily weak but by the grace of radar, hurricanes and spitfires we fought off the Luftwaffe. The two years of rearmament allowed us to survive.

 

Should we have committed to defending Poland then going to war? The politicians who committed us were bluffing as our services were in no state to back that commitment. It was the same complacent short term expediency that our military is suffering today.

 

Interestingly, Buchanan argues that the US is in exactly the same position now as Britain was in at the outset of the 20th century, particularly in relation to foreign policy commitments.

 

e.g. Trying to be the policeman of the world, first in instead of last in, all the while creating new enemies as we did.

[Hamilton Saint]

Interestingly, Buchanan argues that the US is in exactly the same position now as Britain was in at the outset of the 20th century, particularly in relation to foreign policy commitments.

 

e.g. Trying to be the policeman of the world, first in instead of last in, all the while creating new enemies as we did.

 

The U.S. exists as a permanent war economy - the result of what Eisenhower identified as the "military-industrial complex". What drives the U.S. now (and Britain in the past) is not an altruistic drive to "police" the world, but a desire to secure its economic self-interest. More and more, in the future, this will become a struggle for natural resources: oil, natural gas, fresh water, etc.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

This Tiger broke down at Vimoutiers after aiding the breakout from Falaise and there it has stayed.

 

 

 

 

I like this; living history. Is this the original paintwork - I assume it has been repainted