If I may join in the debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcolvin
Kutscha,
a) The pictures you published are of the Mariensiel arsenal that was destroyed on February 11, 1943, and thought to be one of the largest wartime explosions in NW Europe caused by BC. It was covered in the audit I posted. The arsenal was over 3 kms from the aiming point in the Bauhafen, which says it all about BC's accuracy. The result of the explosion was of little strategic consequence at that stage of the war.
|
There can be little doubt that this was a lucky hit, however there is equally no doubt that by looking at the two photos the damage to the docks were extensive. Harsly a building left standing and more importantly no vessels in the docks, they had been removed. The raid achieved what it set out to do.
Quote:
|
b) The losses in the Anglo-Canadian infantry divisions in NW Europe between June 1944 and April 1945 were proportionately greater than in BC, and I would not be surprised to learn they were higher than in the Russian infantry - if you have figures please publish them as I would like to compare them. The problem with the Anglo-Canadian infantry was crap infantry weapons, crap tanks, crap tactical aircraft support, crap artillery, and crap leadership compared with Russian.
|
I would expect the loss ratio of any front line Infantry Unit of any army to be at a similar level to BC. I would however not expect it to rival the Russian Units as their tactics were hard on the troops and they put less resources to the removal and treatment of the wounded.
As for the equipment, lets take them one at a time.
Crap Infantry Weapons
The Lee Enfield was and is one of the all time greats and cannot be described as Crap.
Bren Gun, again a first class weapon as good an LMG as any produced anywhere.
Sten Gun totally agree, absolute rubbish
Crap Tanks
Sherman 75 was roughly as good as the T34/76 and the Sherman 76 a good match against the T34/85. You can argue which was the best but there was little in it.
Sherman Firefly was vulnerable but it did at least have the firepower so that it could destroy anything that could destroy it which evens things up.
The UK/Canadians did lack a heavy tank of that there is no doubt but they had the edge in specialised tanks. But then again the Russians lacked equipment such as the M10/M36/Achilles so take your pick as to which approach you want.
Crap Artillery.
Sorry but on this you are very wrong. The 25pd and the 4.5in guns which formed that backbone of the Anglo Canadians were second to none. Plus they were supported by a far more sophisticated and flexible fire control structure.
6pd and 17pd AT guns were at least as good as anything else on the battlefield.
Crap Tactical Support
Again you are very wrong. There was a difference in approach, the Russian aircraft being designed to take heavy damage but were easier to hit being slower and larger, whereas the Typhoon was less robust but harder to hit. The advantage the Anglo Canadians had was that at a push every allied fighter could be a very effective GA machine. In the 2TA even Spitfires were being armed with 1,500lb of bombs. Russian fighters were unable to carry the payload.
Crap Leadership.
Both sides had a selection of good and bad.
What Russia totally lacked was a strategic air arm. The RAF/USAAF bombers would have had a field day attacking targets such as transport choke points and the losses would have been significantly smaller that those caused by the German defences. The Daylight would have belonged to the USAAF high level bombers as Russia lacked a decent high altitude fighter able to take on the B17/B24 and their escort. The night would belong to the RAF as Russian lacked radar in any was apart from warning. i.e. an almost total lack of radar fire control or radar in nightfighters.