Stalin sent Churchill a card to say sorry for WWII jibe about the quality of Britain's tanks [tr]

UK Daily Mail ^ | June 27, 2019 | George Odling

[C19fan]

Their alliance was vital in stopping Hitler. But the tetchy wartime relationship between Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin was frequently stretched to its limits. In November 1941, when the Soviet leader had the cheek to criticise the quality of tanks and guns sent from Britain to help Russian forces, the Prime Minister had reached the limit of his patience. Fortunately Stalin realised he had gone too far and took advantage of the fact Churchill’s 67th birthday was imminent to send a gushing ‘card’ as a conciliatory measure.

[Conan the Librarian]

He didn’t say ‘Nyet’ to them when we sent them though.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

No, we were lucky that the Germans couldn’t build enough Panthers. They were the best tanks in the world up into the 50s. Best optics, armor, and, after Kursk, the best engine/transmission setup, and the main armament would blow holes in anything we or the Russians had until they came up with the JS 1s and 2s, and, we had the M26s.

Had the Tigers had better speed, they could have been the best. They DID have the 88s installed after all.

The Sherman’s and the T-34’s thing was numbers. The panther could kill off 10 of the other tanks to every 1 of the panthers killed. But, if you have on a couple of thousand Panthers, and, the Americans have 24000 Shermans, and, the same for the T-34, you can’t win. Numbers are the best defense.

I agree. Another consideration is air superiority. The Battle of the Bulge was, obviously, not planned by Ike but by Hitler, and Hitler found a window of bad visibility which negated the air superiority he faced. But for planning purposes, if you expect to have air superiority over the battlefield, that might affect the way you see the quality v. quality tradeoff in your tank design specs.

In fact, the US Second Armored Division was a “heavy” armored division - and yet other than Shermans it had lighter tanks as well. The tradeoff is not only numbers but speed, and probably range. Interesting fact: the Germans used a great many horses to transport their equipment. And horses don’t go very fast compared to a truck, in the short run and especially in the long run. American trucks, used by all the Allies including the USSR, put the Germans at a serious mobility disadvantage.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If that lunatic had not signed the non aggression pact with that other lunatic in the first place, this whole discussion maybe would not have taken place.

The reality, which Churchill threw in Stalin’s face when Stalin complained that Britain wasn’t actively fighting the Germans on the ground and the USSR was taking all the casualties, was that in the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe flew over Britain on Soviet gasoline.

In that sense Barbarosa was an opportunity for Britain, in that while the Soviets and Germans were at war, the USSR wasn’t selling Hitler gasoline. The real pity of WWII, geopolitically, was that FDR was too much of a socialist himself to be enthusiastic about driving a hard bargain with Stalin. What was Stalin gonna do, sue for peace with Germany after what the Germans had done to Russians? Mein Kampf told the tale of what Stalin couldn’t do.

And yet the USSR comes out of WWII strong enough, and hostile enough, to cause all the grief of the Cold War???? A real American would have insisted on a really friendly Russia. And how Stalin did that and still stayed in power was his problem.

[SunkenCiv]

...concerning Stalin's apology, etc. If that lunatic had not signed the non aggression pact with that other lunatic in the first place, this whole discussion maybe would not have taken place.

Well said, LouAvul. I can't find the quote I wanted, it was Churchill's own joke about one the British tank designs, ah well. Seems like a great pretext to use this one instead:

“Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’”

[naturalman1975]

I've always liked this quote from Churchill about tanks:

All the highest expert authorities were brought together several times and made to hammer out a strong and heavy tank, adapted primarily for the defence of this Island against invasion, but capable of other employment in various theatres. This tank, the A.22, was ordered off the drawing board, and large numbers went into production very quickly. As might be expected, it had many defects and teething troubles, and when these became apparent the tank was appropriately re-christened the "Churchill."

[SunkenCiv]

That's it! Thanks very much. I saw it in "Masters and Commanders: How Four Titans Won the War in the West, 1941-1945", but darned if I could locate the copy I read a few years back.

[oldvirginian]

“burned like a torch when hit.”

The English got loads of them before the US entered the war. The Germans immediately named them “Tommy cookers”.

[naturalman1975]

It comes from a House of Commons debate, July 2, 1942.

[AdmSmith]

Ian Johnson:

After World War I, the victors dismantled the vaunted German army, reducing it to only 100,000 men. The Treaty of Versailles further forbade Germany from producing or purchasing aircraft, armored vehicles, and submarines. These provisions highlighted the Entente’s hope that removing German access to modern technologies of war would force Germany to abandon its militarist past.

At the Treaty of Rapallo in April 1922, Germany and the Soviet Union normalized relations for the first time, the first blow against the postwar order. The following summer, the Reichswehr and Red Army held a series of secret summits during which they crafted the framework for military cooperation.

While Soviet-German military cooperation between 1922 and 1933 is often forgotten, it had a decisive impact on the origins and outbreak of World War II. Germany rebuilt its shattered military at four secret bases hidden in Russia. In exchange, the Reichswehr sent men to teach and train the young Soviet officer corps. However, the most important aspect of Soviet-German cooperation was its technological component. Together, the two states built a network of laboratories, workshops, and testing grounds in which they developed what became the major weapons systems of World War II. Without the technical results of this cooperation, Hitler would have been unable to launch his wars of conquest.

https://warontherocks.com/2016/06/sowing-the-wind-the-first-soviet-german-military-pact-and-the-origins-of-world-war-ii/

Ian has as well written: The Secret School of War: The Soviet-German Tank Academy at Kama
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1338500708&disposition=inline

In the Soviet view WWII started on 22 June 1941 as they were working with Nazi Germany to annex land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Author Benn Steil’s “The Marshall Plan” tells the story of what the USSR wanted done with Germany in the years following WW II.
The entire country was to be made into a farm community, growing potatoes, etc for Mother Russia.
All arms making industry would be carted off to the Soviet Union. The Rooskies knew well how the Germans could turn out amazing machinery.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks AdmSmith, that was a fascinating post. Of course, Hitler wasn't a strategic thinker, or a tactical thinker, he was a politician. Historically, in his lifetime, Germany had wasted an enormous effort in battle in the Russian Empire; Napoleon had done the same over a century before that; and Herodotus left us with an account of how the Persian Empire tried the same thing in some of the same geography and couldn't even catch their (pre-Russian) adversaries before they had to flee the winter.

[AdmSmith]

And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. ;-)

[SunkenCiv]

And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. ;-)

What if you work for the Clintons, or Obama?

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks again. Hard to figure why in July of 1945 (VE day having been a mere 2 months earlier, although the Battle of Okinawa had just finished) the UK dumped Churchill like a load of rotting fish in favor of Labour under Clement Attlee.

[AdmSmith]

or RR.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

The German tanks were designed to knock out other tanks. The Shermans were designed to kill infantry, and they did it very effectively.

[colorado tanker]

Stalin could be excused for acting under extreme pressure and stress. Hitler invaded in the Summer of 1941. Despite the fact that he was a firm anti-communist, Churchill immediately forged an alliance with Stalin and began shipping what material Britain could spare and a lot they could not spare. This was before Pearl Harbor and both the UK and Russia were trying just to hang on against Hitler.

By December 1941, Moscow was under seige and the survival of the Soviet Union was literally in the balance. That was about to change when the Germans were stopped before Moscow and America entered the war, opening a huge pipeline of supply to Russia. But, neither of them knew that was in the future when this little incident occurred.

[colorado tanker]

The treaty made a lot of sense from lunatic Stalin's perspective. All the French and British could offer was immediate war with Germany over their Polish guarantee. Both the Germans and Russians knew they were going to fight each other as both considered dominance over Poland to be in their essential interests. But the Red Army was in no condition to take on the Germans in 1939. Stalin's purges had devastated the officer corps and a new senior officer corps had to be trained. The Army was expanding rapidly but was still woefully short on equipment.

So, Stalin needed time to build his army. Hitler needed time to settle matters with Western Europe. The Pact was bare knuckle realpolitik between two completely amoral dictators.

At the end of the day, Stalin's army was not finished when the Germans attacked, but had built up enough to stop them in front of Moscow and Leningrad - barely.

[Chainmail]

"The German tanks were designed to knock out other tanks. The Shermans were designed to kill infantry, and they did it very effectively."

Do you actually know how tanks work? All tanks are effective against infantry - even the puny Japanese tanks were effective against infantry. But tanks are an anti-infantry weapon only in the absence of other tanks.

The difference was that the German tanks - the Panther and the Tiger - were way too effective against the Sherman and we lost far too many good men because we refused to move more quickly to develop a competitive design. The cold-blooded decision our planners made was that it took more shipping to move heavier tanks and we had the production lines going for the Sherman and we had plenty of men to spare. So they died in a less capable but more numerous tank.

Even the improved 76mm main gun was inadequate against the Panther and the Tiger. It took the British Firefly version with its monster 17-pounder gun to finally defeat the heavier German tanks.

Try not BS somebody who knows his history.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

Why do I ever comment on posts by pissy little self-appointed experts? Well, I don’t see the point of arguing with someone who is apparently a legend in his own mind.

What an asinine question: “Do I know how a tank works?” You know absolutely NOTHING about me, so go stuff yourself with your personal comments. I won’t dignify your response with a recitation of my credentials. And I don’t disagree with your major points. The Allied high command decided that the key to victory was to kill German infantry, not tanks. That doesn’t conflict with anything you’ve said.

Why don’t you try getting the chip off your shoulder and getting outside your own echo chamber? You might actually learn something you didn’t know before. Your attitude REALLY stinks, stranger. If you act like a horse’s ass with people who are trying to support what you say, then you must not have many friends or allies. And I have a lot better things to do than correspond with you.

So kiss off.