richard g

Yes, it was known by some what was required, after all Blitzkreig had it's roots back in the final months of WW2, and if we look what at what weapons the French had in the pipeline then militarily the Germans could have been stopped. Nothing fancy, a defence in depth with minefields and infantry supported by AT guns and an organised artillery with mobile forces including tanks held in reserve to carry out counter attacks. All that was required was a plan and the determination at all levels to see it through.

Excellent post, lots of home truths there.

How about this objective definition? Oh look, I've just this moment found something that satisfies all those criteria, talk about a coincidence

Mk IX from WW1 has to be the first unless it's disqualified as being a converted tank.

Easy compared with what though, what benchmark are you using as a reference point? Keep in mind also that the Germans certainly improved their tank production rate during the war, don't know what the British did.

At the bottom of page 5 is a comment to the effect that Soviet tanks required significantly less time, tooling and other resources to build compared with US tanks. Worth reading and noting, I wonder where that myth that the Sherman was relatively easy to manufacture came from? Perhaps in comparison with early German tanks.

Fair one, but totally dependent on 20/20 hindsight. How would these new and improved technologies & expertise be developed without testing them in battle? And how do you know it would have been possible by 1918? Fact is that the Allies did precisely what you have suggested without the luxury of sitting on their hands for 3+ years; it took the trial and error of 1915, 1916 & 1917 to develop what came in 1918, and the latter could not have come about without what came before. BillB It is only hindsight to a degree though, later in the war the British and French realised that their situation demanded that they had to trade casualties for actual progress not promises or wishful thinking. In other words they had to use their dwindling human resources carefully and wisely. Both the British and French commands took far too long to recognise this rule of warfare though, once they did, once the scales fell from their eyes, they became far more efficient and effective commanders. The technology and how to use it had to develop to a certain degree through trial and error but surely efficient and effective use of human resources should have been an overriding requirement from the outset, particularly when democratic countries were involved. Germany was in a different situation but that's a topic in itself

At the end of 1914 the available technology and expertise favoured defence over attack, what needs to happen is simply more time to elapse for the emergence of new and improved technology and expertise which would see attack back on the menu. In the meantime, if you have to attack then do the bite and hold thing, in other words don't try to win the war in one go (NB Haig)but wait until your infantry can be effectively supported which will happen in 1918.

Or perhaps the Aussies had Big Mac to worry about

Ah, yes, back to the topic... My understanding has always been that the invasion of Australia never went beyond the most preliminary staff discussions: the idea was mooted a couple of times, but shot down immediately as impractical; there is a Wikipedia Article on the topic which seems to more-or-less confirm the conensus of opinion in this thread. (This is a topic of some controversy in Australia nowadays, with some people fervently maintaining that the Japs were coming, but their invasion was defeated on the Kokoda trail and Milne Bay, after perfidious Albion had abandoned poor old Oz to their fate... As far as I'm aware, the actual historical record fails to conform to this narrative.) PNG was an Australian responsibility (protectorate? can't recall) so defeating the Japanese there by preventing them seizing Port Moresby was an end in itself as well as being important in other ways. There is always someone floating some sort of idea around but there is no serious modern proposition around that the Japanese were seriously considering invading Oz. As far as being abandoned the problem was more the British habit of not properly supporting overseas Australian forces they originally asked for with appropriate equipment and infrastructure when they arrived eg Singapore. We were OK close to home where we could significantly support ourselves.

what was needed was the Honey Badger not the Stuart or other worn out tanks. lol, probably would have done OK in the desert too, better than the German turretless efforts there at the time for sure. Hook, line AND sinker Given what else was around at the time I can't see how the HB concept would not have made a valuable multi role contribution in the desert - assault gun, artillery, tank destroyer, infantry support. All roles except perhaps artillery were under serviced as any reasonable examination shows, particularly in regard to the infantry.

Infantry casualty figures may indicate otherwise.

Even in Europe it was mixed, IIRC Guards redirected to Ardennes used the fact that their Shermans were not yet shipped away, took them and left the shiny new Comets behind. Czechoslovakian tankers also were not too happy when they had to let go of their Fireflies and get Challengers, though that one is probably pretty obvious Frankly, in Goodwood conditions the Brits would likely suffer similar losses if they had Tiger IIs - or Centurions. ...................................................... But surely it can be one thing for tankers to be happy with their tanks and quite another as to if those tanks are fulfilling the role required or needed of them. For example the British ended up using Crocodiles to provide the close support needed to reduce infantry casualties in attack. It took a long time for the Western Allies to realise that using steel was smarter than using flesh and I'm not sure that all involved wanted to realise that grisly fact at all. Much more 'fun' off doing your own thing rather than being tied to infantry. And probably safer too.

what was needed was the Honey Badger not the Stuart or other worn out tanks. lol, probably would have done OK in the desert too, better than the German turretless efforts there at the time for sure.

And let's face it, among the civilian population there was a lot of concern that the Japanese would land and do all sorts of unspeakable things. Which concern was used to get them to work harder and generally put everything into the war effort.

For any evaluation of the Stuart it should be kept in mind the theatre it was operating in and the fact that they were initially new and not worn out like a lot of the British tanks were at the time. With a way lot less room to manouver in Europe for a start the comment would have been a lot different.

My book on this stuff is packed away but Australia had anticipated, planned and provided for forces necessary to defend against a Japanese attack. Somehow this preparation has been overlooked by recent writings, perhaps to boost the importance of that drop in Macarthur and to sell more books. Realistically there was no chance that Japan could make a meaningful invasion, they realised it too.

Any gun can overheat and fail, only accurate tests comparing various similar weapons will provide definitive information as to which fail first. Of course the other point is to used aimed fire calmly and deliberately and not shoot off lots of rounds simply because you can or because that's what they do in the movies.

So in the artificial world where tanks did not fight tanks, what Tiger KO and 88mm matching gun did the designated US tank destroyer have? Assuming there was such a complete universal animal and not some inferior pretender that satisfied the bean counters and the politicians.

So it was a bridge too far.

Forget Russia, China et al, the US is far too fixated on the other big boys on the block. The real danger likely to emerge once the gunsmoke settles is the push for another Islamic state by those dedicated to that aim. US needs to smarten up, stop trying to second guess which group will gain final control and be most most likely to favour what the US would have us think is best for the rest of us in the West. And, for crying out loud, ignore Israel which has to be the most self obsessed country around and who obviously have their own particular 'Israel exclusive' agenda. US needs to be a lot more objective with Russia and China, it's not mutually exclusive that the East's interests can never coincide with that of the West's. If they can't manage that simple proposition then best go back to the 1930's as far as foreign policy goes and ignore what is going on elsewhere.

Someone argued way back in this thread somewhere that a 25pdr armed fixed top was never going to happen early on because of a British shortage of 25pdr guns, particularly for such a purpose. Maybe but such a shortage was not inevitable and could have been averted if the British had looked to the Empire early on for cooperation in manufacturing arms and munitions, like I believe they did in WW1 with Canada. By WW2 Australia had developed a capability to manufacture the full range of British land weapons including the 25pdr. For it's own forseeable threat purposes it relied on the 18pdrs it already had left over from WW1 so the 25pdr was not a priority for it's own defence at that time. So there was a lead time involved with the 25pdr which may not have existed if the British had cooperated with other capable members of the Empire in arms and munitions procurement. Britain did eventually place an order with Australia for 25pdrs but even then only after it was informed that there was an excess capacity available for basically whatever they wanted. That excess capacity remained but varied throughout the war despite exports to other Empire members.

When I first came back here there was no problem uploading suitably compressed pics, since then a limit of 1.44kb has been imposed which effectively means that official pics/papers can not be uploaded to support my assertions. No such limits imposed on the knockers apparently. Topics are just a hobby to me, but apparently very serious to others. Pathetic.

One of the defined roles of the carrier was recce so pffft to you. As for a pop gun cannon, 20mm would take care of you and your mates no problem. Have official British instructions on this but the 1.44KB upload limit imposed on me means it can't be posted. Talk about censorship, pathetic.

Ran across some YouTube info on a WW2 German paratrooper assault rifle which the M60 was apparently based on. Be interesting to know the thinking behind that, after all there were plenty of proven MG designs around from which to pick the best features from.