April 14-15, 1941 The Battle off Sfax

For me, it would depend on if I was the pilot, or the air marshall…

Pilot - BF109. The later spits outperformed the later bf’s, but 1940, in a straight dogfight, the 109.

BUT…
If I was looking at it and commanding at the high level, the hurricane. Easy to fix, easy to produce, fast turn around for reload/refuel, easier to train on, fighting over your own territory with a full tank. Yep - the hurricane.

@all-encompassing-goose

Thank you for responding!

The Monster was not a tank-it was a planned self propelled gun, with the main gun being the Schver Gustav, the largest artillery piece ever, requiring 2000 people to use. It was only ever used as a railway gun. The Monster would have allowed it to move anywhere. This is why I did not put “tank” in the title.

Your post was awesome! Keep up the good work!

https://www.facebook.com/USPacificFleet/videos/10159185622247970

Germany had essentially two options here. 1) Capture the city quickly, before the defenses could be built up. 2) Capture it via siege.

I don’t think that creating an urban combat situation, in which Germany attempted to capture the city street by street, would have been viable. In typical combat situations German soldiers had a 3:1 or 4:1 advantage in combat effectiveness over their Soviet counterparts. But in urban, street-to-street fighting the ratio was about 1:1. Germany could not afford anything even remotely approaching that 1:1 ratio, which is why something other than street-to-street fighting was necessary.

Von Manstein wrote that during the Barbarossa operation of '41 there had been a perfectly good opportunity to take Leningrad. But that this was wasted, allowing the Soviets to fortify it.

The other option would have been to do a better job of putting it under siege. This would have entailed tightening the cordon around the city, preventing just about anything from making it through. I think there was a case when Germany attempted exactly that. However, at the same time the Soviets were attempting to break the siege, so each side’s offensive encountered the other’s. From a tactical view there may have been more Germany could have done. But I think the real problem was strategic: the Soviet Union had too much military strength. A discussion on how to address that problem is probably outside the scope of this thread.

@aequitas-et-veritas

Count me in with my Sturmtiger! That will help destroying any positions like our own Seelow Heights. I’m sure our accompanying infantry (all in half tracks) will like me in urban warfare. An associate of mine has chosen a Tiger 2. So much power and strength! We can hardly lose with king.

As for the original question, I would choose a German tank that was sent to Norway after the invasion, and stayed there for the whole war. I would destroy it to make it look like the resistance destroyed it, and then I would hide and make a new life in the US or UK.

Let’s talk some World War One.

They still make unit books for combat tours, the Units themselves do it, usualy an S2 function, however nowadays they are usualy much less dramatic…  I have two…

It didn’t matter.  The war in the Eastern front was all but over for Germany after the winter of 41’.  Very few winter uniforms were issued to German soldiers because the High Command believed they would be drinking vodka in the Kremlin by the end of the year.  One story recalls West of Moscow in mid-December that the frozen legs of 73 dead Russian soldiers were sawed off below the knee and put in ovens, to warm the boot off the foot so they could be taken off and given to 73 German soldiers.  The German men and equipment were not ready for the shock of the winter.

You have to remember that this was an all or nothing more for Hitler, (Directive no. 21) and If he could not capture Moscow and only Moscow before 42’ the war was over.  Subsequently, Hitler ended up being his own demise after continuing to contradict himself over his goals (Should I stay and siege Leningrad, should I capture Kiev, a should I move the South army north and pincer Moscow?) Now I understand the idea of capturing the oil fields in the Caucasus, but the heart, communications, and command of Russia ran from Moscow.  Why cut off a hand, when you can cut off the head?  Basically if you capture Moscow you could walk down to the oil fields with little resistance.  Also, by the end of 41’ the Allies had fully committed themselves to helping Russia.  America and the UK thought Russia was doomed, but after seeing the resistance the Russians put up, it would soon be a 3 v 1 battle.

I suppose if this Campaign has taken place in Midwest America, where there was little chance of a Russian winter then I have no doubt believing that Germany would have had time to capture Moscow.