What are you reading

I’ve been researching France in World War 2 recently, and I stumbled upon this article on JSTOR:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/286380?casa_token=HrDISj647xoAAAAA%3A4r0lrbG6dLMbOFV1mHpvWIxLmi5kgJmFmZ_TYY5Ct12HpfBVa87FyqGvcP00vs2G1JuM3ol2qcQ

Unfortunately, my regular free JSTOR account cannot access this.

Please let me know if you have access to this article in any way. Thank you!

@SuperbattleshipYamato Yeah I get you 100%. Alternate History is a niche interest in the first place so finding other people willing to go down the rabbit hole is always tough.

If I was going into Tank on Tank combat I’m taking the M4 Sherman. Better sights, better visibility, an actual turret basket, better ergonomics, better mechanical reliability, and with the 76mm variant a very capable anti armor gun. As well as far more reliable armor due to high production quality standards. The M4 armor is reliable face hardened. The T34 could be correctly hardened, too hard so that it’s brittle or too soft.

If I was trying to drive a tank to get into a fight, the M4 is the obvious choice due to the much better reliability.

If I had to pick a tank to work on. M4 again due to its easy to repair design.

If I wanted to drive a comfortable tank well that’s no contest it’s the M4. Also it’s an easier to drive tank due to the vastly superior production quality.

So the M4 is a vastly superior weapons platform the only reason they seem comparable is on paper armor thickness and gun. Off of paper they aren’t close. Like pretty much all Russian military equipment they seem intimidating but ultimately are trash. Like how the T 72 got smashed by the M2 bradely and infantry fighting vehicle not even a tank.

Have you ever heard of the book called If The Allies Had Fallen? It examines many what ifs of World War 2, with all of them very grounded in reality. A lot of the chapters are written very differently, from basically scholarly analysis to what the history books would have said had the timeline changed in the way described. If you had read the book, what do you think? Thank you!

@wittmann:

Waterloo (200 year anniversary in June), by Bernard Cornwell.  Is an easy read and right up my alley.

Apologies Worsham: I have just noticed you said WW2 material.
I still have: Hitler’s Panzer Armies on the Eastern Front (by the bed), but have not opened it for 10 days. It is not the sort of book you can read cover to cover.

Any books are fine. I like to get pointed to good reads.

@crusaderiv if they could take them so easily, then why couldn’t the spanish take it back? a mid atlantic post for the kreigmarine would’ve been invaluable. also, the uboats didn’t need to operate there if Sea Lion had happened, which would have if spain had joined, due to the increased pressure on England. why would they be there? there’s no basis for this argument.

@Battlingmaxo:

Try Stalingrad, by Anthony Beevor….one of the best works on the subject (Penguin Books)

excellent book, i read it in a few stops at barns and noble.  i loved doing that, just read books over time there.