Was the Sherman Under-rated?

All the sites I find for the book Europa w przededniu wojny only ship in Poland. If you ship to the US, please let me know:

https://lubimyczytac.pl/ksiazka/4984764/europa-w-przededniu-wojny

@Lancasterlaw1175

I think your hypothesis is broadly correct.

But I think on a technical and logistical level (not sure about political), it seems to me that it was perfectly possible for the French to mobilize and brings the guns to the front much earlier, before September. This would’ve allowed them to begin attacking almost immediately and shatter the German lines. In retrospect, the French should be at fault for not mobilizing (and preventing the Poles from doing so).

The vast majority of Army Group C divisions were undersized (or even just command headquarters), while only about half of the French ones were deficient in some way (Nafziger’s book also lists the condition of French divisions in September-October 193o).

I got the book online here:

https://www.amazon.com/French-Order-Battle-World-1939-1945/dp/1585450189

@SuperbattleshipYamato I will have it read it then :)

@General:

29 July 1942 the SS Seatrain Texas set sail from New York with a cargo of 250-300 Sherman tanks. Arrived Cape Town 18 days later and arrived Port Taufiq southern end of Suez Canal 2 Sept. 1942                          Â

Thank you.

@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.

@balungaloaf:

without US aid assistance via lend lease, without the allied strategic bombing campaign tying up much of the luftwaffe and anti air defenses, and without the threat of invasion keeping millions of german soldiers in europe, the soviets would have been smashed before they could ever set up a counter attack.  if moscow was taken, the people would give up on their communist overlords and capitulate.

You alluded to the pressure the U.S. and Britain put on Germany; and I fully agree that pressure was immense. Even in 1940–before the U.S. was technically at war–its industrial production created profound implications for the balance of power in Europe. With massive numbers of American aircraft being produced and sent to Britain, Germany had to either a) find a way to keep pace, industrially, with the U.S. and Britain combined, or b) watch its cities and people be destroyed by waves of British and American bombers. The invasion of the Soviet Union was largely precipitated by the desire to allow Germany to attain the raw materials and industrial capacity to achieve outcome A.

However, keeping pace with the production capacity of the U.S. and Britain also required Germany to invest heavily in its own production facilities. That investment diverted effort from what would have been immediately useful production against the Soviet Union. During 1942, the Soviets out-produced the Germans 3:1 or even 4:1 in all major land categories of production, and even out-produced the Germans 2:1 in planes.

Prior to launching Operation Barbarossa, the German military staff had incorrectly believed that the Soviet Army consisted of 200 divisions. Divisions which had fought very poorly in the Soviets’ 1940 invasion of Finland. In the spring of 1941, the German Army consisted of 150 divisions; 100 of which were used for the invasion of the Soviet Union. But in the months after the invasion, the Soviets were quickly able to expand the size of their army to about 600 divisions. Given the imbalance of sheer numbers, it is very unlikely Germany could have prevailed in a war against the Soviet Union even despite its military’s advantage on a man-for-man basis.

@strategic:

I may would have been a proponent of continuing the war to Moscow to obliterate Stalin after 1945, so communism would be nothing but a fad and dead.

If I remember correctly, the USSR had something like 300 divisions in Eastern Europe at the time of the Potsdam Conference – a rather large figure compared to what the Anglo-Americans had in Western Europe.  I doubt the Americans and the British could have beaten those kinds of numbers.  I also don’t imagine that a radical move like expending one of America’s rare and priceless A-bombs on Moscow would have done anything other than get those 300 veteran Soviet divisions (who had just helped whip the Wehrmacht) really, really angry at them.  The US and the UK being democracies, they would have also found it a trifle hard to convince their war-weary voters and servicemen to start a whole new war against the country which had just helped them defeat Nazi Germany, and which was getting ready to help them finish off militarist Japan.

At any rate, if you exclude Cuba and China and North Korea, Communism today is in fact pretty much a dying fad…espcially when you consider the amount of free-market capitalism with which China has been flirting for the past decade or so.