Grand unified books thread

[Admiral Yi]

Were the Germans really that good at tank recovery, I was pretty sure they weren't compared to the Americans.

Never read anything about American tank recovery.  Have read that the Krauts were much better than the Limeys in North Africa.

I would sort of think that Americans wouldn't care all that much.  Just break the seal on a new one.

[11B4V]

I understand the importance of tank recovery (one of Germany's great advantages in WWII if I'm not mistaken) but then don't overstate the losses.  Don't write ZOMG all the tanks were wiped out when the truth is most lost a track or something similar.

Were the Germans really that good at tank recovery, I was pretty sure they weren't compared to the Americans.

Yes, but it all depends. 

Are you attacking and gaining ground......or defending and retaining ground......easier to recover

Are you withdrawing and losing ground....or attacking and withdraw from the field.......much harder.


A good example is the results of a Battle on 12 July 1943. Prokhorovka

The LSSAH permanently lost a grand total of 7 AFVs.  A further 25 were damaged and sent to repair shops, only 1 of which was a Tiger (note that no Tigers were destroyed).

Why did Leibstandarte only lose 7 AFV's? They retained possession of the battlefield.

The Soviets, on the other hand, permanently lost at least 134 AFVs.  A further 125 were temporarily lost due to damage.

Why? the Russian withdrew from the field.

[11B4V]

And yes, I worked Prokhorovka into this discussion.   

[Ed Anger]

Kursk is a boring battle.

[11B4V]

Kursk is a boring battle.

Not in the slightest. 

[Razgovory]

Were the Germans really that good at tank recovery, I was pretty sure they weren't compared to the Americans.

Never read anything about American tank recovery.  Have read that the Krauts were much better than the Limeys in North Africa.

I would sort of think that Americans wouldn't care all that much.  Just break the seal on a new one.

Americans were really good at tank recovery.  If a tank got knocked out, they write it off as a loss and ask for a replacement.  At the same time they'd fix up the old one.  The result was that units would often have more tanks in the field then they would on paper.  Gave them a big edge in firepower.  Disadvantage was that they didn't have enough trained crews.  It's would also play hell on logistics.

From what I've read the Soviets sucked at vehicle recovery.  They just lacked the skilled personnel to do it.  They had a hard time keeping trucks from breaking down and would frequently abandon trucks that mechanics in other countries could get back running in a few hours.

11B4v is right that retaining the field was probably the most important factor in vehicle recovery, but skilled mechanics may be a second.  You get skilled mechanics when your country has a well educated population with lots of cars.  The Soviet Union did not have that.

[CountDeMoney]

Were the Germans really that good at tank recovery, I was pretty sure they weren't compared to the Americans.

Never read anything about American tank recovery.

I would sort of think that Americans wouldn't care all that much.  Just break the seal on a new one.

Whoa.  Just a bit outside, Yi. 

Not just the best book on American armored recovery, but perhaps one of the best written memoirs on the war overall:

Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II

Man, the shit that guy went through in tank recovery, every day.

Lieutenant Cooper served with the 3rd Armored Division's Maintenance Battalion and saw action from Normandy to Germany in 1944-1945. One of the army's two heavy armored divisions, the 3rd lost 648 M4 Shermans and had another 700 tanks damaged, repaired and put back in service by the time the shooting ended in May 1945. Cooper, as one of the division's three ordnance liaison officers, was in the midst of the division's tank recovery operations. He writes about the tenacity of the maintenance mechanics and their ability to improvise and devise their own policies. Cooper is unsparing in his criticism of George S. Patton and other generals whose belief in mobility over heavy armor kept the Sherman medium tank as the standard. American tank crews quickly learned that these "death traps" were no match for heavier German tanks such as the Panther and King Tiger. Cooper describes the difficult maneuvering in the hedgerow country, the confusion of the Battle of the Bulge, the liberation of Nordhausen concentration camp and the destruction of an entire column of tanks and other vehicles. Cooper demonstrates convincingly that it was the unheralded work of the maintenance section that allowed the 3rd Armored Division to maintain its combat effectiveness. This detailed story will become a classic of WWII history and required reading for anyone interested in armored warfare.

Paperback, and a fast read.  You will thoroughly enjoy it.

My grand-uncle Bill was a gunny sergeant in a repair unit in the 3rd Tank Battalion 3rd Marines in the Pacific;  27 straight months doing tank recovery and repair on Guam, Guadalcanal, Bougainville and finally Iwo Jima.  They took their tanks seriously.

[Razgovory]

That is one I've been meaning to get for a long time.  Never had the time though.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

just about finished Kem Nunn's (not so well known as Tapping the Source, or Dogs of winter) second novel: Unassigned Territory. Quality stuff. Very John From Cincinnati, minus the surfing and with weird area 51 stuff instead of/mixed with the religion.

[Ideologue]

I was in a used bookshop the other day and there was this giant, magisterial-looking book on the Battle of the Atlantic.  I was about to buy it when I realized it'd been signed so it was being sold for $100.  FUCK YOU PROF NO ONE CARES.

I got a book about Mongols in Russian instead.  It's still in my car because I'm lazy busy.

[11B4V]

.  It's still in my car because I'm lazy busy.

You do that too, huh.

[Malthus]

I'm re-reading Adan's book. Forgot what a good snap shot of how much a clusterfuck the IDF was in the first few days. His book is also scattered with bits on IDF tank recovery. Key point being the Egyptians werent aggressively exploiting and expanding their bridgeheads. That allowed the IDF to due that.

My understanding is that the Egyptians were reluctant to move lest that screw up the ability of their anti-aircraft missile defense to cover them. This allowed the initative to pass decisively to the IDF.

Quite right. Doesnt mean it was the correct action. Hence "shit the bed".

Fair enough, but the Egyptian ability to exploit their initial successes was pretty limited - in an mobile, all-arms battle the Israelis had the advantages. Still, waiting passively for them to stick the knife in was clearly not a good idea ...

[Syt]

Finished "Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt". It was pretty illuminating for the 3000 years (from First Dynasty to Cleopatra), and the decline in the last millenium BC was rather interesting to read.

Currently reading "The Inheritance of Rome - Europe 400-1000" from Penguin's History of Europe series. I like the author's attempt to try to look at the events and developments from the perspective of people at the time (did their decision make sense at the time), and trying to limit the hindsight evaluation.

Another book that made it onto my "I have to read this" list:

"Vanished Kingdoms: The History of Half-Forgotten Europe"

'The past is a foreign country' has become a truism, yet we often forget that the past is different from the present in many unfamiliar ways, and historical memory is extraordinarily imperfect. We habitually think of the European past as the history of countries which exist today - France, Germany, Britain, Russia and so on - but often this actually obstructs our view of the past, and blunts our sensitivity to the ever-changing political landscape. Europe's history is littered with kingdoms, duchies, empires and republics which have now disappeared but which were once fixtures on the map of their age - 'the Empire of Aragon' which once dominated the western Mediterranean; the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, for a time the largest country in Europe; the successive kingdoms (and one duchy) of Burgundy, much of whose history is now half-remembered - or half-forgotten - at best. This book shows the reader how to peer through the cracks of mainstream history writing and listen to the echoes of lost realms across the centuries. How many British people know that Glasgow was founded by the Welsh in a period when neither England nor Scotland existed? How many of us will remember the former Soviet Union in a few generations' time? Will our own United Kingdom become a distant memory too? As in his earlier celebrated books Europe: a history and The Isles, Norman Davies aims to subvert our established view of what seems familiar, and urges us to look and think again. This stimulating surprising book, full of unexpected stories, observations and connections, gives us a fresh and original perspective on the history of Europe.

[garbon]

I saw Vanished Kingdoms and it seemed like a weird kludge.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Reading, "A World Lit Only by Fire" about the Medieval world and the Renaissance.  It is good.

Just finished The Mistborn.