PDA

View Full Version : ‘Battle of Khalkhyn Gol’ - Russo-Japanese conflict Questions please



Pioneer
30 May 09,, 05:15
‘Battle of Khalkhyn Gol’ experience

Hello gents

I was reading about the almost forgotten - but still important Battle of Khalkhyn Gol.
This was a decisive engagement of the undeclared Soviet-Japanese Border War, or Japanese-Soviet War, fought between the Soviet Union and Japan in 1939.

‘I’ see it as being important for a few reason-
-It was the first time that the then unknown Soviet commander: Lt. Gen. Georgy Zhukov had been exemplified as an outstanding and very competent military commander in large and modern mechanized warfare.

-It was the first modern military campaign in which the Japanese military had been defeated.

-It was the first major campaign in which the Japanese had experienced and surcumb to modern combined arms warfare.

-It was the first military engagement in which the new advanced and very capable Russian T34 medium tank had been deployed and used in battle.

-The defeat of the Japanese at Khalkhyn Gol convinced and influenced the Imperial General Staff in Tokyo that the policy of the North Strike Group, favoured by the army, which wanted to seize Siberia as far as Lake Baikal for its resources, was untenable. Instead the South Strike Group, favored by the navy, would be persuade, leading directly to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

-The Japanese failure to appreciate or make no major changes to their tactical doctrines.
They failed to appreciate the importance and power of armour in modern warfare (wether in their own tank or anti-tank development.), which would plague them again and again when they would face the building might of Americans and British Commonwealth which both appreciated and utilised armour as part of their spear force to defeat of the Japanese Empire.

My question to the forum is this-

Did the Japanese manage to destroy or capture any of the advanced T34 tanks?

Did the Japanese liaise in any way or form with their so-called German allie regarding their experience against the infamous new Russian T34 tank, or was the German invasion of Russia the first time that they new anything of this outstanding design?

Did the Japanese capture and study any of the outstanding Russian anti-tank guns and powerful howitzers during this battle?


The reason that I ask these questions is simply due to the fact that I find it very difficult to comprehend that the Japanese failed to capitilise on this devastating defeat.:confused:
I completely understand and comprehend Japan’s issue with its concerns with its supply and shortage of raw materials, for use in its weapons, but to me, this would have been more reason to have fielded fewer – but far more capable and powerful tanks, anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns and field howitzers.

Regards
Pioneer

Officer of Engineers
30 May 09,, 05:21
The Soviet Army Strategic Offensive in Manchuria has all the answers. Lucky for you, there's a preview in google books

The Soviet strategic offensive in ... - Google Book Search (http://books.google.ca/books?id=G8cJUkAHFm0C&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=The+Soviet+Army+Offensive:+Manchuria&source=bl&ots=Y7AZ50YMvt&sig=WPUAb5qHKMlNKOH6Eq9V1jh45Do&hl=en&ei=97MgSubnMoz2MIPWmLgJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA10,M1)

ANZAC
30 May 09,, 08:23
‘Battle of Khalkhyn Gol’ experience

Hello gents

I was reading about the almost forgotten - but still important Battle of Khalkhyn Gol.
This was a decisive engagement of the undeclared Soviet-Japanese Border War, or Japanese-Soviet War, fought between the Soviet Union and Japan in 1939.

‘I’ see it as being important for a few reason-
-It was the first time that the then unknown Soviet commander: Lt. Gen. Georgy Zhukov had been exemplified as an outstanding and very competent military commander in large and modern mechanized warfare.

-It was the first modern military campaign in which the Japanese military had been defeated.

-It was the first major campaign in which the Japanese had experienced and surcumb to modern combined arms warfare.

-It was the first military engagement in which the new advanced and very capable Russian T34 medium tank had been deployed and used in battle.

-The defeat of the Japanese at Khalkhyn Gol convinced and influenced the Imperial General Staff in Tokyo that the policy of the North Strike Group, favoured by the army, which wanted to seize Siberia as far as Lake Baikal for its resources, was untenable. Instead the South Strike Group, favored by the navy, would be persuade, leading directly to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

-The Japanese failure to appreciate or make no major changes to their tactical doctrines.
They failed to appreciate the importance and power of armour in modern warfare (wether in their own tank or anti-tank development.), which would plague them again and again when they would face the building might of Americans and British Commonwealth which both appreciated and utilised armour as part of their spear force to defeat of the Japanese Empire.

My question to the forum is this-

Did the Japanese manage to destroy or capture any of the advanced T34 tanks?

Did the Japanese liaise in any way or form with their so-called German allie regarding their experience against the infamous new Russian T34 tank, or was the German invasion of Russia the first time that they new anything of this outstanding design?

Did the Japanese capture and study any of the outstanding Russian anti-tank guns and powerful howitzers during this battle?


The reason that I ask these questions is simply due to the fact that I find it very difficult to comprehend that the Japanese failed to capitilise on this devastating defeat.:confused:
I completely understand and comprehend Japan’s issue with its concerns with its supply and shortage of raw materials, for use in its weapons, but to me, this would have been more reason to have fielded fewer – but far more capable and powerful tanks, anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns and field howitzers.

Regards
Pioneer


Don't think there were any T-34's at Khalkhyn Gol Pioneer, as the first production T-34's were completed in September 1940, the main tank was probably the BT-5 & the BT-7, with a 45mm high-velocity gun.

As for not up grading their armour, it does seem a bit strange doesn't it?
Even if they weren't needed so much in the Pacific, they would have been handy in China, or perhaps for a future showdown with the Russians.

The Red Army claimed total losses (killed and wounded) of 9284 men. After the collapse of Soviet Union documents about the battle changed the numbers considerably, the actual number of losses in the battle was 23,926, of whom 6,831 killed, 1,143 reported missing, 15,952 wounded.

bugs
30 May 09,, 10:38
Did the Japanese manage to destroy or capture any of the advanced T34 tanks?
Did the Japanese liaise in any way or form with their so-called German allie regarding their experience against the infamous new Russian T34 tank, or was the German invasion of Russia the first time that they new anything of this outstanding design?
Did the Japanese capture and study any of the outstanding Russian anti-tank guns and powerful howitzers during this battle?


Acceptable losses according to Georgy Zhukov :

9703 killed, missed and died of wounds;
15952 wounded
198 - 7.62mm Automatic Rifles
1192 - 7.62mm Rifles
225 - "Maxim" Machine-guns
2264 - "DP" Machine-guns
1 - "DK" 12.7 mm Machine-gun
8 - 82mm mortars
20 - 45mm Anti-Tank guns
14 - 76mm Regimental Guns
11 - 76mm Field Guns M1902/30
4 - 107mm Field Guns M1910/30
31 - 122mm howitzers M1910/30
6 - 152mm Howitzers
496 - Trucks
99 - Special cars
32 - Cars
40 - Tractors
25 - Motorcycles
TANKS

BT-7 (45mm guns)- 57
BT-7A ( short 76mm) - 2
BT-5 (45mm)- 157
T-26 (45mm) - 8
Flametrower tanks - 12
T-37 (amphibious) - 17

ARMMORED CARS

BA-3 - 8
BA-6 - 44
BA-10 - 41
(all with 45mm guns )
FAI - 21
BA-20 - 19
(all with 7.62 Machine guns)
T-20 "Komsomolets" prime-movers - 9
SU-12 SP guns - 2

Pioneer
30 May 09,, 12:24
Thank gents for your input, feedback, statistic and directives to other info

Regards
Pioneer

Bigfella
30 May 09,, 12:37
Acceptable losses according to Georgy Zhukov :

9703 killed, missed and died of wounds;
15952 wounded


Securing Russia's eastern border & allowing Allied shipping (under Russian flag) access to Vladivostock throughout the war at the cost of 10,000 dead. Given the consequences for Russia of the alternative I'd say this was cheap insurance at 100 times the price.

bugs
30 May 09,, 13:24
Securing Russia's eastern border & allowing Allied shipping (under Russian flag) access to Vladivostock throughout the war at the cost of 10,000 dead. Given the consequences for Russia of the alternative I'd say this was cheap insurance at 100 times the price.

I'm more concern with the fact that the
competent military commander in large and modern mechanized warfare lost half of the tanks and 1/3 of the armored cars deployed, against a japanese army with ww1 equipment and tactics.

Officer of Engineers
30 May 09,, 17:32
If you read through the battle, the co-ordination between artillery and manuver forces were not quite worked out yet.

bugs
31 May 09,, 09:44
Not sure what you mean ,sir.
According to russian sources 75% of the tank losses were were inflicted by anti-tank guns.

Mihais
31 May 09,, 11:12
Bugs,
Do you know anything about the losses due to mechanical breakdowns?

bugs
31 May 09,, 12:14
Bugs,
Do you know anything about the losses due to mechanical breakdowns?

Incomplete i'am afraid...
90 tanks between 20 aug.-1 sep

In addition to the tanks that were burned or required extensive repairs
much tanks had been repaired during combat, 37 by 11th tank brigade in the time frame listed above.

Bigfella
31 May 09,, 12:40
I'm more concern with the fact that the lost half of the tanks and 1/3 of the armored cars deployed, against a japanese army with ww1 equipment and tactics.

How many were actually lost as a result of combat & how many suffered some sort of mechanical breakdown as a result of inhospitable terrain & tricky logistics?

A win is a win, the rest is just static (and this was a comprehensive AND far reaching win).

bugs
31 May 09,, 13:16
How many were actually lost as a result of combat & how many suffered some sort of mechanical breakdown as a result of inhospitable terrain & tricky logistics?
I have already posted the answer above, to the best of my knowledge.


A win is a win, the rest is just static (and this was a comprehensive AND far reaching win).

Well, the same thing could be said about the Finland campaign of 1939-1940 :
the soviets won and the finish did not press on to Leningrad in the Continuation war.

Officer of Engineers
31 May 09,, 14:55
Not sure what you mean ,sir.
According to russian sources 75% of the tank losses were were inflicted by anti-tank guns.I mean that Zukhov had yet to learn how to shell the crap out of the defenders before sending his manouver forces in.

bugs
01 Jun 09,, 11:03
He did not have that option in early July, any delay would mean lossing the grip on the eastern riverside.

Mihais
01 Jun 09,, 11:11
Anyway,wasn't he operating some 700km away from the supply base.IIRC he had about 2000 trucks to keep the force supplied.The Japanese supply situation was even worse.

bugs
01 Jun 09,, 11:25
Anyway,wasn't he operating some 700km away from the supply base.IIRC he had about 2000 trucks to keep the force supplied.The Japanese supply situation was even worse.

The japanese had only one pontoon bridge available, that's why they needed to take the Kawatama bridge, and the russians and mongolians were not eager to blow it up.

Officer of Engineers
01 Jun 09,, 13:10
He did not have that option in early July, any delay would mean lossing the grip on the eastern riverside.Hence, the heavier casualties.

Andrey Egorov
01 Jun 09,, 14:20
Zhukov never planned an operation despite his memoires, he was sent as an inspector, all plannig was done by M.A. Bogdanov, chief of staff. There's plenty of books describing the situation. B. Sokolov "Unknown Zhukov" for instance

Mihais
01 Jun 09,, 14:55
You may be right.But wasn't he named commander of the 57th Corp in early June?
If my memory serves me right,the staff proposes different courses of action,from which the commander decides the most appropriate.It's his decision and his responsibility.As for inspectors in that area,there were many:Kulik(was recalled to Moscow),Voronov,D.G Pavlov etc...

Mihais
01 Jun 09,, 15:05
I don't want to direct the thread in a different direction,but I want to ask you if there are more recent works published in Russia about Stalingrad,especially about the attacks against the Romanian 3d and 4th Armies?All I could get so far from the Soviet side are Chuikov's(which is centered on the city's defense) and Rokosovsky's memoirs.The content of those books really show their age.

Pioneer
01 Jun 09,, 15:17
Thank you all for putting some light on this almost forgotten, yet significant battle of its time!
I say significant, due to the fact it gave the Japanese a real costly slap in the face, which shied their ambitions away from this region, as well as giving the Soviets the confidence (with the help of a very well placed spy in Japan!)in freeing up a significant portion of its Eastern military strength to be sent West, which would in effect contribute greatly to saving Moscow and stopping the German advance?

Thanks ANZAC regarding your feedback regarding the T-34 issue.
I must admit, that I have read conflicting things regarding the T-34 Medium Tanks appearance at this battle.:confused:
Can anyone confirm or deny this fact?

This has got me hooked!!

Regards
Pioneer

Mihais
01 Jun 09,, 15:27
No T34's were present at Khalkhin Gol.

Triple C
01 Jun 09,, 18:13
I would second that. T-34 hadn't entered mass manufacture then. The Russian light tanks though were more than a match than what the Japanese could field.

bugs
01 Jun 09,, 19:07
. The Russian light tanks though were more than a match than what the Japanese could field.

The japanese tankers disregarded the Russians admiration for Sergei Rachmaninoff ;)

xerxes
01 Jun 09,, 19:48
The defeat of the Japanese at Khalkhyn Gol convinced and influenced the Imperial General Staff in Tokyo that the policy of the North Strike Group, favoured by the army, which wanted to seize Siberia as far as Lake Baikal for its resources, was untenable. Instead the South Strike Group, favored by the navy, would be persuade, leading directly to the attack on Pearl Harbor.


I think the split was within the Army itself. The 'southerners' versus the 'westerners' led by the politician Yōsuke Matsuoka.

The Navy liked neither, but tolerated the 'southerners' better for the sake of having more control, if war was to be.

Pioneer
02 Jun 09,, 07:26
No T34's were present at Khalkhin Gol.


I would second that. T-34 hadn't entered mass manufacture then. The Russian light tanks though were more than a match than what the Japanese could field.

Thanks gents for the conformation on the T-34 issue!

I now have to find the book / article that I found it in!!
Which is a task easier said than done, as the majority of my beloved books are boxed up at home whilst I am posted!!!!:mad:

Regards
Pioneer

ANZAC
02 Jun 09,, 07:47
I think the split was within the Army itself. The 'southerners' versus the 'westerners' led by the politician Yōsuke Matsuoka.

The Navy liked neither, but tolerated the 'southerners' better for the sake of having more control, if war was to be.

Yeah xerxes, that was a major problem with Japanese planning, not only the Army & the Navy disagreeing, but even factions within both services had radically different ideas to what should be the best course of action. Lucky for the Soviets that IJN backing won the 'strike South' debate in Japan, & lucky for my country that the Army baulked at some in the IJN's more grandiose plans for Australia.

bugs
02 Jun 09,, 11:16
The japanese tankers disregarded the Russians admiration for Sergei Rachmaninoff ;)

SOURCE: Nomonhan: Japan Against Russia, 1939 – Alvin D. Coox
VOL: 1 chapter 23. Foiled by piano wire. :P

clackers
04 Jun 09,, 03:05
I must admit, that I have read conflicting things regarding the T-34 Medium Tanks appearance at this battle.:confused:
Can anyone confirm or deny this fact?


The cavalry tanks were BT-7s, with a 45mm gun, but lacking armour. There were also some heavy T-28s and some 76mm howitzer equipped BT-7s.

The campaign affected Soviet tank designs more than the Japanese.

Armour would be upgraded with protection against the 37mm AT gun in mind (T-34 crews were to call the standard German AP round 'the doorknocker'), and in a similar mistake to the Allies, it was thought originally that using petrol for the engines was the cause of many fires bursting out after a tank was hit.

The real reason was stored ammunition igniting, but the Soviets went for an aluminium diesel engine in the T-34 anyway. Going diesel also halved the fuel consumption of the tank ... the Germans should have done the same later in the war but Speer ignored Hitler's order.

Mihais
04 Jun 09,, 19:16
Weren't diesel engines already used on BT's?

bugs
04 Jun 09,, 19:37
Weren't diesel engines already used on BT's?

Only on prototype stage at that time.

clackers
05 Jun 09,, 01:37
The Kharkov factory's newly developed 2300 cubic inch "V-2" diesel powerplant was in fact designed for their BT range of tanks, Mihais, and went into the final 'M' version of the BT-7 ... more reliable, greater range and 30% more power over its petrol predecessor ... a good choice to go in the later T-34 ...

Mihais
09 Jun 09,, 18:33
Bugs,Clackers,do you have any data about tank on tank engagements envolving BT's and various panzers in early days of Barbarossa?I could only find general numbers in Glantz and Ziemke's books.Or simply put a link to a book.

bugs
09 Jun 09,, 23:25
Bugs,Clackers,do you have any data about tank on tank engagements envolving BT's and various panzers in early days of Barbarossa?I could only find general numbers in Glantz and Ziemke's books.Or simply put a link to a book.

I don't think you would find such a book in English.


Short story:
8th MC: 858 tanks,
9th MC: 298 tanks,
15th MC: 749 tanks,
19th MC: 450 tanks,
By the time the battle started on 25 June, these M. corps had already suffered significant losses:

8th MC: “Lost 40 – 50% of its equipment to breakdowns and enemy air attack”
9th MC: 66 tanks left
15th MC: Lost almost 40% to breakdowns on long road marches
19th MC: 35 tanks left

As for tank battles, not to many.
9th and 19th Mechanized Corps ran into the antitank gun lines of the 111th and 299th Infantry Division.
8th and 15th Mechanized Corps made a several attacks into Dubno against elements of the 25th Motorised Division and 75th Infantry Division
Once in Dubno, the 8th Mech Corps was surrounded by 11th and 14th Panzer Divisions and destroyed.
Conclusion: the various battles in this counteroffensive involved far more Soviet tanks attacking German infantry and antitank without much infantry or artillery support of their own than it did plain tank on tank action.

clackers
11 Jun 09,, 13:58
Bugs,Clackers,do you have any data about tank on tank engagements envolving BT's and various panzers in early days of Barbarossa?I could only find general numbers in Glantz and Ziemke's books.Or simply put a link to a book.

Glantz and Ziemke's books are on the operational level, Mihais, you'd have to use other sources, like the useful one Bugs has shown us.

I find it interesting that in the early days of Barbarossa there were T-34s as well ... nearly a thousand of them.

As Robert Forczyk writes in Osprey's Panther vs T-34:


the initial combat debut of the T-34/76 in 1941 was a disaster due to inadequate training and skimpy logistics ... the 6th Mechanized Corps had no armor-piercing (AP) rounds for the T-34s and only load of fuel per tank. Due to security concerns, few T-34 crewmen had actually been trained. The best-designed tank in the world is merely scrap iron if it does not have ammunition, fuel or a trained crew, and that was the condition of virtually all the T-34 units in the summer of 1941. [The corps was] annihilated in the first two weeks of the war without accomplishing anything of consequence. By early July, about half the available T-34 and KV-1 tanks had been lost as the Soviet border armies were destroyed, and most of the remaining pre-war T-34s were lost in the Kiev pocket. When [the GOC the Western Front, and former director of the nation's tanks] command was wiped out in the Minsk Pocket, he was recalled to Moscow and executed.

Mihais
11 Jun 09,, 14:49
''Glantz and Ziemke's books are on the operational level, Mihais, you'd have to use other sources, like the useful one Bugs has shown us.''

Point taken.

''Due to security concerns, few T-34 crewmen had actually been trained. The best-designed tank in the world is merely scrap iron if it does not have ammunition, fuel or a trained crew, and that was the condition of virtually all the T-34 units in the summer of 1941.''

What is really funny is that virtually all Axis nations that faced T34's wanted to copy it.Yet Germany did not had enough aluminium,while the others lacked the industrial base all together.

''I find it interesting that in the early days of Barbarossa there were T-34s as well ... nearly a thousand of them.''

I presume you speak about vehicles that reached their units.Produced machines were ~1300;KV's were ~700 IIRC.Not that is really important.They died anyway.

Yet the losses speak more about the operational context,not about the technical qualities of the tanks.And I include here all the types,not only T34 and KV.It also gives the German pre-war doctrine a cookie.The effort of providing a big AT guns contingent to every Inf DIV paid with interest.Now my recent thoughts on the issue are that Soviet secrecy also paid in the long run.If T34 was known in 1940 the Germans would have started to re-equip their infantry with more powerful AT guns.

Mihais
11 Jun 09,, 14:56
I don't think you would find such a book in English.


Short story:
8th MC: 858 tanks,
9th MC: 298 tanks,
15th MC: 749 tanks,
19th MC: 450 tanks,
By the time the battle started on 25 June, these M. corps had already suffered significant losses:

8th MC: “Lost 40 – 50% of its equipment to breakdowns and enemy air attack”
9th MC: 66 tanks left
15th MC: Lost almost 40% to breakdowns on long road marches
19th MC: 35 tanks left

As for tank battles, not to many.
9th and 19th Mechanized Corps ran into the antitank gun lines of the 111th and 299th Infantry Division.
8th and 15th Mechanized Corps made a several attacks into Dubno against elements of the 25th Motorised Division and 75th Infantry Division
Once in Dubno, the 8th Mech Corps was surrounded by 11th and 14th Panzer Divisions and destroyed.
Conclusion: the various battles in this counteroffensive involved far more Soviet tanks attacking German infantry and antitank without much infantry or artillery support of their own than it did plain tank on tank action.

Thanks for the book.I'll remember it when I'll learn Russian.

Not only Dubno.The efforts of the Western Front to break encirclement also faced the same scenario with similar results.

zraver
11 Jun 09,, 15:46
If T34 was known in 1940 the Germans would have started to re-equip their infantry with more powerful AT guns.

Not likely, the Germans were broke, they did not have the money to dump all the 37mm AT guns in the run up to Barbarossa. The 37's failings as an AT gun were revealed vs French tanks so the retooling they could afford- principally of tank cannon was already begun. The tiny 37mm would serve until the end of the as a half track armament and as a AT gun in second line units.

On a side note, German 37mm ATG gunners report having a special round for dealing with the T-34. It was probably tungsten and soon discontinued but there are autobiographical reports of the 37mm with these special rounds defeating the T-34.

Mihais
11 Jun 09,, 16:02
Not likely, the Germans were broke, they did not have the money to dump all the 37mm AT guns in the run up to Barbarossa. The 37's failings as an AT gun were revealed vs French tanks so the retooling they could afford- principally of tank cannon was already begun. The tiny 37mm would serve until the end of the as a half track armament and as a AT gun in second line units.

On a side note, German 37mm ATG gunners report having a special round for dealing with the T-34. It was probably tungsten and soon discontinued but there are autobiographical reports of the 37mm with these special rounds defeating the T-34.

Agree.But they would start producing the 75mm AT gun,hurry up the heavy tank program,upgrade the Pz IV,etc....The existing Soviet tanks were known from Spain and Finland. As such there was no incentive to invest scarce resources in unneeded weapons.The Soviets themselves were aware of their tanks limitations as revealed by these conflicts,the very reason for the T34 and KV existance.

bugs
11 Jun 09,, 19:01
. When [the GOC the Western Front, and former director of the nation's tanks] command was wiped out in the Minsk Pocket, he was recalled to Moscow and executed.

Pavlov faced two Panzer generals , Guderian and Hoth , i doubt anyone could have done better than he did in 1941.

Mihais
11 Jun 09,, 21:43
Pavlov faced to Panzer generals , Guderian and Hoth , i doubt anyone could have done better than he did in 1941.

He had otherwise quite an influence on the development of the Tank Forces before the war.Otherwise he was indeed a very unlucky fellow.I wonder how internal politics of the Red Army influenced his fate.On further thought,if every officer that had his command wiped out in 1941 would have been shot,by December you'll have cadets commanding the fronts.

zraver
11 Jun 09,, 22:13
Agree.But they would start producing the 75mm AT gun,hurry up the heavy tank program,upgrade the Pz IV,etc....The existing Soviet tanks were known from Spain and Finland. As such there was no incentive to invest scarce resources in unneeded weapons.The Soviets themselves were aware of their tanks limitations as revealed by these conflicts,the very reason for the T34 and KV existance.

The long 75mm wasn't ready. The only real option would have been increased production of the long 50mm, but again with what funds?

The very existence of the T-34 is something of a joke. Normally if you have a good combat proven tank, you don't try and rewrite the rules to make the bulk of your tank fleet obsolete. In the fighting in Spain, the German and Italian tanks were totally outclassed by the T-26 which had better armor, a better gun and better optics.

The French had some tanks that were superior as did the Czechs, but all in all the T-26 was a very good tank. Going from the T-26 and the fast BT series to the T-34 was a stroke of genius.

Mihais
11 Jun 09,, 22:40
''The very existence of the T-34 is something of a joke''

''Going from the T-26 and the fast BT series to the T-34 was a stroke of genius.''

These 2 statements are a bit contradictory.
They weren't normal.They had to be the biggest and the best.Socialism's superiority and other political bla,bla.

''The long 75mm wasn't ready. The only real option would have been increased production of the long 50mm, but again with what funds?''

It took the Germans 4-5 months to develop the new 75mm tank gun from the moment they were given the green light.Significant production started in March 1942.As for money,that requires a change in the grand strategy.I like to talk about Germans up to operational level.Beyond that we enter the realm of idiocy.

I agree about the rest.The tanks weren't obsolete at all.If we think that the Germans went in Russia with Pz I and Pz II... Operational context was everything.

bugs
11 Jun 09,, 22:41
, but all in all the T-26 was a very good tank

t-26 has nothing on the mighty Panzerkampfwagen II ;)
Better speed, armor, newer 20mm KwK 38 L/55 auto-cannon, better engine, better tracks, better suspension, even the radio was better.

bugs
11 Jun 09,, 22:49
Plus. it was the Pz. II who made the british and french cut short they're trip to Norway. :rolleyes: