WW II Armor ????

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by 22WRF, May 7, 2006.

  1. JohnGerald

    JohnGerald New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    19
    I must refer y'all, with greatest respect, to John Mosier's "The Blitzkrieg Myth" in which he provides impeccable data for his conclusion that, except for the T 34, all WW II tanks were poorly engineered. The conclusions he reaches on tactics and the actuality of the battle events are controversial, but thought provoking.
  2. I definitely must take a look at Mosier's books, John. Thanks for mentioning him on this and other threads. It sounds like he may have some interesting thoughts.
  3. JohnGerald

    JohnGerald New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    19
    His conclusions are controversial because "accepted" history was written by the Brits and French, he claims, who were trying to whitewash their abysmal political and military decisions. His data, at least insofar as I have the same texts, are valid, but regardless, he makes one think, which is a useful habit, IMHO.
  4. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,081
    Location:
    Indiana
    Yeah, but you have to BEWARE Historians with an "agenda," does he have any grudge AGAINST the Brits or French that you can recognize?

    I'm not sure I buy COMPLETELY the fact that the Histories were written by the British especially to whitewash their war record.

    One of the FIRST books I read on WWI in High School was "The Donkeys" which was a study of the FAILURE of the British High Command AND political leadership in World War I, written by a British Historian, that was SCATHING about the lack of British "initiative" and traced through memos and writings of the Gemerals how they just fed British troops into the meat grinders of the Somme and Paschaendale long after it was obvious to anyone that they were going nowhere.

    He also did hatchet job on British civilian war planners on many aspects, the main one I remember is the "shell shortage" that directly caused many unnecessary British deaths on the battlefield. I BELIEVE it was written in the 40s or 50s...maybe earlier...but then again probably NOT right after the First war, which would maybe HELP your point, Hhhmmmm.

    Thank you for reminding me of it, I think I still have that book around here somewhere, I may have to reread it!:)
  5. I entirely agree, Polish. One must look for a possible agenda with any book that profoundly challenges established facts unless there is awfully good evidence to back it up. Revisionist historians abound of late, most of whom are out to make a name for themselves, the truth be damned. I don't know about that guy because I have not yet read his work, but it is well to be cautious.

    Ever read The Marble Man by Thomas Lawrence Connelly, Polish? It's a Revisionist view of Robert E. Lee. He had the unmitigated effrontery to attack Marse Robert, the Saint of the South! :eek: :D Actually, it is a pretty well written book, but it is a highly unbalanced and wholly negative interpretation of Lee.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Military Arms & History Forum Is there such a thing as shock armor on a tank Mar 7, 2003
General Military Arms & History Forum Springfield Armory Super Match M1A1 Mar 7, 2003
General Military Arms & History Forum You want armor? Mar 3, 2003

Share This Page