CMBB v CMAK

[McIvan]

Backbone is the (main) part, which gives solidity and foundation to the whole. But I'm not a native English speaker so feel free to ignore this comment.

http://www.google.com/search?en-US%3Aoff...3%A9s&meta=

Yes, all of those references refer to the strong part of something. Not the bulk.

That's why I explained what it means to me. So we can both understand where the other is coming from. I understand that you take back bone to mean the most common. In this case, in 1941 since there were more T-26's available you consider that to be the backbone of the Soviet tank force.

I have posted my definition so now we are clear.

Good Hunting.

MR

To put my own point of view only, and not to disparage yours, since it is all subjective, to me the backbone holds the body together. For example, the backbone of German armour was the Panzer IV, not the King Tiger. The PzIV was the main part.

Thus I would not consider that the backbone of the Red Army was comprised of such a small element.

Anways, we can move on from that, now that it is clear where people were coming from.

Re your earlier posts, I think you are still fixated on T34s when they weren't the main Russian tank. We were, I thought, talking about the commencement of hostilities. The PzII was just fine for killing Russian T26, T35, Bt5, BT7, armoured cars, T60. That was the vast majority of the Russian tank force....wasn't it? I'm sure it was.

The vast majority of the German tank force was superior to the average Russian tank. Radios made it even more so, training adds another order of magnitude.

I acknowledge that CMBB is not the be all and end all in comparing performance.

No need btw for you to follow through with your kind offer to list Russian brigade TOEs Grand totals on the day Barbarossa commenced woud be interesting though, if you had the time....specifically the proportion of T34/KV to the other lighter tanks.