Jessup wrote:Pavlov house was one building which had actually been partially destroyed in the bombardment.
It was a standing building. Partially destroyed or not.
Barbed wire and gun nests aren't very effective obstacles for armoured columns and advancing infantry, crumbling buildings and roads blocked with debris and craters are.
Yes because you say so.
When used in concert with infantry tanks were the ultimate urban weapon and Germany adopted this doctrine when fighting urban warfare throughout WW2, especially during early WW2 as at this time hand-held anti tank weapons were still only in their infancy.
No they weren't. Tanks were for exploitation gaps and encirclement not urban warfare.
Yeah they were useless for the same reason the German tanks were, because the German army had turned Stalingrad into a concrete quagmire with their preliminary bombardment.
And how exactly does it affect my quoted argument?
It is no surprise that the battle for Warsaw, Poland's capital would be the most intense
Just like Paris, the french capital? Your logic is simply ridiculous, it happened only because it was capital, please......
The Germans needed to take Stalingrad fast before the winter set in, this task was made almost impossible by the maze of rubble and craters that Stalingrad was, also when the winter did come the ruins left the Germans exposed to the elements.
Rubble or not, tanks (specially of ww2 era) were at a disadvantage for urban warfare
Finally you haven't posted one single argument against any of my listed disadvantages faced by a tank in urban environment. btw, tanks also tend to reduce cities to rubble, you so despise.