Best Tank of WWII

[McFire]

Anybody read "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in WWII" by Belton Cooper? It's a pretty good read and the author was an ordnance liason officer with the 3rd Armored Division. He covers a lot of the Shermans many shortcomings.

[sappersgt]

Anybody read "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in WWII" by Belton Cooper? It's a pretty good read and the author was an ordnance liason officer with the 3rd Armored Division. He covers a lot of the Shermans many shortcomings.

It's on my shelf. Parts of it are chilling. It does gives a real insight to the recovering of tanks in WWII.

[zraver]

It's on my shelf. Parts of it are chilling. It does gives a real insight to the recovering of tanks in WWII.

IIRC it is also factually wrong when he is talking about decisions made at a higher level like Patton turning down the M26 Pershing.

[dalem]

Anybody read "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in WWII" by Belton Cooper? It's a pretty good read and the author was an ordnance liason officer with the 3rd Armored Division. He covers a lot of the Shermans many shortcomings.

I was disappointed in the ratio of plain opinion to real research it contained. It was basically a rant without enough numbers or details to give it any real weight, in my opinion.

-dale

[Gun Grape]

I was disappointed in the ratio of plain opinion to real research it contained. It was basically a rant without enough numbers or details to give it any real weight, in my opinion.

-dale

But Dale it wasn't written to be a historical document. Its a memoir.
He wrote about what he saw and experienced. Never intended to be anything more.

[zraver]

But Dale it wasn't written to be a historical document. Its a memoir.
He wrote about what he saw and experienced. Never intended to be anything more.

It was also a slice at a dead man's legacy. He doesn't like Patton and takes swipes at him so its a bit more than just a memoir.

[bugs]

and the winner is?

f-17 no doubt about it
7 km/h, 39 hp (29 kW) engine (6 hp/tonne),Operational
range 65 km. A excelent tank for 1919 but not for 1940.

[dalem]

But Dale it wasn't written to be a historical document. Its a memoir.
He wrote about what he saw and experienced. Never intended to be anything more.

I disagree. He spends a tremendous amount of time passing judgement on everything from the M4 to the slimmed-down 1944/45 armored divisions. It's far more than a simple memoir, it's an attempt at a sweeping critique with very few actual authoritative numbers or analyses as a foundation.

I found it quite distasteful.

-dale

[Triple C]

I recall several men who had the fortitude to read the book and cross-reference it with hard data told me how the numbers were all wrong, and his contention that George S. Patton killed American servicemen because he supported the M4 medium tank, were totally and completely incorrect.

Also, from reading the German records of armored units during the war, I don't find 3d AD's tank losses or casaulties to be extraordinary.

[zraver]

I recall several men who had the fortitude to read the book and cross-reference it with hard data told me how the numbers were all wrong, and his contention that George S. Patton killed American servicemen because he supported the M4 medium tank, were totally and completely incorrect.

Also, from reading the German records of armored units during the war, I don't find 3d AD's tank losses or casaulties to be extraordinary.

Its a grudge book, not history. Company Commander by McDonald is a much better memoir.

[Triple C]

For starters, Patton had no influence over tank development. He was not a technical expert by anymeans because he was a cavalryman. Bruce Clark would later say that "Patton knew as little about tanks as anyone I know". In the planning phase of Neptune, Patton was in the doghouse after the slapping incident, and spend his days "leading" a phantom army to land in Calaise.

Cooper singled out Patton because Patton made himself the visible target after defending the Sherman medium tank as an effective machine when the media's reportage of inferior American weapons reached its fever pitch. In fact, Patton was well aware of the superiority of the gun and armor of the heavy German tanks because it was his command that fought the biggest tank battle in the west in Lorraine. He felt that bashing army equipment without restrained sapped morale, just when the troops should be learning to fight aggressively. He was probably right.

McDonald served in the 4th Infantry Division during the battle of the Bulge, correct?

[dalem]

McDonald served in the 4th Infantry Division during the battle of the Bulge, correct?

23rd Regiment, 2nd Infantry as a "90 day wonder" post D-Day until the Bulge. He was wounded in the early Ardennes fighting, convalesced and came back, I think to the same regiment, same division, different company, for the rest of the war.

And I agree, great memoir. His A Time for Trumpets is a great operational and strategic analysis of the Ardennes development and resolution. If McDonald wrote it, I believe it. Cooper, not so much.

-dale

[Johnny W]

Here is an interesting video with a M26 Pershing taking on a Mark V Panther.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5bJQOkI1g

[bugs]

The Pershing tank did improve the american options of taking on the german tanks however i have found the video unfair to the Sherman tank.
The Pershing had a engine rated at 373 kW, the M4A3E8 Sherman a 336 kW engine.
The armor of the Pershing was not a significant improvement from the Sherman.
For instance the front hull was 76 mm for the Pershing, 64 mm Sherman , 80 mm Panther. The round gun mantlet of the Panther had 120 mm, compared to 114 mm of the Pershing and 90 mm of the M4a3 Sherman.
Because of those armor improvements ( and the 90mm gun turret) the Pershing weight is above 40 tonnes.
The 90 mm gun is a huge improvement , however the later versions of the Sherman carried 105 mm howitzers, 77 mm guns (Firefly), 105 mm guns (upgraded IDF tanks).

[Triple C]

I agree. The comparison is unfair as the Pershing was both 10 tons heavier, underpowered, and mechanically unreliable. But I thought Pershing had 100mm of armor upper front?

They should have just put 90mm gun turrets on M4A3's. Though they did not know it that at the time.

Btw,

The 75 mm gun on the early Shermans was better against a Pz-III L armmor ?

Early Sherman in Africa could be armed with either M2 or M3 guns, I think. 75mm M3 was an overkill against Pz. III L. Against the M2 armed Sherman Pz. III L could barely achieve parity. Both needed to get into 500mm to kill each other, but the Sherman would be a faster, more dependable tank. Besides that, how many Afrika Korps Pz. III were L's? At Gazala they only had a dozen III J's. By the time they had L's, I am pretty sure they'd be facing M3 gun armed Shermans too.