5 Tanks That Changed History

The National Interest ^ | September 7, 2014 | Michael Peck

[lacrew]

I was an M1A1 Tank Commander. We dug in all the time.

We would typically have an Engineer BN tasked with us, to dig the holes.

In the Army, you are usually holding ground or taking ground...and if you’re holding it, you dig in.

The engagement you envision is a ‘meeting engagement’. We would train for that too, but not all the time.

I can’t get my html to work, but here is a link to a straight M1 in Hull Defilade:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2954

[jmacusa]

God bless you for your service.I read ‘’Warriors Rage’’ by Col. Douglas McGregor of the 2 Battalion 2 Armored about the Battle of 73 Easting. So are what you are describing is what you do when not engaging the enemy right? You wouldn’t fight hull down in an Abrams ordinarily right?

[lacrew]

Colonel McGregor had a semi-legendary status at Fort Riley. After the Gulf War, he took command of 1-4 Cav at Fort Riley, and had a reputation of being incredibly demanding - and would relieve officers of their command if they performed poorly in training. And he beat the OPFOR at the National training center. This is almost unheard of, since the deck is stacked against you - but he beat them several times during his rotation there. So I definitely am familiar with his name - he was so good, the Army wouldn't promote him to general :( But to answer your question - yes, we most definitely would fight in a dug in position. We would practice pulling up out of the hole, so the gun was clear, firing a round, and ducking back in the hole. This would be while on the defense. Below is a diagram of the concept. Keep in mind the M1 was developed in the 1970's. At that time, the main purpose of our tank force was to defend the Fulda Gap in Germany against a Soviet invasion. And while I was in Korea, we prepared plans for our static positions...again because we anticipated defending, while the Norks poured in. So, even though the M1 has an amazing offensive capability, it was developed with defense in mind. Now, as it turns out, I don't believe its ever actually been used that way, in a hot war. They were on the offense in both Gulf Wars...and then were used as patrol vehicles in Iraq (with tragic results). So you are correct that we have never actually fought that way - but it is embedded in our doctrine. Who knows, maybe we'll end up defending Poland after Ukraine becomes Ruskified.

[SunkenCiv]

The fact that they ran on gasoline was a massive plus, despite complaints by some (even to this day) because it simplified the logistics of keeping all the machinery rolling.

The Shermans were also narrow, an artifact of having been designed to be built on auto assembly lines — and that turned out to be a huge advantage in those narrow lanes between the hedgerows and in the narrow lanes of French villages.

And of course, over 30,000 were built, of which a great many were shipped to Europe.

[Hiddigeigei]

George Hanger fought with German Jagers against the French at the Battle of Minden in 1859 and saw the effectiveness of rifle-armed troops. The jagers used a large-bore rifle that was the state-of-the-art in Europe and the predecessor of the much improved Pennsylvanian (Kentucky) rifle which Hanger said was the best in the world. These American rifles so impressed some of the British officers that one, Major Patrick Ferguson, invented a breech loading rifle and proposed its use in units of the British army. Perhaps unfortunately, Major Ferguson was killed by American militia riflemen at Kings Mountain, who then went on to help defeat Banastre Tarleton at Cowpens.

Washington did complain about certain militia units that showed up poorly armed, but the denigrating of the militias in the Revolutionary War is part of the attack on the Second Amendment by people such as Michael A. Bellesiles in his thoroughly discredited book, Arming America.