Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: JerseyanExile

A great book on the subject is “Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II,” by Belton Cooper. The author was in charge of recovering, cleaning out and repairing or dismantling damaged and destroyed tanks for Patton’s 3rd Armored Division.

One of the revalations in the book is that the US was ready to replace the Sherman before DDay. The US Army could have gone to war in France with the M26 Pershing, which was ready to start being produced as the US main battle tank in late 43. The major oppenent of the change was none other than Gen. George Patton, who falsely believed that a heavier tank with wider tracks would have to be slower on roads. He took the view that tanks would fill the roll of cavalry, running free behind enemy lines, and did not consider tank to tank fighting to be a major role. The Germans had other ideas, and the Amecans were forced into unequal battles that cost over 100% casualties in his tank crews over a period of 8 months.


16 posted on 03/18/2013 4:49:12 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Hugin

Part of the situation was Army Ground Forces doctrine. Tanks were vehicles of exploitation. They were to play the role of horse cavalry. Tank to tank warfare was to be the domain for the tank destroyer force. The Pershing was a not ready for early 1944 manufacture. Consideration was given to replacing the Sherman with the T 20 series. These tanks had the lower silhouette of the Pershing but carried the same armament as the 75mm and 76mm Shermans. The Shermans proved ideal for the open warfare of July, Aug and early Sept 44, and combined with the Jabos of the 9th AF their results would not have been improved upon had they been replaced with half as many Pershings.It was true that in tank to tank battles US tankers were ata disadvantage, but in infantry combat US troops were also at disadvantage given the quality and numbers of the MG42 which all but negated any advantage of the Garand over the Mauser. What really gave US forces a solid advantage was the superiority of its artillery. In terms of its quality, numbers and time on target doctrine it was the King of the battlefield from the earliest days at Kasserine to the very end.


20 posted on 03/18/2013 5:20:24 PM PDT by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Hugin

Second your recommendation - “Death Traps” was a great read.


23 posted on 03/18/2013 5:41:10 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Hugin
The major oppenent of the change was none other than Gen. George Patton, who falsely believed that a heavier tank with wider tracks would have to be slower on roads. He took the view that tanks would fill the roll of cavalry, running free behind enemy lines, and did not consider tank to tank fighting to be a major role.

Other historians have debunked this and laid the blame for sticking with the M4 at the feet of McNair. The Wikipedia article on the M26 has a summary of some of the competing views of this.
33 posted on 03/19/2013 7:15:05 AM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Hugin

If the switch was made to the Pershing tank before D-Day, there would have been no American tanks at the landing. They would have been too big for the landing craft, and there would have been no way for them to wade ashore.

Add to that the fact that most American rail cars has a load limit of 40 tons. The Pershing weighed 43-46 tons. According to the book “Tanks Are Mighty Fine Things,” put out by Chrysler in 1946, the minimum load limit of the cars required to ship one Pershing was 118,000 pounds. That means a lot fewer tanks in theater.

There was also a shortage of flat cars of of any capacity. On Christmas day of 1944 the Chrysler plant had 75 tanks ready to ship and only 18 flat cars on hand. Even Shermans had to be shipped one to a car unless a 50 ft flat car turned up. If the US Army was building tanks as heavy as the King Tiger, it would have reduced the number of rail lines able to move the loads, further clogging the pipeline.

These logistical issues never seem to show up in armchair discussions of the M4 in WWII.


40 posted on 03/19/2013 9:17:06 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Hugin

Another reason for not replacing the M4 was rail transportation. You could get two M4 Shermans on a flatcar - but only one M26 Pershing. The folks in charge of logistics thought that twice as many mediocre tanks were a better deal. They were probably right.


47 posted on 03/20/2013 7:37:56 AM PDT by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson