Replies

I used to work with a guy whose sad job it was in WWII to retrieve Sherman tanks in the European theater, hose them out, repair them and then send them back out with a fresh crew.

He said the hardest thing to live with in his life was the lie told to these young naive boys that the Shermans could go up against the German Panzers.

.... the lie told to these young naive boys that the Shermans could go up against the German Panzers.

I used to know a gentleman in my church who had been a tank driver in the North Africa campaign.

He said that everybody knew it was a lie even then.

He said the hardest thing to live with in his life was the lie told to these young naive boys that the Shermans could go up against the German Panzers.

It didn't help matters that they were fueled by gasoline rather than diesel, thus having a propensity to explode in a ball of fire when hit.

My father had a similar job—he was a Staff Sergeant, in charge of a platoon of five tank-retriever wreckers, assigned to the 3rd Armored Division.

He tells similar stories of pulling Shermans off the battlefield, and in some cases the remains of the crew were still inside. Many of the damaged tanks leaving the maintenance company got a fresh paint job on the inside, to cover up fire and bloodstains.

A maintenance officer in the division named Belton Cooper wrote a book on his experiences back in 1998. It’s called “Death Traps,” and it does an excellent job of recounting the unit’s tank losses during WWII. As I recall, the division landed in France with 232 Shermans; over the next 11 months, they lost over 700 tanks, a cumulative loss rate of more than 600%.

Cooper puts much of the blame on George Patton, who favored the lighter, faster Sherman over the heavier M-26 Pershing, which was armed with a 90mm main gun. Patton argued that armored forces were supposed to drive deep into the enemy’s rear, so you needed a fast tank that could be easily maintained. But to achieve that breakthrough, you still had to slug it out with enemy tanks, and in those engagements, the Sherman was at a decided disadvantage.

"He said the hardest thing to live with in his life was the lie told to these young naive boys that the Shermans could go up against the German Panzers."

When deployed as intended they could. The German strategy for tanks was as a main assault platform to be supported by mechanized infantry. The Sherman's role was opposite. It was a mass produced, highly reliable platform, when coupled with US air superiority, intended to support infantry. It was never designed or intended for a heads up confrontation with panzers like the T-34 was.

He said the hardest thing to live with in his life was the lie told to these young naive boys that the Shermans could go up against the German Panzers.

IIRC the Germans called the Sherman the "Ronson" -- after the cigarette lighter.

The military's version of the Ford Pinto.

NO cheers, unfortunately.