Jump to content


Rants and Death Traps


  • Please log in to reply
441 replies to this topic

LuckyStarFan #21 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 19:07

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 19926 battles
  • 362
  • Member since:
    02-16-2013
Very nice write-up Chieftain.  I remember reading Death Traps over ten years ago and that shaped my opinion of the Sherman for a very long time.  It was only several years ago that I came to the point you make, Cooper had a skewed and often times depressing view of American armor.

Account_Name #22 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 19:30

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 0 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    09-07-2014

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Oct 18 2014 - 18:28, said:

 

I'm not gonna argue with anyone about it - I'm just telling you that the myth didn't start with Belton Cooper ...

 

Bet it was SLA Marshall.  

 

@M4A3E8sherman

 

Think I negrepped you by mistake - fixed it :honoring:

 

Do we know what North Korean crews and tactics were like during the Korean War?  I recall reading that their initial strategy in 1950 was lead their assault with an armored vanguard of T34s without any recon, which probably didn't help them much.

#20

 


Tupinambis #23 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 19:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 36770 battles
  • 15,281
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

Strong tanks don't win wars.

Good tanks win wars.



The_Chieftain #24 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 19:37

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13132 battles
  • 9,885
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostTigerDude33, on Oct 18 2014 - 18:02, said:

Surely you aren't just taking the word of the Army, which (like the Navy) showed again & again that it was more interested in justifying its decisions than in coming to good conclusions.  The major's main point, which is "we're winning" doesn't even address the question at hand.  We weren't winning due to the Sherman's design.  Hell, his first point is awful - that's the reason there are weight classes in boxing.  There is no need to nitpick the Major's points - they are easily picked apart.

 

I also doubt you will find them saying "Russian tanks are better than ours," which they were.

 

In fairness to the major, yes, it does. Absolutely, the point is not conclusive and as I said, you can punch a few holes in his argument. It is possible that had the US landed in Normandy with M6 Heavies vice M4 Mediums, the war would still have been won. But his point that medium tanks which sacrifice armor and gun for better transportability, mobility and maintenance were proven to be war-winning is also correct. A conscious decision was made that the US Army did not want to try shipping heavy tanks overseas, hence the M6 snd T14s never got anywhere. That decision was made for a set of reasons, no less valid than the set of reasons that Tiger got an 8.8cm gun or Panther had 8cm of armour on the front slope. The strategic level, the bit which really wins the war, relied upon logistics and movement of armies of men and machines, not the individual tactical abilities if one tank happened to meet another. There is usually more than one way to skin a cat, and often a few one can't. The Army's choice proved to be one of those ways.

 

 



dont_ping_me #25 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 19:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 83825 battles
  • 3,599
  • Member since:
    02-11-2012

View PostM4A3E8sherman, on Oct 18 2014 - 13:48, said:

 Uh, no.

 

Aside from the fact that artillery and aircraft were responsible for very few losses (air attack was estimated at 7%, and even this could quite possible be an inflation), the article itself specifically mentions what took those German tanks out.

 lrn2read pl0x

 

 

 

You are missing the point about artillery. Artillery kills infantry. Infantry protects tanks.



cdat1978 #26 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 19:46

    Private

  • Players
  • 35019 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    08-21-2013

this is a great peice of info, i was very lucky when in 1981 i was stationed in germany at the time we had the m60a3 but soon we got the first m1s in europe. i was in 3/64 armor at sweinfurt.

while iwas there i got mke a friendship with a german tanker who taught me alot about tanks and how important tthe crew is. he also pointed out that each tank has strengths and weaknesses. when the german tanks came out they were top of the line but over time crews died and tanks couldnt get the proper replacement parts. soon the tigers and panthers couldnt see out to thier max range which led to more tanks getting close before they could engage. plus towards the end of the war quality control went way downhill. he told me he shot a sherman with 9 rounds and 1 took the tread off but he couldnt pentrate the tank, it appeared the rounds just fell apart. his tiger had been hit so many times that he figured that he had lost about an inch of frontal armor in spots. he told me the most important ting he learned during the war machines dont win wars men do. he hated the russians with a passion but respected them, when america entered the war he told me that he told his crew we have lost. but we will take as many of them as we can. a good tank with a bad crew is just a target. a bad tank with a good crew is a killing machine. 



Harvester_0f_Sorrow #27 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:14

    Captain

  • Players
  • 28165 battles
  • 1,060
  • [NOBA] NOBA
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

the armor was inferior that's a fact

 

 

 

 

the number of tanks that kept coming at them is what beat them


also troops, arty and air support

peace out


Edited by Harvester_0f_Sorrow, Oct 18 2014 - 20:16.


Samelde #28 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:17

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32862 battles
  • 134
  • [OLD_I] OLD_I
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012
I don't take anything on the History Channel at face value. For that mater, the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet are rife with misrepresentation as well. A favorite tactic seems to be talking about one thing while showing another, e.g., the narrator might be speaking in ominous tones about the dreaded Tiger Tank, whilst the actual videos shows various Panzers  including IIs, IIIs IVs, and so on. The idea that Panther had an 8.8 cm main gun seems to have lodged in the collective video-psuedo-historical-memory like some meme and gets repeated endlessly. What might be most aggravating about these shows is the failure to fact check even the simplest of things.

Edited by Samelde, Oct 18 2014 - 20:18.


Priory_of_Sion #29 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,761
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View PostHarvester_0f_Sorrow, on Oct 18 2014 - 15:14, said:

the armor was inferior that's a fact

 

 

 

 

the number of tanks that kept coming at them is what beat them


also troops, arty and air support

peace out

How is that a fact? Where is the evidence to support that "fact."



Meplat #30 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostHarvester_0f_Sorrow, on Oct 18 2014 - 12:14, said:

the armor was inferior that's a fact

the number of tanks that kept coming at them is what beat them

 

Everybody, Drink!



Harvester_0f_Sorrow #31 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:27

    Captain

  • Players
  • 28165 battles
  • 1,060
  • [NOBA] NOBA
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Oct 18 2014 - 12:19, said:

How is that a fact? Where is the evidence to support that "fact."

 

 

lol its everywhere and of course the American government wouldn't like to admit it.


 

obviously you are very young or you don't know very much



Account_Name #32 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:31

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 0 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    09-07-2014

View PostHarvester_0f_Sorrow, on Oct 18 2014 - 21:27, said:

lol its everywhere and of course the American government wouldn't like to admit it.


 

obviously you are very young or you don't know very much

 

Your trolling-fu is weak.  

 

View PostSamelde, on Oct 18 2014 - 21:17, said:

I don't take anything on the History Channel at face value. For that mater, the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet are rife with misrepresentation as well. A favorite tactic seems to be talking about one thing while showing another, e.g., the narrator might be speaking in ominous tones about the dreaded Tiger Tank, whilst the actual videos shows various Panzers  including IIs, IIIs IVs, and so on. The idea that Panther had an 8.8 cm main gun seems to have lodged in the collective video-psuedo-historical-memory like some meme and gets repeated endlessly. What might be most aggravating about these shows is the failure to fact check even the simplest of things.

 

The infamous Engineering Disasters episode about the Sherman used an M3 or M5 light tank (my recognition skills are weak) for the segment where Cooper bleats about improvised armor.  The docco is full of various TDs nipping about too, and I think a Pershing is shown at one point.



Meplat #33 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostHarvester_0f_Sorrow, on Oct 18 2014 - 12:27, said:

 

 

lol its everywhere and of course the American government wouldn't like to admit it.


 

obviously you are very young or you don't know very much

I looked under my seat and found none of your evidence.  I looked outside, and it was still nowhere to be found. I even checked under the trucks, and in the shop.  Did you leave it on my roof?

 

Perhaps you should post some of your evidence.



StrohsVonPabst #34 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:37

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6821 battles
  • 202
  • [LUPUS] LUPUS
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

Chieftain,Question for you:were you an American tanker IN World War 2? If so,age has been kind to you.Mr.Cooper was an adult serving in the U.S.Army,dealing with tanks during World War 2. I do have respect for your knowledge of armoured warfare and very much enjoy the video's you make.Though why you have not made one for Italian armour such as the M13/40 is puzzling.I suppose after reading this,you never will.That said,you are,in essence,calling this Man a liar.Never-no-mind he attended the Virginia Military Institute was a Captain during World War II,in which he served as an Ordnance Liaison Officer with the 3rd Armored Division, and was awarded 5 Campaign battle stars, a Distinguished Unit Citation, the Belgian Fourragere and the Bronze Star Medal.The Man worked with the very tanks you,it seems in a roundabout way claim he had spurious knowledge of.Also,the guy is dead,you are slapping a corpse.So when,and if World of Warships ever comes out,are you going to say American submariner's had lied about the problems they had with the torpedoes they had been issued? Oh yea,I remember you saying there will not be submarines in WoWS.Okay,but you get my drift!?

               I have probably come off as a [edited],that was not my intent.But Mr.Cooper was not the only American to say the M4 was not up to the task.It would seem that the M4A3E8 and Firefly evened the odds.From what little I do know(as I was not born until 1970 and thus cannot say with 100% metaphysical certitude what really happened)it would seem that the gun was the major issue,not so much the rest of the tank.Also,from what I have learned,the Mk V and VI do seem to have had major issues with reliability but,it would also seem they did have better armour protection and vastly superior weapons.The Germans probably could have stuck with the Mk III L and Mk IV H and had themselves a lot easier time.But,then again,I was not there,I have to rely on the words of the Men who fought that war in those vehicles.I am just a history buff with more experience studying the ancient Near East and the Pacific War,and I go by the people who had been there.I would like to say Darius gave Alexander a much tougher time,as I am a Persian fanboy,But I was not there.With all due courtesy~S.V.P.     P.S. So,do you think there is a chance you might make a video on Italian armour?????



Meplat #35 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012
If slapping a corpse disturbs you, history and the study of it is not a field you should be dabbling in.

Harvester_0f_Sorrow #36 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:44

    Captain

  • Players
  • 28165 battles
  • 1,060
  • [NOBA] NOBA
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

its nice to see that most of us know about the shermans and their many faults

 

and its pretty disgusting to see all the dummies with no clue



totensburntcorpse #37 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:45

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32626 battles
  • 201
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

Am finished reading a book by John Mosier- " Hitler vs Stalin ", its a higher level book dealing with the economics of the eastern front.  But related to this article what I find most telling is that it is historically ignored that lend lease ( of which some were british and American tanks ) the m4 was what the germans were most afraid of until hoards of T-34s were being issued.  But this was covered up in the fervor of the patriotic war.

 

 

Am part way through a far more interesting book from 1956 called " Panzer Battles ", as the memoirs of Major General FW von Mellenthin ( book shows him at the beginning of his career as a capt at a dinner with hitler three seats to his left ).  Something that is pointed out numerous times is simply this; pz2 pz3 were the back bone of the german armor forces for 39-43.  When these tanks came up against people with lee's Sherman's and val's they go whooped.  Kasserine pass not withstanding the usa had to learn by fire how not to tank.  There after pz4s were pretty much holding their own.  panthers tigers and other weapons while superior INDIVIDUALLY proved to be wholly inadequate once combined arms with far higher deployment amounts of the allies.  Even the Russians eventually got losses to less than 3-1 down from some horrible rates of 10-1 for infantry  ( another book I have discussing prokorovka said the SS corp of 1,2,3 ss armor were killing Russians at a rate of 5-1, but most of the tanks were actually T-80s with over 1/2 the deployment ).

But all the books noted the germans main fear from the west was hoards of M4s that were faster, better armed ( panthers and tigers not withstanding ), longer ranged, combined arms supported and seemingly endless in supply.



Meplat #38 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostHarvester_0f_Sorrow, on Oct 18 2014 - 12:44, said:

its nice to see that most of us know about the shermans and their many faults

 

and its pretty disgusting to see all the dummies with no clue

 

"most"? Oh boy.

 

List your "faults" with a design you've likely never been in, or take your amateurish clownshoe trolling elsewhere.



Dezert #39 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:50

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 25513 battles
  • 158
  • Member since:
    03-07-2011

In my personal research since playing this game I have always asked myself why didn't "We" (Americans) take heavy armor into WWII.  After all the research I read the M4 would always be the tank of choice because of money and space it would take to ship them abroad.  It was more a political and money issue to fund the war as effectively as possible.  The M6 never saw action because of this issue. 

 

The other main points to this argument that has been posted by Chieftain was articles he found and the actual usage of the M4 and it's effectiveness when compared to other tanks.  Maintenance it was probably the best tank in my opinion as it was able to see field repairs quickly and get put back into service in a short amount of time.  If you compare it to the Panther it was a beast to repair if it came to one of its many axles as you would have to take out  engine and transmission components to get to.

 

In my opinion the M4 became the basis of what most modern tanks take after when it comes to design.  Something that has maneuverability, with adequate firepower, and cost effective in repairs and delivery.



The_Chieftain #40 Posted Oct 18 2014 - 20:53

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13132 battles
  • 9,885
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostStrohsVonPabst, on Oct 18 2014 - 20:37, said:

Chieftain,Question for you:were you an American tanker IN World War 2? If so,age has been kind to you.Mr.Cooper was an adult serving in the U.S.Army,dealing with tanks during World War 2

 

Nope, I'm far to young for that, obviously :)

 

Quote

Though why you have not made one for Italian armour such as the M13/40 is puzzling.I suppose after reading this,you never will.

 

No, mainly because I've not really had access to one with a video team. Plus, I haven't found an operator's manual. I'm sure I'll get around to one eventually, but it's fairly low on the 'near future' list.

 

Quote

That said,you are,in essence,calling this Man a liar.

 

I prefer to say he's unreliable. To call him a liar would be to ascribe malice, and I have no reason to believe he was intentionally setting out to deceive anyone. Intent, however, need not correlate with accuracy. The bottom line is that not everything he says is true, and the further from his own sphere of observation anything was, the less likely, it seems, his statement about it was going to be true. In either case, it will certainly be less reliable.

 

Quote

Never-no-mind he attended the Virginia Military Institute was a Captain during World War II,in which he served as an Ordnance Liaison Officer with the 3rd Armored Division, and was awarded 5 Campaign battle stars, a Distinguished Unit Citation, the Belgian Fourragere and the Bronze Star Medal.The Man worked with the very tanks you,it seems in a roundabout way claim he had spurious knowledge of.Also,the guy is dead,you are slapping a corpse.

 

I'm slapping his book, not him. For the purposes of studying history, I don't care how many battle stars or unit citations he's earned (I only have four campaign awards, a Valorous Unit Award, Meritorious Unit Citation and two Bronze Star Medals, incidentally), his awards don't make his statements such as "Patton attended a conference and decided to prevent Pershing from being the tank for the job" true. A statement is true or false on the face of it, regardless of the intent or the valor of the person making it.

 

Unfortunately, though we commonly say "Perception is reality", in the field of research, this is not the true. Preception is perception, and reality doesn't care what people perceived. If Sherman crews perceived that putting sandbags on their tank was going to increase their survivability, even if was a commonly accepted practice to increase morale, it doesn't stop the engineers who knew what they were talking about with empirical evidence from saying "Guys, this actually makes matters worse." Who would be correct? The crewmen, or the engineers?

 

Cooper's book can be divided into what he saw, what he interpreted, and what he heard. What he saw is pretty much to be taken at face value, absent evidence that he was absolutely wrong. What he interpreted is to be given some weight, but with the understanding that he is looking at a problem from only one perspective. What he heard is to be given the least weight of all. It does not devalue his book as a memoir, but it should not be confused with a reliable source of objective information.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users