Posted on 03/10/2013 6:59:35 PM PDT by JerseyanExile
No agenda. I decided that since this history-column series was petty interesting that perhaps I should begin posting them here weekly. I just finished reading an autobiography about Patton so I figured I’d start with this one.
This particular column is written by an Army officer who served in armor for 15-years, and who works at a tank museum. The "Chieftain's Hatch" contains a great deal of in-depth research on tanks and armored warfare in the first-half of the 20th century, especially on obscure topics. Making sense of naming conventions of American vehicles? Experimental light tank designs of the 1950s? Information on why the US Army stuck with inadequate 75mm guns on M4s far into the later part of the Second World War?All of that and more, often complete with original documents from government archives.
Okay, fair enough, and it is indeed intriguing. I don’t agree with this particular take...but enjoyed it nonetheless....
I doubt he would have had his planes lined up on the runway like McArthur did.
FWIW, after the war General Lee was asked which of the generals he faced was the toughest opponent.
His answer? McClellan.
I call bs. Monty was done in North Africa until he got our Shermans. When he did, he just frontally assaulted what was left of the Afrika Corps.
After D Day, Monty’s troops couldn’t keep up with the American advance either. Montgomery was a diva. As bad as MacArthur in the Pacific.
We went into France in June, 1944. By April, 1945 it was over. Less than a year. There was no hesitation on the part of the U. S. forces.
We could have all waited a few months and turned Germany into a sea of radioactive mud.
Did you ever stop to think that in WWII all choices were bad choices. Compound that with the fact that psychopathic killers are incapable of being good judges of others, and you had one terrible mess.
Yep. Anywhere, to the very gates of hell. That is what war is.
No one who has ever been there will tell you otherwise.
The world is not and will not be a peaceful place. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.
War via drones may seem like a video game, but the point of impact is real. Holder’s comments under questioning by Ted Cruz this week was illuminating. The bastards would actually target US citizens who disagreed with them or threatened their power. No matter if it is constitutional or not. Evil vermin, yes they still very much exist.
There are so many things wrong with the statements of the author of the article, it is hard to know where to begin with the debunking. Suffice it to note the whole them amounts to no more than a heap of stinking revisionist crap the author should be ashamed of presenting to the public. Contrary to the outrageous falsehoods of the author, Patton was very well known to the German Wehrmacht. In addition to his debut role as the American tank commander in the First World War, German panzer tacticians such as Guderian studied Patton’s books and other information on tank warfare and integrated the information into their own tactics used in CASE YELLOW and later in the early part of the Second World War.
The author also wrongly assumes the German general must have been talking about Patton’s Third Army, instead of the Seventh Army.
Excellent...most excellent. Thank You.
The ageenda is appareent by the title of the Website: think Chieftan tanks.
Guderian used Patton’s prewar works about tank tactics to further develop his own blitzkrieg tank tactics.
Really?
The Germans called the Sherman tank "the Ronson", because one hit and it would blow up and catch fire.
The mechanics of the Sherman were very good. But the tank was underarmored and undergunned especially against heavier German equipment.
Arguably the best tank of WW-2 was the Russian T-34, which was diesel, heavier gunned, very fast and was the first to make use of sloped armor, which greatly improved protection.
BTW, the Russians found success against the Germans ~ you did know that, right?
It turns out 10 Shermans will generally take out one superior German tank.
Our tanks were not qualitatively successful, in particular, but they were wildly successful quantitatively.
As the saying goes, “Quantity has a quality of its own.”
“Arguably the best tank of WW-2 was the Russian T-34, which was diesel, heavier gunned, very fast and was the first to make use of sloped armor, which greatly improved protection.”
The Soviets didn’t seem to think so, because they used the Sherman tanks to equip their elite Guards Tank Divivions.
Like the Grant and Stuart tanks, huge successes [sarc].
Only until such time as their productive capacity improved to the point where the T-34's became primary. I saw a number of T-34's at the Ukrainian War Memorial in Kiev. They are the roughest looking thing going because they had to be built fast with no "finish" on them.
When the Russians finally turned the tide against the Germans, the T-34 was their lead. That is the tank that won at Kursk.
After the wet ammo storage system was introduced in the M4, the T-34 was actually MORE likely the burn than the Sherman. A Russian tankers who used both is the source of that statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.