“So she isn’t a history major.”
I didn’t find that quote, so I can’t check it for context. FWIW, however, there is a hint of truth to such a statement. Formerly, tanks such as the Sherman were too often used as ad hoc artillery batteries, and they were equipped with the devices needed to plot such indirect artillery fire. It is only in recent times this capability was dropped in American tanks for a variety of reasons, including the elimination of the need to design the gun to elevate for indirect fire. Taken in a jocular and wry sense, it might be said the Sherman tank was too often treated as a mobile artillery piece in the eyes of the people on the receiving end of its gunfire.
Footnote 2, page 2. While the reference to artillery was jarring, the bigger problem was her equating the German term ‘panzer’ with the American ‘Sherman’. The equivalent should have been either ‘tank’ or ‘armor’. Or, she could have equated a Panzer IV to a US M4. Although the Germans used an assortment of panzers during Wacht am Rhein.