Posted on 03/28/2015 4:14:27 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
Patton commands a great tank army. The vast majority of that army is mounted on Shermans. The German army is disintegrating before him and he knows the war in Europe will soon be over. Why should Patton launch into an academic critique and comparison of the Sherman v. the Pershing v. the Tiger & Panther? There isn't a darn thing Patton or his tankers can do about the Sherman, is there? This debate was started and aborted during the Normandy campaign during which McNair and his allies squashed any quick fix of the tank problem. Patton knows the Pershings will arrive in such small quantities as to have no bearing on the outcome of the war. Criticisms of the Sherman will just depress morale on the last great push of the war. Why would any responsible commander engage in this debate at this stage of the war? Openly saying the Sherman is inferior would hurt morale among his tankers and among the infantry and artillery who depend upon them.
Besides, as noted in these threads, American tankers have adapted to tactics that effectively compensate for the Sherman's weaknesses.
Better to debate these issues after the war in Europe is over.
bump
That makes sense.
And yet, Patton was so outspoken and nobody usually had to guess where Patton stood on an issue. Seems like if he didn’t like the Shermans he would have probably been speaking up in Africa or Sicily at the beginning of things or we would have some record of his thoughts and feelings in the lull between Sicily and Normandy.
His rationale for supporting the Sherman seemed pretty solid to me - like a very practical review by a seasoned veteran.
The man was a leader, first and foremost.
Patton has a role in designing or selecting the Shermans? I didn’t know that, but it lends more credence in my mind to their worth because Patton knew tank warfare better than just about anyone else.
But Patton also comes across to me like a guy that, if he screwed up, for example, if he realized he was wrong about the Shermans, he would have said so early on. One of the greatest assets of successful people like Patton is they will figure out what’s wrong and take steps to correct it regardless of whose decision it was. They’re not afraid to say, “I was wrong” not because others are shouting it, but because they themselves have come to that conclusion. They are able to evaluate theirs and others’ performance objectively because they have such a passion for what they are doing. These are a rare breed.
Reagan was like that except Reagan had a major character advantage over Patton in that Reagan truly believed the words on the plaque that sat on his desk in the Oval Office: “There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn’t mind who gets the credit”.
I have seen articles suggesting Patton killed early production of the Pershing because he favored the Sherman. I'm not sure whether such historical theories have withstood scrutiny. But Patton was part of the American armored doctrine brain trust that decided the Sherman was going to be our tank to produce and use in great quantity. As part of that team, he may have felt a personal responsibility to defend the corporate decision.
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.