Hello All ;
To Mr. Kenny ;
All in I reckon that qualifies as a 'devastating' rebuttal of your whole argument!
No it doesn't.
Even if we just use YOUR figures, the 2d Armored had to get either 43 or 41 replacement tanks. According to THE SIEGFRIED LINE CAMPAIGN , by Charles B. MacDonald, an official publication of the United States Army, the Germans suffered 11 tanks lost. So, even using your figures, two batallions of U.S. Tanks, roughly 100 in total, against 20 - 30 German tanks, suffered heavy losses, and only destroyed 11 in return. And how many tanks did the U.S. loose? Well, based on your scans, it was either 43 tanks ( 31 medium, 12 light ) or it was 41 tanks ( 21 M4, 15 M4A1, and 5 M5A1 )
But, I have to say, based on the history written in 1968 by Mayo, I find your figures contradictory. Remember, Mayo specifically states 38 M4s and 19 M3A1s, a total of 57 tanks knocked out, with casualties of 56 KIA, 281 WIA, and 26 MIA ( These last are probably dead, but never recovered, giving a total of 82 KIA, or about 1.5 men KIA per tank knocked out.
In addition, according to THE SIEGFRIED LINE CAMPAIGN, by Charles B. MacDonald, CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY WASHINGTON, D.G., 1993 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-60001 , on page 533, it states,
Though the 2d Armored Division had relinquished little ground during the first encounter with the 9th Panzer Division, General Harmon obviously was concerned about what another day might bring. In the second day's fighting, CCB had lost 18 more medium tanks destroyed and 16 more damaged and out of action, plus 19 light tanks in similar categories. In a brief commitment, CCA had lost 4 mediums. Personnel casualties were double those of D Day: 56 killed, 281 wounded, 26 missing.
This is a total of 53 tanks from CCB and 4 tanks from CCA, for a total of
57 tanks And this, Mr. Kenny, was with the arrival late in the action of a number of M-36 Tank Destroyers with 90 mm guns, who knocked out a number of the German Panthers, and forced the 9th Panzer to withdraw. We have to ask: What would have happened if those 90mm gunned TDs had not been available, or if they had been armed with the 3" M7 of the M-10s ?
And here we have a question of Organization. I have seen T.O.&E.s for 2nd Armored in 1944 which list the organization as being two Armored Regiments, each of which consists of three Battalions, ( two Medium, one Light ) each Battalion consisting of three companies, either of Medium or of Light Tanks, depending on the Battalion. I have seen other T.O.&E.s , from equally trustworthy sources, which describe the three Battalions as consisting of two Medium Companies and one Light Company.
However, based on the ratios of losses, and the description of events in McDonals's THE SIEGFRIED LINE CAMPAIGN, it is apparent that the Battalions were, in fact, mixed Battalions at this time.
So, from the records, we can infer that there were at least 68 M4s going up against ' 20 to 30 ' Panthers and Tigers. And, I again need to interject: Despite the fact that Mayo specifically states that the 2d Armored was facing a mixture of Panthers and Tigers, there is strong evidence that, in fact, the tanks they were facing were a actually a mixture of Panthers and PzKw IVs, the second of which, under some circumstances, strongly resemble the somewhat larger PzKw VI Tiger 1. There are some sources which state that, at the time of the engagement at Puffendorf, the 9th Panzer was reduced in strength to about 28 Panthers and 14 PzKw IVs, and that they didn't get their first Tigers until late November or early December.
Now, Mr. Kenny, I chose to focus on the engagement at Puffendorf for a simple reason: The weather was cloudy with intermittent rain, which meant that the Allied Air support was non existent, and the U.S. Artillery was greatly impeded by the lack of visibility. As a result, this was a straight Tank vs. Tank Action. And, the Germans handed the Hell on Wheels boys their heads.
Mr. Kenny, I know that, like all the other Sherman Fanboys, you don't want to read anything that contradicts your prejudices, but you can go to
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... l#contents
and read the Mayo's entire work, or at least the sections in Chapter 17. It was an eye opener to me when i first read it in a ' Green Book ' many years ago.
Also a note: this history was written in 1968, long before Belton Cooper penned his memoir. So, it cannot be said that it was colored by Mr. Cooper's work.
Respectfully ;
Paul R. Ward
( That's right - I read them in a Green Book - so much for the Google Ranger B.S. that some idiot has been using as an epithet )