5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#151

Post by Sheldrake » 11 Jan 2019, 19:24

JD wrote:
11 Jan 2019, 15:51
After all, the Sherman had met the Tiger in Italy and done well. How was it suddenly a bad tank in France? Allied tankies had ways of dealing with German tanks that involved communication and teamwork. Some had high levels of training and were combat proven. Others were totally inexperienced. But I don't think anyone just gave up.
I think you have hit on an interesting point.

There is no doubt that there has been a huge fuss during and after WW2 about the perception that allied armour was inferior to that of the Germans. It started in North Africa with the British. Kasserine Pass was a nasty shock for the US. From Tunisa 88s and Tigers were all part of the tankers worst nightmare.

Questions were raised in the House of Commons by Major Richard Stokes MC MP.
HC Deb 30 March 1944 vol 398 cc1553-4 1553
§47. Mr. Stokes asked the Prime Minister whether he will cause to be brought to the yard of this House a German Mk. VI Tiger tank and a British A22, so that Members may see for themselves the relative merits of these two weapons.
§The Prime Minister No, Sir.
§Mr. Stokes Is the Prime Minister prepared to say why?
§The Prime Minister I think the trouble and expense involved, though not very great, is still more than is justified to satisfy the spiteful curiosity of my hon. Friend.
§Mr. Stokes Is the Prime Minister not aware that great interest has been aroused in this matter in this House; and, if he cannot see his way to go to the comparatively trivial expense of bringing the machines here, will he arrange for a party of hon. 'Members to visit both machines together, on some suitable site in the country?
§Mr. McGovern Will the Prime Minister be prepared to take charge of a Churchill tank and allow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) to take charge of a Tiger tank?
§The Prime Minister I think it might be one way of settling the difference.
§Mr. Stokes May I have a reply to my question?
§Sir A. Beit Is there not the additional risk, if the request were granted, that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) might then attempt to act as technical instructor?
§Mr. Stokes In view of the interest aroused among large numbers of hon. Members, if the Prime Minister cannot see his way to bring the machines here, will he arrange for a suitable demonstration at a suitable spot in the country to which Members can go?
But the balance of views on this forum, and to be fair, a lot of military historians, is that Shermans were pretty good tanks. Allied tankers were at less of a disadvantage compared to German tank crews in Russia in 1941.

So which version is right? Is this a matter of analysing what happened on WW2 battlefields or what happened ion the minds of Allied tankers, the media and the public?

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 4472
Joined: 08 Apr 2014, 20:00

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#152

Post by Cult Icon » 11 Jan 2019, 19:53

^
Sherman losses however were quite high...

I found that German tank crews in 1941/1942 weren't at a disadvantage overall due to their superior training and organization. Yes, there were many situations where their weapons were too inferior to the T-34 and KV models which lead to disappointments but the German forces had tactical, organizational, and operational superiority that negated this. Soviet tank units had a tendency to disintegrate under pressure, leading to a lot of abandoned AFVs.


ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#153

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 11 Jan 2019, 19:59

JD wrote:
11 Jan 2019, 15:51
Thought I'd resurrect this thread, hopefully peacefully, with this nugget I saw recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

I'm particularly interested in his comment that US tanks attacked in fives anyway. Maybe this is where some of the confusion comes from. Other things like tactics are loosely discussed but probably need more elaboration. A lot of assertions are made about the Sherman's effectiveness against the frontal armour of German big cats but nobody ever questions the idea that fighting to your opponents strengths is a poor tactic. It also sell the Allied tankies short.

How was it suddenly a bad tank in France?
Yes, as Mr. Moran notes The US maneuvered and attacked in platoons which was 5 tanks. And a "tank contact drill" was just platoon SOP. I have heard the term "Tiger drill") but in what contexts I don't recall, but I think that was basically just another name for the the SOP contact drill, and an identification included.

As to that guy , Nick Moran" IIRC, he is a member here as well,

As to your video , yes it has been mentioned and the topic discussed slightly and nicely :lol:
Sherman performance
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=217290&sid=02d2d57 ... b04a9a6637
And also Tiger v M4(76) where this vid is mentioned as well , and the whole deal slightly again and is still going on right now
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=238880&hilit

All in all , what made the Sherman seem "inferior" was because at times they ran up against firepower inferiority . The German's put an 88 AA gun in the Tiger I , This had an edge in effective range over the Sherman and seemed awful' "big and bad" to the standard 75mm most Shermans carried
Then when the Allies first landed in France they hit the Bocage, the Bocage was bad for many tanks' reputation(except for Villers helping Tiger's image of course),. The fighting was close , all tanks are vulnerable at short range. IMO The Sherman got a bad rep in "France" simply because it was the most numerous tank. so it as well became the most "destroyed" tank on the Allied side that Western Allied soldiers would see wrecked and some formed opinions from that Perhaps if those had seen the 40K(?) wrecked T-34's they might have had a different view.

Training effectiveness? Might be a new area topic to go into - comparisons US , UK, Ger. afv training time and veteran %'s, from D-Day on

Regards, Just passing through

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 4472
Joined: 08 Apr 2014, 20:00

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#154

Post by Cult Icon » 11 Jan 2019, 20:14

Sheldrake wrote:
11 Jan 2019, 19:24

But the balance of views on this forum, and to be fair, a lot of military historians, is that Shermans were pretty good tanks. Allied tankers were at less of a disadvantage compared to German tank crews in Russia in 1941.

So which version is right? Is this a matter of analysing what happened on WW2 battlefields or what happened ion the minds of Allied tankers, the media and the public?
These repetitive debates are more about immense subject matter ignorance- Panther, Tiger, and Sherman are being judged by an extremely small % of their combat use. I don't think any human has mastered the subject and the majority have not even mastered a small portion--- no matter the title they carry and their degree of self-confidence.

3 posts I recently made in ACG discussing this with CBO:

eg."I find that the overwhelming majority of tank heads don't fully grasp the totality of WW2 tank warfare (battles, campaigns, organization/tactical units), their focus is diverted elsewhere. I've never seen someone who really mastered both worlds- requires someone who is a genius of sorts who knows how to do primary research and is extremely well read in both english, and german- language materials. The idea of say, how the Panther tank would fare in US service is entirely theoretical and nobody knows how it would play out except for speculation. It's like an argument that never dies, a maze of sorts because no researcher or group of researchers has decisively stamped out the subject."

"In forums the Panther is heavily judged based on a very small % of its use: Kursk, Normandy, Arracourt and to a lesser extent, the Ardennes. Arracourt and Kursk has what is probably its absolute worst performance in WW2 (it performed worse than the Panzer IV equipped units) and Normandy was one of the toughest battlegrounds for attacking german armor due to immense superiority.

There is significant but still incomplete numbers of english-language combat histories of Panther units or in Eastern Front battles that show a different picture. It must be far more in German and Russian."

"With the Panther, Sherman, Tiger, or any other tank, I believe that a large enough set of representative samples of various tactical/organizational situations are enough to draw a conclusion from its combat and organizational history.

So with the Panther, besides those areas, samples from the East Front 43-45 and West Front 44-45 should be included- the use in Kursk/Arracourt is in many ways sub-par and experimental (new equipment in the former and in both hastily set up Panzer Brigades, all of which were disbanded shortly afterwards due to especially low organizational effectiveness). Normandy can be an example of the Panther in conditions of sharp German inferiority, Western enemies, and in less-than ideal terrain. Ardennes is an example of the Panther in the conditions of offensive but with the context of a crumbling German war machine- which could not support its attacking troops properly and faced a strong opponent.

The East Front Sept 43- June 44 and West Front Fall 44' in from what I gather has the cleanest context (without extreme environmental conditions and more in the context of organized retreats)."

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#155

Post by MarkN » 11 Jan 2019, 23:11

Cult Icon wrote:
11 Jan 2019, 20:14
These repetitive debates are more about immense subject matter ignorance- Panther, Tiger, and Sherman are being judged by an extremely small % of their combat use.
Nah! Less about subject matter ignorance - although that certainly exists - but more a determination to remain willfully ignorant and in denial of anything that doesn't fit the preconceived answer.
Cult Icon wrote:
11 Jan 2019, 20:14
I find that the overwhelming majority of tank heads don't fully grasp the totality of WW2 tank warfare (battles, campaigns, organization/tactical units), their focus is diverted elsewhere. I've never seen someone who really mastered both worlds- requires someone who is a genius of sorts who knows how to do primary research and is extremely well read in both english, and german- language materials. The idea of say, how the Panther tank would fare in US service is entirely theoretical and nobody knows how it would play out except for speculation. It's like an argument that never dies, a maze of sorts because no researcher or group of researchers has decisively stamped out the subject.
The mistake in your example is the notion that disappearing down the what if rabbit hole is going to produce an acceptable answer. Can you really determine which pantser was 'better' by imaginging how other people would use it?

The Sherman was the product of what the Americans wanted: an allround pantser to support the infantry divisions. They had other equipment to deal specifically with enemy pantsers. The British bought into it as much for what it offered - a universal pantser - as much as in desperation for something to fill their own pantser design and manufacturing void. British tactical failure on the battlefield was primarily down to the tactics they employed, not the equipment they were using. The Sherman was seen as the answer to their earlier failures because it could lob a decent HE shell. The 'universal' pantser was the British way of avoiding how to do combined arms properly.

The Sherman was never meant to be a pantser comparable to the Tiger or Panther. Trying to compare the two is like apples and oranges. That's the mistake that so many make. It's understandable why they do it; they came up against each other so often. But trying to turn history into a qame of top trumps is never a serious endeavour - and yet, so many choose to go down that path.

Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#156

Post by Aber » 12 Jan 2019, 09:45

Cult Icon wrote:
11 Jan 2019, 20:14
The idea of say, how the Panther tank would fare in US service is entirely theoretical and nobody knows how it would play out except for speculation.
There is some evidence:
a new article about the 4th Coldstreams Guards armored battalion during the campaign in Western Europe in WW2. In particular, the article looks at “Cuckoo”, a captured German Panther tank used by the unit for a time.
https://tankandafvnews.com/2016/04/27/o ... ther-tank/

JD
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 18 Nov 2004, 07:10
Location: Australia

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#157

Post by JD » 14 Jan 2019, 16:07

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
11 Jan 2019, 19:59
All in all , what made the Sherman seem "inferior" was because at times they ran up against firepower inferiority . The German's put an 88 AA gun in the Tiger I , This had an edge in effective range over the Sherman and seemed awful' "big and bad" to the standard 75mm most Shermans carried
Then when the Allies first landed in France they hit the Bocage, the Bocage was bad for many tanks' reputation(except for Villers helping Tiger's image of course),. The fighting was close , all tanks are vulnerable at short range. IMO The Sherman got a bad rep in "France" simply because it was the most numerous tank. so it as well became the most "destroyed" tank on the Allied side that Western Allied soldiers would see wrecked and some formed opinions from that Perhaps if those had seen the 40K(?) wrecked T-34's they might have had a different view.
I think from my own perspective, that the biggest problem that a lot of people have is the notion that if you were in a Sherman and you came up against a Tiger, you had no hope and there was nothing you could do about it. From this perspective, many people draw the view that this was because the Sherman was a poor tank. From my perspective, that is a bit unimaginative and something of a flat earth view, not the least because it reduces everything to equipment. On an open plain in fine weather it might be true. In any other conditions a lot of the Tiger's notional advantages are compromised. Of course a lot of this is somewhat neutralised by Steve Zaloga's research that shows that there were only three documented cases where the US Army came up against Tigers in France. While there were probably more that were not recorded, it nonetheless makes a very clear point that such encounters were so rare as to be not worth the counting. If that sounds callous, it's also worth noting that there were plenty of other ways to get killed, nearly all of them more common than an encounter with a Tiger.

While I'm sure that taking on a Tiger in a Sherman was something to be approached with extreme caution, I'm also sure that the Allied tankies had a lot of ways and means of dealing with them that nobody thinks about because the specifications seem so overwhelming.

Range is always cited as a big win for the Tiger but in most cases it made no difference. Examples of Tiger kills at 2 kilometres have been shown to be rare in the extreme and 3 kilometres non-existent. Zaloga shows that 2 kilometre kills comprised only 0.5% of the total (there seems to be no supporting data for anything beyond that) and it required large amounts of ammunition to achieve. The concept of "one shot - one kill" is not very supportable and again Zaloga has researched this. Relying on unit histories is also fraught with danger because, although they'll say that their tank was blown up by a Tiger three kilometres away, in the heat of battle, it was far more likely that they missed the PaK 40 hidden in the spinney 400 metres up the road. A destroyed tank is a destroyed tank, no matter what hits it. The most immediate concern is to do something about it. The most common range for Tiger kills on the Eastern front, according to Zaloga, was between 400 and 800 metres. So, even allowing for those wide open spaces, it seems good artillery drill was the best tactic.

Villers Bocage will always be a hotbed of debate. The total numbers of vehicles Wittmann is said to have destroyed, their types, his behaviour, etc., is not a validation of the Tiger or the primary reason why the Germans held on. While the efforts of one individual are noteworthy, I think the real story is to be found in the intertwined fates of Erskine and Bucknall in the weeks following.

As far as the T-34 is concerned, I also think here is much misunderstanding about this and I think it will be a long time before we really know very much about it. What is almost never mentioned it the fact that Zhukov was never really comfortable taking the kinds of casualties he did, excoriating junior officers who sacrificed men and machines in poorly planned attacks on heavily defended targets. For all the criticism he cops, it is a concept that seems echoes to some degree in the assumptions of a lot of people in the ongoing "Tiger V Sherman" or "Panther V Sherman" debate.
Last edited by JD on 14 Jan 2019, 23:32, edited 3 times in total.

JD
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 18 Nov 2004, 07:10
Location: Australia

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#158

Post by JD » 14 Jan 2019, 16:19

Sheldrake wrote:
11 Jan 2019, 19:24
There is no doubt that there has been a huge fuss during and after WW2 about the perception that allied armour was inferior to that of the Germans. It started in North Africa with the British. Kasserine Pass was a nasty shock for the US. From Tunisa 88s and Tigers were all part of the tankers worst nightmare.
Again, I think it's worth pointing out that, while this was a substantial blow, it was almost like an ambush situation inflicted on relatively inexperience troops. It could be argued the Americans ambushed themselves in that one. Certainly the Americans, in that situation, had less experience that the Germans - who also held the tactical initiative - did. The Americans learnt from that.

Delwin
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 19:36
Location: Warsaw

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#159

Post by Delwin » 10 Sep 2020, 10:26

There is sth more to the story from the mentality perspective. US public and to lesser extent soldiers believed the US equipment and army to be superior in every single aspect. It was not that strong with Brits I believe - mostly due to direct experience in NA. Thus the level of expectation was very high and any single case of not being the most powerful player on the field was a bit shocking. Of course this does not discount (mostly derived from this apparent presumption of superiority) mistakes made by US Army in fielding more powerful weaponry - or at least better ammo (HVAP story).

On the other hand (while I cannot quote myself as an expert in the field) when reviewing the history of Polish armour in France and Italy (1944-45), I cannot find any evidence of feeling "outgunned". This maybe however that people who led those forces in 1944-45 had experience of really being outgunned, outnumbered etc. from 1939 battles. So If they are offered to lead the Armoured Division having more tanks that whole Polish army in 1939 it would be really strange to find them complaining of not having Tigers...

The other story is that one may say that WWII proves that having heavier and more powerful tanks leads to your defeat: France 1940, Russia 1941 and Germany 1944-45 :-).

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#160

Post by Richard Anderson » 10 Sep 2020, 17:29

Has anyone mentioned lately that the "5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth" is relatively modern, likely dating from the 1970's? The original myth was "it takes 3 of our Sherman tanks to knock out 1 Tiger".
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#161

Post by paulrward » 10 Sep 2020, 19:53

Hello All :

Or, has anyone mentioned that in numerous interviews conducted in the 1970s, surviving members
of Sherman crews, who actually had to fight the German tanks in France, expressed the opinion that
to successfully engage a Tiger or a Panther, you had to have a minimum of FIVE Shermans, and you
could count on at least THREE of the Shermans being destroyed and their crews killed.

This could explain the perceived discrepancy in the accounts......

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#162

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Sep 2020, 20:21

paulrward wrote:
10 Sep 2020, 19:53
Hello All :

Or, has anyone mentioned that in numerous interviews conducted in the 1970s, surviving members
of Sherman crews, who actually had to fight the German tanks in France, expressed the opinion that
to successfully engage a Tiger or a Panther, you had to have a minimum of FIVE Shermans, and you
could count on at least THREE of the Shermans being destroyed and their crews killed.

This could explain the perceived discrepancy in the accounts......

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
This is an obvious flame-bait from a regular troll. GIG0 writ large

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#163

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 10 Sep 2020, 22:52

JD wrote:
14 Jan 2019, 16:19
Sheldrake wrote:
11 Jan 2019, 19:24
There is no doubt that there has been a huge fuss during and after WW2 about the perception that allied armour was inferior to that of the Germans. It started in North Africa with the British. Kasserine Pass was a nasty shock for the US. From Tunisa 88s and Tigers were all part of the tankers worst nightmare.
Again, I think it's worth pointing out that, while this was a substantial blow, it was almost like an ambush situation inflicted on relatively inexperience troops. It could be argued the Americans ambushed themselves in that one. Certainly the Americans, in that situation, had less experience that the Germans - who also held the tactical initiative - did. The Americans learnt from that.
If you read through the reports & related docs of the US soldiers actually in those battles its not at all clear they were 'shocked' by the presence of the two dozen Tigers sent to Tunisa, or the 88s. A few may have understood the situation, but theres not much evidence the officers of the combat command or the 1st Armored Div, or the II Corps understood the role a dozen or half dozen Tigers played in the destruction of LtCol Hightowers battalion. In most of the tank on tank battles, & there were a few, the M4 Mediums were superior technically to the Italian or German tanks opposing them. The shocking thing the US soldiers, of all combat arms took away was their training & discipline needed improvement.

You can find the same thing in the Italian campaign in 1943. The few companies of Tigers present are hardly mentioned. Noted and filed in the routine intelligence reports. The first Panther sent from Italy to the US was not a cause of instant concern. To the summer of 1944 there were not three complete battalions of either Tigers or Panthers in Italy. Concern in the US tank community was over the rising numbers of high powered cannon of 75mm caliber, on AT carriages & tanks. There were litterally several thousand of those guns deployed mid 1944 and they were a problem.

Note that only a single battalion of Panthers with a daily effective strength of maybe 20, was deployed vs the US 1st Army in the Normandy battle. A few dozen more were encountered along the Seine River, which is where the first complaints from the actual fighting men about Tigers or Panthers come from. After that is the Battle of Arracourt where the first mlltibattalion Panther equipped units fight the US Army. Its only from that time in the late summer of 1944 the Panther or Tiger becomes a routine participant in US Army armored battles.

Both the Brits and Red Army had more experience fighting Panthers & Tigers with the M4 in the summer of 1944. What was their experience?

Delwin
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 19:36
Location: Warsaw

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#164

Post by Delwin » 11 Sep 2020, 13:56

Richard Anderson wrote:
10 Sep 2020, 17:29
Has anyone mentioned lately that the "5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth" is relatively modern, likely dating from the 1970's? The original myth was "it takes 3 of our Sherman tanks to knock out 1 Tiger".
Yes, I have read it- this is sometimes surprising how myths are developed. As to my comment: I just wanted to point out that all political and press news "we have inferior tanks!" claims are based on the felling that we should have been superpowered in every single case and that resonated to some extent - whether was true or not. That's also odd that the myth somehow "mutated" in 1970s and it is resurfacing again and again.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#165

Post by Richard Anderson » 11 Sep 2020, 16:54

Delwin wrote:
10 Sep 2020, 10:26
There is sth more to the story from the mentality perspective. US public and to lesser extent soldiers believed the US equipment and army to be superior in every single aspect. It was not that strong with Brits I believe - mostly due to direct experience in NA. Thus the level of expectation was very high and any single case of not being the most powerful player on the field was a bit shocking.
Possibly, but the best evidence is that the "shock" was oddly confined at the time and took quite a while to develop. In the extensive body of trip reports accumulated by the 12th Army Group Armor Section from August 1944-May 1945 there is little significant criticism or shock expressed until the winter of 1944 and even that is focused on the desire for greater gun power. Furthermore, the best-known criticism is from a single source, the "I. D. White letter", appears to have stemmed specifically from the events at Puffendorf, in November 1944, which is also what sparked Baldwin's series in the New York Times. However, the similar letter from Maurice Rose is less well known, probably because it does not as well support the Cooperholics.
Of course this does not discount (mostly derived from this apparent presumption of superiority) mistakes made by US Army in fielding more powerful weaponry - or at least better ammo (HVAP story).
What "mistakes" were those? The ammunition and armor quality problems - there were multiple interwoven issues - mostly stemmed from a lack of funding for basic research before the war (and an apparent unwillingness to cooperate with the USN BUWEAPS). The lack of basic research results meant that the issues with projectile design and fuzing were not discovered until after late May 1944.

The HVAP story simply illustrates that brute force solutions were imperfect.
On the other hand (while I cannot quote myself as an expert in the field) when reviewing the history of Polish armour in France and Italy (1944-45), I cannot find any evidence of feeling "outgunned". This maybe however that people who led those forces in 1944-45 had experience of really being outgunned, outnumbered etc. from 1939 battles. So If they are offered to lead the Armoured Division having more tanks that whole Polish army in 1939 it would be really strange to find them complaining of not having Tigers...
:D Yep that actually mirrors the US experience...in September 1939 the US Army had few more tanks than the whole Polish Army.
The other story is that one may say that WWII proves that having heavier and more powerful tanks leads to your defeat: France 1940, Russia 1941 and Germany 1944-45 :-).
:lol:
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”