Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
paulrward
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by paulrward » 30 Nov 2016 02:29

Hello All ;

To Mr. Anderson ;

Having read your somewhat disjointed screeds, I noted you asked a rhetorical question of me,
Would you mind telling me Mr. Ward, just which tank destroyers went to the Philippines to get "stomped"?
In fact, the first self propelled Tank Destroyers ever built by the U.S. Army were the 75 mm Gun Motor Carriage T12 half tracks, armed with WW1 vintage French 75s mounted on pillow blocks. These were used in the Louisiana Maneuvers of 1941, in which three officers, one named Patton, one named Bradley, and one named Eisenhower, distinguished themselves. During the course of the Wargames, the experimental Tank Destroyer Doctrine ( Oooooh - There's that word you don't like again ! ) was tested, and despite the lack of success of the S.P Tank Destroyers, the orders were given to create a separate Tank Destroyer Force. A Field Manual was published, and orders were given for the production of more standardized half track T.D.s ( known as the 75 mm Gun Motor Carriage M3 ) and officers and men were recruited for ( or dragooned into ) the new Tank Destroyer Force.

As soon as the Maneuvers were completed, the T12s were transported to the West Coast, loaded on ships, and sent to the Philippines, where, within a few months, they got a chance to test their flawed doctrine against the small, lightly armored and poorly armed IJA tanks. Amazingly, the T.D.s were defeated in one of the only engagements they fought against the IJA tanks, because the T12 could not depress it's gun below 5 degrees ( one of the drawbacks of the poorly engineered use of an obsolete field gun mounted on a half track ) and so, at short range, could only use indirect fire against the IJA tanks. Ooops.

You then went on:
You forgot about surfing for an academic paper that agrees with your previously conceived point of view (AKA "confirmation bias") in order to achieve an aura of academic respectability.
OK, Mr Anderson. Here the ball is in your court. Find us a source that does NOT say that McNair was responsible for the heavy losses among U.S. armored formations due to their required use of obsolescent M-4s in the campaign of 1944. In other words, are there any impartial scholars who, having looked at all the evidence, feel that McNair was correct in his efforts to stall the M26 and keep the M36 from being shipped to Europe ?

By impartial scholar, of course, I mean somebody other than you.....


And you are repeating your calumnies about a serving armor officer whose experience in tanks I suspect is infinitely greater than yours, as is his experience in researching in the archival materials related to this subject.

So who are you flacking for?

Mr. Anderson, I'm not flacking for anyone. I have no financial interest in selling games or anything else related to WW2 ( Except the occasional rifle I restore and sell to friends ) What I do know is that I have personally spoken to men who served in the summer, autumn, and winter of 1944 in M-4 Shermans, and, to a man, they freely admitted that they were, as one of them put, " Scared Shitless of those Kraut Tanks ! "

And, as for directing calumnies at Maj. Moran, well, that last time I saw a guy in fatigues and a Cavalry Stetson with crossed Sabers on it, he was telling everyone that he " loved the smell of Napalm in the morning......."




Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

Cavalry.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by paulrward on 30 Nov 2016 02:48, edited 1 time in total.
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: 6965
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Michael Kenny » 30 Nov 2016 02:45

paulrward wrote: What I do know is that I have personally spoken to men who served in the summer, autumn, and winter of 1944 in M-4 Shermans, and, to a man, they freely admitted that they were, as one of them put, " Scared Shitless of those Kraut Tanks ! "
Did you ask any infantrymen if they were 'scared' of Kraut bullets?

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2473
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Yoozername » 30 Nov 2016 02:55

I think McNair also had some other doozies to his credit. The repple depot and also the shortened training. He was just doing his job...till the US Army Air Corp did theirs....

paulrward
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by paulrward » 30 Nov 2016 03:16

Hello Mr. Kenny ;

The Infantrymen I have spoken to, including one who spent a lifetime on Omaha Beach one day, all admitted that they were afraid. But the three men I have spoken to directly about armored warfare in France and Germany in 1944-45 all openly spoke of how they knew that they were in inferior vehicles, and that they and their comrades were being killed by superior enemy tanks.

I have also read an interview conducted after the war of a Sergeant who was a tank commander in the Armored Divisions, and who revealed that he was ordered by superior officers never to engage German tanks unless the odds were three to one in favor of the Americans. These orders were verbal orders, and when the Sergeant was asked by the interviewers if the orders were ever put in writing, he replied, " Are you crazy ? "

No army ever wants to admit to it's troops that they are being given inferior weapons, and that their chances or survival are limited at best. It's very bad for a thing called morale.....

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: 6965
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Michael Kenny » 30 Nov 2016 03:59

paulrward wrote: The Infantrymen I have spoken to, including one who spent a lifetime on Omaha Beach one day, all admitted that they were afraid.......................
Which is what your silly 'tankers' quote confirms. Nothing to do with being in an M4 and just a normal battlefield emotion.
paulrward wrote: I have also read an interview conducted after the war of a Sergeant who was a tank commander in the Armored Divisions, and who revealed that he was ordered by superior officers never to engage German tanks unless the odds were three to one in favor of the Americans. These orders were verbal orders, and when the Sergeant was asked by the interviewers if the orders were ever put in writing, he replied, " Are you crazy ? "
Can't remember who made that exact same argument/same quote some years back (perhaps you?) and is as unbelievable now as it was then.
To take your point to its conclusion and apply it to the Navy means every ship built would be a Battleship.


paulrward wrote: No army ever wants to admit to it's troops that they are being given inferior weapons, and that their chances or survival are limited at best. It's very bad for a thing called morale.....
I have dealt with enough 'Sherman was obsolete/crap/deathtrap' delusionists to know what I am dealing with here. An extreme case of WMP.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6965
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Michael Kenny » 30 Nov 2016 04:06

Found the previous quote and it was you who used it. Noteworthy that in all this time you still not been able to find the source.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1974080

You are not even bothering to do much more than cut and pasting the same words and defaulting to one sgt. when originally is was more than one sgt.
2016 top 2015 bottom
oct3003-vert.jpg


Given you are repeating your debunked 2015 claims I doubt the facts will will have any more impact this time round.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 30 Nov 2016 04:27, edited 1 time in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2473
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Yoozername » 30 Nov 2016 04:22

Unless one is in absolutely open terrain...how does one know what the 'odds' are?

paulrward
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by paulrward » 30 Nov 2016 05:01

Hello Mr. Kenny :

How and when was it debunked, and by whom ? You ? The Sherman Fanboys ?

It was true in 1944. It was true when I read it in the early 00s, it was true when I posted it last year, and it is still true.

Mr. Kenny, can you find one single enlisted Tank crewmen who fought in 1944-45 in France, the Low Countries, or Germany, who will say that his Sherman, with the 75mm M3 gun, was the equal of a Tiger or a Panther ? Please, Mr. Kenny, find that quotation, cite it for us ! I would like to read an account of an U.S. Army Tanker who thought his Sherman was the equal of a Tiger. I really would.

Instead, Mr. Kenny, here is an excerpt from an article in the Guardian, in which Mr. Bill Betts, a British WW2 veteran who served in Shermans in Northern Europe in the Essex Yeomanry, comments on the scene in the motion picture 'Fury', in which a group of Shermans encounter a single Tiger I :



For Bill Betts, the scene in which this Tiger tank takes on three US counterparts was the most realistic part of the film.

" Fury accurately portrays how superior the German tanks were. A Sherman provided you with protection against most enemy fire but against a Tiger it could easily become your coffin. I remember a very near miss where an eight cm shell from a Tiger tank went within inches of our turret and we decided not to stay around too long after that. In open combat we never had a chance. So, like in Fury, we always had to be one step ahead. It was only because we could call up air strikes and had many more tanks than the Germans that we eventually won."


But, please, Mr. Kenny. Give us some evidence from the men who served in them that the Sherman was NOT inferior to the Tiger in Tank vs. Tank combat. Please.


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 !

paulrward
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by paulrward » 30 Nov 2016 05:26

Hello Mr. Kenny ;

Here is another one, an interview with Mr. Lloyd Emerson, who served as a loader and radioman in the Third Army’s 11th Armored Division.

He comments on fighting German Tanks:
I never experienced a one-on-one tank battle........... We fought at considerable distances. One of the few times we came upon a German tank we were taking a city, and down the street we saw the barrel of a Panther medium tank. We knew better than to try to fight it. We surrounded the Panther and called in a tank destroyer that had a gun capable of finishing it off.
You can read the whole article here:

http://www.historynet.com/fury-a-tankers-eye-view.htm


So much for the Sherman taking on a Tiger, the Sherman crews knew they couldn't even fight it out with a Panther !

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: 6965
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Michael Kenny » 30 Nov 2016 06:42

paulrward wrote: How and when was it debunked, and by whom ? You ? The Sherman Fanboys ?
By people with facts. Facts like the actual number of tank crew casualties rather than your fiction culled from the pages of Cooper's historical novel.
paulrward wrote: It was true in 1944. It was true when I read it in the early 00s, it was true when I posted it last year, and it is still true.
It is as much an invention today as when you first outed it. Trying to make it sound more real by reducing the number of Sgts shows you can't even remember the details of your own fabrications.
paulrward wrote:Mr. Kenny, can you find one single enlisted Tank crewmen who fought in 1944-45 in France, the Low Countries, or Germany, who will say that his Sherman, with the 75mm M3 gun, was the equal of a Tiger or a Panther ?
A bit like you not being able to find a single person who claimed that a 30 ton tank was the equal of a 45-60 ton tank. Your arguments are juvenile and read like kids arguing over who's dad is tougher. WPE writ large.

paulrward wrote: Please, Mr. Kenny, find that quotation, cite it for us ! I would like to read an account of an U.S. Army Tanker who thought his Sherman was the equal of a Tiger. I really would.
And 'I would like to read an account of an U.S. Army Tanker who thought 3 Sherman was the equal of a Tiger. I really would'. Please, Mr. Ward, find that quotation, cite it for us !
Trouble is I never said I had a quote so do not have to provide one. You however have used a quote and claim you can not find the quote.
But, please, Mr. Ward Give us some evidence from the Sgt(s) who served in them that the Sherman was inferior to 3 Tiger in Tank vs. Tank combat. Please. Please, Mr. Ward, find that quotation, cite it for us !


Over to you. Can you provide the quote or are you going to try and bluster your way out?

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2473
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Yoozername » 30 Nov 2016 07:05

I have found EXACTLY 32 encounters of four Tiger I tanks and 20 Sherman Tanks. In a grand coincidence, they are all in the open, with no other supporting arms! I had insisted on 1 Tiger I and 5 Shermans but was told that Tiger Is statistically did not operate in single AFV. So I had to settle for the 32. Which is the number needed for a statistical dispersion.

I will crunch the numbers while you all figure out your problems. You know, I am involved in statistics, and there are studies regarding people like you...pay is low, you might be insulted by the possible outcomes, your neighborly beer distributor might be called in as a witness, but I am sure it is all historical worthy.

Udderwise, I think this website deserves better...

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by MarkN » 30 Nov 2016 14:27

Is this thread now a 'discussion' using straw man arguments and Top Trumps data?

Image

Anybody feeling left out and wanting to join in: http://picclick.co.uk/Ace-Trump-Game-To ... 87410.html

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7050
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 30 Nov 2016 17:09

A tank is considered an offensive weapon/asset and a fairly expensive one at that , to use one defending , involves a marginal cost, between using a tank , and using a cheaper yet more specialized asset, the tow-anti tank gun , or its motorized version , the tank destroyer.

Ironic ways to say it , "Don't use armor on defense'. or "Armor is wasted on defence", :milwink:
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 30 Nov 2016 18:30, edited 1 time in total.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7050
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 30 Nov 2016 18:05

paulrward wrote: And got stomped. In the Philippines.

Respectfully ;Paul R. Ward
Actually those 50 Half track GMC's did not get "stomped" at all , and did quite well though the entire campaign. And your following comments in later posts are typical of myriad slanted half-truths and anti-american garbage commonly found in your posts across net. The one "defeat" you note, was not because of flimsy Japanese tanks but because they had little to no infantry support, which when jungle fighting with the Japanese is "kinda" needed, so they withdrew in good order, not for any fault of the GMC's themselves, or getting "stomped" as that did not occur.

An accurate history and assessment of their service-
https://bataancampaign.wordpress.com/20 ... on-bataan/

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4351
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Richard Anderson » 30 Nov 2016 19:17

paulrward wrote:Having read your somewhat disjointed screeds,
Dear Mr. Ward, I apologize if my screed seems disjointed, but I actually pay very little attention to the half-truths, inaccuracies, and comic book imaginings of google jockeys. However, in your case, I'll try to be more to the point.
I noted you asked a rhetorical question of me,

In fact, the first self propelled Tank Destroyers ever built by the U.S. Army were the 75 mm Gun Motor Carriage T12 half tracks, armed with WW1 vintage French 75s mounted on pillow blocks. These were used in the Louisiana Maneuvers of 1941, in which three officers, one named Patton, one named Bradley, and one named Eisenhower, distinguished themselves. During the course of the Wargames, the experimental Tank Destroyer Doctrine ( Oooooh - There's that word you don't like again ! ) was tested, and despite the lack of success of the S.P Tank Destroyers, the orders were given to create a separate Tank Destroyer Force. A Field Manual was published, and orders were given for the production of more standardized half track T.D.s ( known as the 75 mm Gun Motor Carriage M3 ) and officers and men were recruited for ( or dragooned into ) the new Tank Destroyer Force.

As soon as the Maneuvers were completed, the T12s were transported to the West Coast, loaded on ships, and sent to the Philippines, where, within a few months, they got a chance to test their flawed doctrine against the small, lightly armored and poorly armed IJA tanks. Amazingly, the T.D.s were defeated in one of the only engagements they fought against the IJA tanks, because the T12 could not depress it's gun below 5 degrees ( one of the drawbacks of the poorly engineered use of an obsolete field gun mounted on a half track ) and so, at short range, could only use indirect fire against the IJA tanks. Ooops.
Yes, oops indeed. You are truly ignorant of cause and effect if you believe an organizational entity not in existence until 21 November 1941 arrived in the Philippines on 15 October 1941. Yet another case of a Google Ranger going astray I'm afraid.

You see, the 75mm T12 Gun Motor Carriage was designed to meet an Army requirement for a self-propelled artillery piece suitable as a field artillery gun, an infantry accompanying gun, and an antitank gun. It was not designed as a tank destroyer, although it did equip the first tank destroyer unit. It was an experimental self-propelled piece produced under a limited procurement order for 86 units.

That unit was activated from the 2d Battalion, 34th Infantry at Fort Meade, Maryland on 5 June 1940 as the 93d Infantry Antitank Battalion, originally intended to be armed with the 75mm M1897 Antitank Gun on Carriage M2A2 and M2A3. However, in August 1941 they were equipped with the first 36 of the T12 GMC produced at Aberdeen to test the "Tank Hunter" antitank concept. Then, in November they participated in the Carolina Maneuvers as part of General Hugh Drum's Tank Attacker Unit 1 (TA-1). Those maneuvers were still ongoing when General Marshall - NOT McNair - announced the activation of the Tank Destroyer Tactical and Firing Center at Fort Meade. However, the first official unit of the Tank Destroyer Command was the 893d Tank Destroyer Battalion, reflagged on 15 December 1941.

Meanwhile, in order to fulfill Generalissimo MacArthur's urgent request for reinforcement of the Philippines in the summer of 1941, the War Department decided on 16 August to send him 50 additional SPM to be produced at Aberdeen. The first 25 were dispatched to the West Coast and departed San Francisco on 12 September, arriving in Manila by the end of the month. The second 25 were complete an in route by 12 September and arrived in manila by 15 October.

However, they were only equipment, not units, and personnel were not provided. The provisional organization created was not a "tank destroyer" organization. It was a field artillery organization.

Meanwhile, I do not know where you googled your information that the T12 "could not depress it's gun below 5 degrees" and was mounted on "pillow blocks", but it is as ill-informed as the rest of your screed. "The gun was carried on Mount M3, a mount adapted from the 75-mm Gun Carriage M2A3. It could be elevated from - 10’ to +29O and could be traversed 19’ to the left and 21’ to the right." (Catalogue of Standard Ordnance Items, Volume I, 1 March 1945, p. 35)
OK, Mr Anderson. Here the ball is in your court. Find us a source that does NOT say that McNair was responsible for the heavy losses among U.S. armored formations due to their required use of obsolescent M-4s in the campaign of 1944. In other words, are there any impartial scholars who, having looked at all the evidence, feel that McNair was correct in his efforts to stall the M26 and keep the M36 from being shipped to Europe ?

By impartial scholar, of course, I mean somebody other than you.....
Tut-tut. While in theory you can prove a negative, I'm afraid in this case the burden of proof is on you. I asked you to provide evidence of McNair "blocking" the deployment of the T26, Marshall "overriding" McNair, "Tank Destroyers' being "stomped in the Philippines', and so on. Instead, you now wish me now to provide evidence I have already provided you, which makes this request of yours more than a bit silly. Meanwhile though, I suggest you read the late Mike Baily's Faint Praise, which goes far to readjust the "blame" - if such it can be called - from exclusively McNair and AGF to more evenly onto Ordnance and Armor...along with McNair and AGF.
Mr. Anderson, I'm not flacking for anyone. I have no financial interest in selling games or anything else related to WW2 ( Except the occasional rifle I restore and sell to friends )
I see, so you are only flacking for your own skills as a gunsmith. Well good on you then.
What I do know is that I have personally spoken to men who served in the summer, autumn, and winter of 1944 in M-4 Shermans, and, to a man, they freely admitted that they were, as one of them put, " Scared Shitless of those Kraut Tanks ! "
I see you are still unable to resist erecting straw men.
And, as for directing calumnies at Maj. Moran, well, that last time I saw a guy in fatigues and a Cavalry Stetson with crossed Sabers on it, he was telling everyone that he " loved the smell of Napalm in the morning......."
I see your ignorance extends to the modern U.S. Army Armor Cavalry tradition known as the "Order of the Spur"? Try googling that.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”