Anyone read For Want of a Gun?

[John Kettler]

eBay served this up to me (have bought military books there on eBay before) when I was buying a replacement keyboard . Never heard of this anti-Sherman tank book before then and was wondering whether anyone here has read it, and if so, what. impression did it leave?

https://www.amazon.com/Want-Gun-Sherman-Tank-Scandal/product-reviews/0764352504/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews

Regards,

John Kettler

[Badger73]

I think the reviewers get it right; 55% negative / 45% positive.  There are a host of anti-Sherman books and essays.  In 1943 it was considered a superior vehicle.  1944-45 saw it's weapon and armor passed by.  However, no one ever complained that it was unreliable mechanically.  The research and development for producing a better tank just took longer than the war lasted.  With regard to US Tank Destroyer doctrine, that too shares a host of detractors (myself included) but again, hindsight is 20/20.  That doctrine was on its way out before the war ended as well.

[Michael Emrys]

I think most of the problem with tD doctrine was that by the time large numbers of the machines and the battalions equipped with them were available in the theater, the threat that they were intended to counter, i.e. large formations of attacking German armor, had gone away. Furthermore, everything that a TD could do, the newer generation of tanks could do and maybe even do it better, in addition to a few things that the TDs never did too well.

Michael

[Badger73]

Agreed!

[c3k]

My understanding was that there was friction between Armored Forces and Army Ground Forces. (I may have just butchered their actual titles. Bureaucrats everywhere are screaming. ) McNair (AGF guru and commander) wanted homogeneity over all else. Doctrine (incorrectly) called for Tank Destroyer Command to deal with enemy armor and for tanks of Armored Forces to romp about in the hinterland, routing enemy HQs and artillery. 

When the 76mm upgunned Shermans were pushed upon the AGF (by the Ordnance Board? Gah. Ask the Bureaucrats), the actual Generals were asked about them, prior to the invasion. No one wanted 'em.

Then, they met Panthers. (The Tiger introduction had been done in Tunisia, but clearly wasn't impressive enough at the time.) The number of Panthers were a surprise...

That's when they (the combat commanders) began clamoring for every 76mm-gunned Sherman they could get.

There was plenty of blame for myopia to go around. Starting at McNair, and working down, only a few "visionaries" saw the need for more gun. Thanks to them, the 76mm Sherman was ready. (And the same goes for the Brits and the wonder of the Firefly.)

The Pershing (M26) was in design well before the invasion, specifically to mount a Tiger-esque gun in a "medium" tank. 

This also explains why the various tank destroyers always had a gun which was one step better than the Sherman. 75mm Sherman vs. 3 inch TD. Next, the 76mm as a better gun than the 3". When the Sherman got the 76mm, the TDs had the 90mm.

"Shermans shoot Germans: Tank Destroyers destroy tanks," would be an appropriate motto for US Army doctrine up through late '44/early '45. ("Doctrine", not actual use.)

Edited March 17, 2018 by c3k