Grisha
-
Posts
1,083 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Grisha
-
-
-
-
Great interview!
Had no problems with the website, but I'm on a T1 connect right now.
Can't wait for CM2
-
Hi jochen,
Leonid here (like to use Grisha for the wargame side)! My, my, what a problem you have. Looks like you'll have to bite the bullet
Think about it this way - it's money in the bank, to be used later! But at this point I'd agree with setting aside some personal time. Good luck on your mission, tovarish -
I'm wondering if CM2 will be an add-on to CM, or will it be unique enough to warrant a separate game entirely.
-
I eagerly await news about this upcoming game. Any word?
US Tankers & the opinions they had for US armor
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
This is a long post, but full of the opinions of the actually US servicemen who fought with US armor in WWII. Enjoy.
The War Dept came under heavy criticism regarding the inferiority of U.S. tanks compared to the Germans. Examples of this criticism in the American media:
"Why at this late stage in the war are American tanks inferior to the enemy's? That they are inferior the fighting in Normandy showed, and the recent battles in the Ardennes have again emphatically demonstrated. This has been denied, explained away and hushed up, but the men who are fighting our tanks against much heavier, better armored and more powerfully armed German monsters know the truth. It is high time that Congress got to the bottom of a situation that does no credit to the War Department. This does not mean that our tanks are bad. They are not; they are good. They are the best tanks in the world - next to the Germans."
-The New York Times, January 1945
"A Bronx cheer comes out of Germany to greet the news that the Pershing tank has gone into mass production. It is the opinion of the men at the front, apparently, that they will get the new tank in numbers when it is no longer needed, i.e., when the war is over... an investigation is thoroughly in order. It should take up the reasons for the long delay in getting the Pershing into production. It should likewise find out why our tanks are inferior to the enemy's."
-The Washington Post, March 1945
On 18 March 1945, General Eisenhower sent this letter to Brigadier General Isaac D. White, Commanding General, 2nd Armored Division:
"Dear General White:
From time to I find short stories where some reporter is purportedly quoting non-commissioned officers in our tank formations to the effect that our men, in general, consider our tanks very inferior in quality to those of the Germans. I realize that these sometimes spring from the human tendency to make startling statements in the hope that out of them will come a bit of publicity and self-notoriety. Possibly, also, certain reporters sometimes support their own views on such matters as those by quoting only those statements that uphold such views.
My own experience in talking to our junior officers and enlisted men in armored formations is about as follows:
Our men, in general, realize the Sherman is not capable of standing up in a ding-dong, head-on fight with a Panther. Neither in gun power nor in armor is the present Sherman justified in undertaking such a contest. On the other hand, most of them realize that we have a job of shipping tanks overseas and therefore do not want unwieldy monsters; that our tank has great reliability, good mobility, and that the gun in it has been vastly improved. Most of them feel also that they have developed tactics that allow them to employ their superior numbers to defeat the Panther tank as long as they are not surprised and can discover the Panther before it has gotten in three of four good shots. I think that most of them know also that we have improved models coming out which even in a head-on action are not helpless in front of the Panther and the Tiger.
The above, however, are mere impressions I have gained through casual conversations. I am writing you and General Rose of the 3rd Armored Division identical letters with the request that at your earliest convenience you write me an informal letter giving me: (a) Your own personal convictions about the quality of our tank equipment as compared to the German, and having in mind the necessity of our shipping our material over long distances to get it to the battlefield; (
Your opinion as to the ability of the new T-26 with the 90-mm gun, to meet the Panther on equal terms, and © A digest of the opinions of your tank commanders, drivers, gunners, and son on, on these general subjects.
Please do not take the time to make a general staff study out of this matter. If you could include a few quotes from experienced non-commissioned officers it might be helpful to my purpose as I want to tell the truth about these matters to the War Department rather than to allow any misconceptions to prevail.
Please mark the outside of your letter 'Personal.'
With warm regards, Sincerely, Dwight D. Eisenhower
P.S. Comparisons in other types of equipment would be helpful; i.e., half-tracks, light tanks, trucks, guns, bazookas, even clothing."
--------------------------------
So that's the background info to the following anecdotes and convictions. Many will be edited down for the sake of brevity. Many subjects are covered in these reports down to comparisons of rations and uniforms. Most of the subject matter was in regards to the U.S. tanks and tank destroyers vs. Panthers and Tigers. The accounts and convictions given are pretty uniform and give a strong consensus from the men in the field at that time. Most are very well thought out and show a high degree of technical knowledge gained through battlefield experience and also by conducting tests in the field using captured German equipment. Some of the responses were quite long and comprehensive.
On the subject of American tanks versus German tanks, the consensus seems to be that the only area American tanks held a substantial advantage was in turret traversal rate. In all other areas - firepower, armor, maneuverability, optics, ammunition, etc., the Americans in this report felt the Germans had a large advantage. Outside of tanks, they mostly felt that U.S. equipment was equal to or superior to the German counterpart with the primary exception of field glasses, which were markedly inferior to the German issue. The superiority of American wheeled vehicles, primarily the 6x6 and jeep, was often lauded.
Here are pieces of some of the testimony that came back. I'll start with some of General White's initial response to General Eisenhower:
"I have enclosed a separate document giving a digest of the opinions of officers and enlisted men who have had much experience and in whom I have great confidence. I have also included a large number of the actual statements made by them. Allowing for the traditional enthusiasm displayed by the American soldier when he is given (or takes!) the opportunity to express himself in regard to any possible shortcomings in his rations, clothing and equipment, I think they are sincere, reasonably factual, indicate considerable thought and knowledge of the subject, and above all, they are most refreshing. I have not edited them in any way and I believe they are a true cross-section of opinion of the command.
I feel that many criticisms made by tank crews would not appear had we been equipped with a larger proportion of M4A3E8 tanks for Operation "Grenade." Only two or three tanks of this type actually saw combat. During this operation only twenty-nine percent of our medium tanks mounted 76-mm guns, and only four round of HVAP ammunition per 76-mm gun was available. Incidentally, round of this type expended in this operation have not been replaced. However, the 76-mm gun, even with HVAP ammunition, is not effective at the required ranges at which we must be able to effectively engage enemy armor.
The following are my personal convictions pertaining to the items listed:
Ordnance Equipment: The major items of ordnance equipment are sound in design from a mechanical standpoint, particularly with the changes in suspension of the M24 light tank and M4A3E8 and M26 medium tanks. Any increase in armor plate thickness would decrease speed and maneuverability and it is felt that these highly desirable characteristics should not be sacrificed. The main armament of our tanks, including sights, is not comparable to that of the Germans.
Tank Light: The M5 light tank should be replaced with the M24 light tank as soon as possible. The latter is a highly satisfactory tank in every respect. Every effort should be made to improve the gun, sights and ammunition. The M5 light tank is obsolete in every respect as a fighting tank.
Tank Medium: The M4A3E8 has comparable speed and maneuverability to any German tank. The 76-mm gun is reasonably satisfactory, provided sufficient HVAP ammunition were available. If it were possible to redesign and substitute a long barrel piece with muzzle brake and approximately 3400 - 3500 feet per second muzzle velocity, similar to the German 75-mm HV tank gun, this tank would be equal to anything our enemies have to offer. The M26 medium tank has not as yet been issued to this division and consequently no comments can be made. Experience with the M26 tank destroyer wit 90-mm gun indicates that this should be a highly effective tank when HVAP ammunition becomes available. Its issue to this division is eagerly awaited.
Tank Destroyer, M36: Has not lived up to expectations, but when HVAP ammunition becomes available it is hoped that it will be more effective. Fighting compartment precludes efficient service of the piece and available ammunition is not effective at required long range.
M4A3E8 Assault Tank with 105-mm Howitzer: An ideal weapon for purpose for which designed. Turret should have power traverse.
Armored Car, M8: Not as effective as the so-called "Staghound" manufactured in the United States for the British. A full track reconnaissance vehicle is desirable. However, on the battlefield, in meeting German armored cars of all types, the M8 has invariably come off the winner.
Car, Half-Track: This vehicle is far superior to any equipment of like type encountered. All designs except the M3 should be eliminated for simplicity's sake, since this type is adaptable to all demands made for a half-track vehicle.
General Purpose Vehicles: All vehicles of this type are far superior to any type now in use by any army encountered in the field by this division. The 2 1/2-ton 6x6 truck and the 1/4-ton 4x4 truck are the outstanding vehicles of the war.
Bazooka: The German bazooka is definitely superior, with greater penetrating effect and concussion. It is more accurate and has a greater effective range. The Panzerfaust is an effective and simple weapon to operate. It is highly effective against armor and also against personnel. We have equipped our infantry and reconnaissance units with captured German bazookas and they have great confidence in them. Since we habitually carry them on vehicles, their greater weight than the U.S. type is not a factor.
I sincerely feel that my personal convictions as stated above more nearly express the convictions of the officers and men of the division than their comments appear to indicate. If it were possible for me to talk with every officer and enlisted man and explain and reason things out, I doubt if there would be much divergence from my own convictions.
The most important point, and upon which there is universal agreement, is our lack of a tank gun and anti-tank gun with which we can effectively engage enemy armor at the required range. The correction of this deficiency has made progress, but the problem has not as yet been satisfactorily solved. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for this opportunity to write you informally on these matters which are of such immediate concern and importance."
- Brigadier General Isaac D. White, Commanding General, Second Armored Division
--------------------------
On 27 March 1945, General Eisenhower responded in part:
"I am grateful indeed for the trouble you took in answering my recent letter to you so promptly and so intelligently. I fell that your conclusions on the matter should go at once to the War Department, and I am sending them on to General Marshall without delay."
--------------------------
Following are opinions (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division:
The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories.
Superior Flotation.
Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome.
The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate.
The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns.
German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy.
German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks.
The M24 tank has not been available long, but has created a very favorable impression.
The fact that our equipment must be shipped over long distances does not, in the opinion of our tankers, justify our inferiority. The M4 has been proven inferior to the German Mark VI in Africa before the invasion of Sicily, 10 July 1943.
It is my opinion that press reports of statements by high ranking officers to the effect that we have the best equipment in the world do much to discourage the soldier who is using equipment that he knows to be inferior to that of the enemy."
-Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A"
----------------------------
"Mechanically our tanks are at least the equal of any German tank and on good, firm terrain or on roads are more mobile.
Our tank's armor does not withstand German direct fire weapons of 75-mm high velocity and larger with the result that in a head on one tank against one tank fight ours always comes out as a casualty.
In my opinion, the reason our armor has engaged the German tanks as successfully as it has is not due to by any means to a superior tank but to our superior numbers of tanks on the battlefield and the willingness of our tankers to take their losses while maneuvering to a position from which a penetrating shot can be put through a weak spot of the enemy tank.
The few undamaged German tank sights I have seen are definitely superior to our sights in clearness and speed in laying.
Our tanks should: carry a gun that will penetrate any enemy tank at a minimum of 2,000 yards; carry sufficient armor to turn the German light anti-tank gun (smaller than 75-mm) at any range; sufficient mobility to outmaneuver the enemy on any terrain; have a lower silhouette than at present; have a better sight; and have an increased ammunition storage space.
The new tanks now being received are a far step in the proper direction but still do not possess the gun power necessary to penetrate the German tank for a crippling shot on the first hit.
In spite of the often quoted tactical rule that one should not fight a tank versus tank battle, I have found it necessary, almost invariably, in order to accomplish the mission.
-Colonel S. R. Hinds, Commanding Combat Command "B"
----------------------------
Armor - Insufficient to prevent penetration by high velocity ammunition used by German tanks and anti-tank weapons.
Armament- Both 75-mm and 76-mm guns with available types of ammunition are incapable of neutralizing enemy tanks at ranges at which the latter are capable of neutralizing our tanks. When engaged at closer ranges with HVAP [high velocity armor piercing], 76-mm guns have disable German tanks but penetration seems to be rare.
Flotation- Not sufficient on Sherman M-4. Very good on M4A3E8.
Maneuverability- Not known, except that statements of tank crewmen indicate that of German tanks equal if not superior to ours. This is due in part probably to better flotation of enemy tanks and consequent greater maneuverability over muddy ground.
I believe the necessity for equipping troops with tanks capable of engaging enemy tanks on an equal basis outweighs all other considerations. Being close to the using personnel I am acutely aware of the morale factor involved in equipping troops with present tank equipment.
My opinion as to the ability of M26 with 90-mm gun to meet Panther and Tiger on equal terms is based only on knowledge that present tank destroyers equipped with 90-mm gun and 'souped up' ammunition have been able to knock out such tanks where 75-mm and 76-mm guns were unable to. It is therefore reasonable to believe that a more equal footing would be obtained by supplying the M26."
-Colonel Paul A. Disney, Commanding 67th Armored Regiment
-----------------------------
Light tanks - No objective comparison has been made between German and American light tanks. It is, however, the unanimous opinion of experienced tank crews and commanders that the M24 has all the desirable features of any German light tank as well as many not incorporated in the German light models. These advantages include gyro-stabilizers, better visibility, easier maintenance, anti-aircraft gun.
Armored Car - The only German armored car ever operated by any member of this command was a four-wheeled armored car armed with a 20-mm gun which was captured in Holland. The American M8 armored car was superior to this in all details compared. An especial weakness of the German vehicle was the inaccessibility of the engine for maintenance and repair. No comparison has been made with other models. However, on the field of battle in meeting German armored cars of all types, the M8 has invariably come off the winner.
Trucks - While no tests as such have been made with German trucks, they have been used as an expedient by this unit during combat. The American 2 1/2 ton 6x6 is definitely superior to any German model encountered.
-Lt. Col. Wheeler G. Merriam, Commanding 82nd Armored Reconnaissance Battalion
----------------------------
Bazookas - In training tests using the regular U.S. bazookas and the German "81-mm" bazooka the following results were obtained: Firing at a Mark V tank from ranges of eighty to two hundred yards both side and front armor were penetrated each time the tank was hit. Approximately twelve rounds were fired. In each case where the target was missed, the projectile detonated upon hitting the ground. Firing at the same target at a range of eighty yards with the U.S. bazooka, out of ten hits on the side armor, only three penetrations were obtained. At two hundred yards no penetrations were scored. In cases where the target was missed, the projectile generally did not detonate upon hitting the ground. Up to ranges of two hundred yards, the German weapons was more accurate, possessing a flatter trajectory than ours. Tests indicate the German bazooka is far superior to ours.
-Lt. Col. L. W. Correll, Commanding 17th Armored Engineer Battalion
-----------------------------
My personal opinion about the comparative quality of U.S. and German tanks can be stated briefly as follows: if such a choice were possible, I would prefer to fight in the present German Mark V or VI tank against the present U.S. medium tank and tank destroyer with the 90-mm gun. The feeling among the tank crew personnel, men who have four, five and six full campaigns to their credit, is the same. Everything has been done and every effort made to instill a feeling of confidence in their equipment in these men. No effort has been spared to train them to use it properly.
Our M4 tank does not compare favorably with the German Mk V or VI in armor plate. Theirs is much thicker than ours and sloped so as to prevent strikes against it at angles approaching the normal. I have inspected the battlefield at Faid Pass in Tunisia, being with the force which retook it. Inspection of our tanks destroyed there indicated that the 88-mm gun penetrated into the turret from the front and out again in the rear. Few gouges were found indicating that all strikes had made penetrations. Our tanks were penetrated by 88, 75, and 50-mm caliber in this engagement in all parts of the hull and turret. I personally measured many of the holes.
I know of many cases to prove the fact that the German 75-mm and 88-mm mounted on Mk IV, V, and VI tanks will penetrate our tanks, while our weapons will not penetrate theirs at the same range. Many tests have been made and the results have been published of these facts. We have been out-gunned since Tunisia, when the Germans brought out their Mk IV Special with the long-barreled 75-mm gun. The higher muzzle velocity of the German guns increases their accuracy, as range estimation are of less importance with such a flat trajectory. I have fired all our tank weapons and know this to be so. Our 76-mm gun is a big improvement over the 75-mm.
It has been claimed that our tank is the more maneuverable. In recent tests we put a captured German Mk V against all models of our own. The German tank was the faster, both across country and on the highway and would make sharper turns. It was also the better hill climber.
Some of my tank crews claim penetrations on the front plate of Mk V tanks, using the 76-mm gun and HVAP ammunition (3400 feet per second). They have more confidence in this combination than any other we have. So far, however, we have never been able to supply a tank with more than two or three rounds of this ammunition. We have been unable to obtain it. So far, we have been unable to obtain more than seven tanks out of seventeen mounting a 76-mm gun. So far, in this battalion, I have three tanks with the wide E8 suspension and track out a total of fifty-four tanks.
Tank crews in this battalion are adding sand bags to their tanks, about 170 bags for each tank, in an effort to make up for the tank's lack of armor and the penetrating ability of German guns.
It has been stated that our tanks are supposed to attack infantry and should not be used tank versus tank. It has been my experience that we have never found this ideal situation for in all our attacks we must of necessity fight German tanks. Therefore, it is necessary for a tank to be designed to meet adequately this situation. Elimination of German tanks in these attacks has proven to be a time-consuming and expensive task. At Samree, Belgium, during the attack to secure Houffalize, a precision adjustment with eight-inch howitzers failed to dislodge a German Mk VI tank which could not be eliminated by direct fire of any available weapon, including the 90-mm tank destroyer. This tank could not be outflanked. It had destroyed three of our M4 tanks at the same range. The tank withdrew during the night.
Close support aircraft has helped in our advanced by bombing enemy armor. I saw them work during the breakthrough at St. Lo and the advance across France. I saw them break up a German counterattack after we had secured Barmen, which is on the west bank of the Roer, north of Julich.
Following the Tunisian Campaign and in England and in France, I have been interviewed by War Department representatives who were gathering facts concerning our equipment. Many of the enlisted men who had considerable experience were interviewed at the same time. The same points, considered most vital to tank personnel and those needing urgent improvement at this time and which are stated above, were told to representatives of the War Department and Ordnance representatives almost two years ago.
-Lt. Col. Wilson M. Hawkins, Commanding 3rd Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment
-------------------------------------------
Since landing in France with this division, we've seen countless numbers of American tanks knocked out and burned with a resultant loss of American lives, due, we believe, to our inferior tanks.
Of course, we must take into consideration the fact that, due to the nature and course of the war, the German tank usually gets in the first shot. Instead of making up this disadvantage in equipping us with guns of high muzzle velocity and hitting power, in addition to more armor protection, as matters stand now we can't compete with them in either. To take a specific case, the German Mark V tank, mounting a 75-mm gun with a muzzle velocity of about 3,200 feet per second, able to travel on a highway at 38 miles per hour, 15 to 20 miles per hour cross country in soft going, and better as the going improves.
It has to our mind greater maneuverability, being able to turn in the space it's sitting in, while our mediums require half a field. It also has more armor protection, with approximately four inches of armor on its front and enough rearward slope to make it the equivalent of 6 to 7 inches. Not so with our Shermans, whose front construction aids, rather than hinders, the penetration of an armor piercing round.
In one recent action in which we took part, one of our medium tanks was hit and burned at a range of approximately 2,500 yards. In the same action, probably minutes later, we fired on and bounced several round of AP broadside off a Jerry tank at a range of 1,500 yards, and were unable to knock it out. In another case, our 76-mm gun was unable to knock out a German tank frontally at 600 yards.
The consensus of opinion is that the German Mark V can out-speed, out-maneuver and out-gun us, in addition to their added protection of heavier armor.
What the American tanker wants is a high-velocity weapon, as high or higher than the Germans, mounted on a tank of equal maneuverability, and added armor plate.
-Rains M. Robbins, Sergeant, Tank Commander
-Walter McGrail, Corporal, Driver
----------------------------------------
In comparing the German tank with our own medium tank, there is one thing that I would like to bring out; that is, the armor plate on each tank. The Mark V has about four and a half inches on the front. The Mark VI has a little over six inches. When placing tank against tank, you must consider the armor of each. In past engagements with the enemy, we have placed tank against tank very often. In one tank battle, our M4 was hit in the front by an AP shell from a Mark VI. It went in the front and came out the rear. I have also seen our 75mm AP shells bounce off the front of the Mark V and Mark VI tanks.
-Harold S. Rathburn, Sergeant, Tank Commander
-----------------------------------------
The German's high-velocity guns and souped-up ammunition can penetrate our thickest armor. At a range where it would be suicide for us to shoot, they shoot. What we need is more armor, higher velocity, not necessarily a bigger gun, souped-up ammunition, and a means whereby we can maneuver faster, making sharper turns. I've seen many times when the Air Force was called out to wipe out scattered tanks rather than letting our tanks get slaughtered. All of us know that the German tanks are far superior to anything that we have in combat. They are able to maneuver on a space the length of their tank. How can we outflank them when all they have to do is pivot and keep their frontal armor toward us? Their frontal armor is practically invulnerable to our 75s, except at an exceptionally close range - and they never let us get that close. We've got a good tank - for parades and training purposes - but for combat they are just potential coffins. I know! I've left them burning after the first few rounds of German shells penetrated our thickest armor.
-Chester J. Marczak, Sergeant
-----------------------------------------
I've been told that the M4A3 tank (with 76-mm gun) is the equal if not a better tank than the German Mark V "Panther." That's not so! The only reason that we've gone as far as we have is summed up in "Quantity and the Cooperation of Arms." Until such time as the Army puts out a tank gun that can knock out a "Panther" from the front at 1,500 yards, or adds enough armor to stop a shell from the same distance, we'll continue to lose a heavy toll of tanks, men and equipment.
-Nick Moceri, Sergeant
-----------------------------------------
The German sight is far better than anything we are using today. It takes a bright light in order to se them - and we do not have that. The same thing goes for our field glasses; if we could spot them, we could fire on them ourselves, or get artillery to fire on that spot. I know that we have the facilities to build better optical equipment - why don't we?
-Donald Morgan, T/4
-----------------------------------------
At Puffendorf, Germany, on 17 November 1944, my platoon of five M4 tanks were in a defensive position when the Germans launched a counterattack with Mark VI tanks. My platoon was at that time composed of three 76-mm guns and two 75-mm guns. My own vehicle (75-mm gun) was the first to open fire on a Mark VI that was coming across the field towards us. We got a hit with the second round fired at 1,300 yards, but from the tracer we were able to tell that the round ricocheted. At this time several of the other guns opened up (one, I believe, was not in a position to fire). This concerted effort stopped the Tiger and prevented his advancing closer, but several direct hits from both type of guns obviously did not penetrate. This tank knocked out both my platoon sergeant's and my own vehicle, killing my driver and assistant driver and wounding me. The German tank eventually withdrew into defilade and presumably escaped across the Roer River.
-Capt. John B. Roller Jr., Company "A" 66th Armored Regiment
-----------------------------------------
Consolidation of opinions of personnel of this organization on tanks in general: There is a general conviction that all 76-mm guns should have more HVAP ammunition available. At present this type of ammunition is extremely limited. Experience and tests have shown this to be superior to the APC ammunition. All available HVAP ammunition should be issued and put to immediate use, rather than stored in dumps.
Wherever we have seen Tiger and Panther tanks they have not demonstrated any inferior maneuverability. Near Puffendorf, Germany, several Tiger Royal tanks were encountered. These Tiger Royals were able to negotiate very soft ground and their tracks did not sink as deeply into the soft ground as did our own. Our tracks should be widened to a point where there would be no question of adequate flotation. The makeshift solution of adding paddle feet is not satisfactory.
The small turning radius when standing still is a desirable feature of German tanks. Would like this feature incorporated in our own tanks.
The Ford engine is considered very good, but with the added remark, "If you'd add two more cylinders you'd have an engine."
The feeling is quite general that the great majority of our equipment is superior to German equipment. This includes clothing, food, individual equipment, and vehicles other than tanks.
-Capt Charles B. Kelley, Company "D" 66th Armored Regiment
-----------------------------------------
The facts have been proven to me and my gunner on more than one occasion. We in "E" Company have been trying for a long time to get more of the HVAP ammunition. We have found the HVAP does not bounce off the enemy tanks like the APC.
The last incident happened on March 2, when I gave my gunner the order to fire at an enemy Mark V tank at the range of 1,600 yards with my first round which was APC and it bounced off. My second round was HVAP which destroyed the Mark V and set it on fire.
I, Sergeant Figueroa, personally hope and wish we could get more high velocity ammunition. With such ammunition we would be fighting on a more level plain, as far as muzzle velocity is concerned.
-Ross Figueroa, Sergeant
-----------------------------------------
My opinion of the 90-mm gun is that it is a good gun if it just had a little more muzzle velocity, it could knock out anything that the Germans have. I have never seen the M26 with the 90-mm gun on it, but if it is as good as the ones on the tank destroyer it is the answer to a tankman's prayer. Against the Mark V our tank destroyer with a 90-mm gun are pretty good but our guns just don't stand up to the Jerry guns.
My opinion on the sights, tracks, engine, gun, and maneuverability is that our sights could be improved a lot, and if that M26 has wide tracks and a more powerful engine it would give use speed and maneuverability and with our added firepower we would have some chance of living. As we go now every man has resigned himself to dying sooner or later because we don't have a chance against the German tanks. All of this stuff that we read about German tanks knocked out by our tanks makes us sick because we know what prices we have to pay in men and equipment to accomplish this.
For the general comparison of the equipment of the Germans and of ours. I believe that on a whole our equipment is superior to the Germans, but our tanks are no match for the Panther and Tiger tanks, and it is just suicide to tackle them. Even our tank destroyer with the 90-mm gun cannot match themselves against the more powerful German tanks.
-Sgt Moore and Crew
-----------------------------------------
Although we haven't seen the M26 in action, we have seen the tank destroyer with the 90-mm gun, and also the Tiger and Tiger Royal. We are of the opinion that the Tiger and Tiger Royal's 88-mm gun are far superior to our tank destroyer with the 90-mm gun. Our reasons for this assertion are:
1. Far superior sights which permits hitting a target at a great range, that is, 3,000 yards, usually without bracketing.
2. The "souped-up" ammunition of the Tiger permits penetration of our armor at long ranges.
3. The heavy armor plate combined with its slope and angles make them, tank for tank, harder to knock out.
We further believe that the 75-mm gun of the Panther (Mark V) compares favorably with our 90-mm gun. It has as large or larger powder charge and better sights.
The traversing mechanism of our 90-mm gun is faster (about two times as fast), is more quiet and all around seems to be much better than the German counterpart.
Although we cannot turn on a dime, we are satisfied with our maneuverability which is as good or slightly superior. Their engine has more horsepower and has a more quiet first gear, which permits 'creeping' up on us, but it doesn't seem to last as long as ours, and undoubtedly gets hot quicker than ours.
-Sgt Zins and Cpl. Parr
-----------------------------------------
It seems that the general opinion back home in the States is that American tanks are second to none. But anyone who has had any actual experience could tell you without a doubt, that our tanks don't compare with those of the Germans in many ways.
First, their higher velocity guns are more effective on our tanks. Same with their anti-tank guns; they're pretty accurate, effective at ranges up to 2,000 to 3,000 yards.
We have fairly good sights, but the Germans must have it when they shoot as far and accurate as they do.
Binoculars are very important in tank warfare, yet we have seen better, but they weren't ours.
The "souped-up" ammunition HVAP is the real McCoy up to a certain extent and so is the "concrete buster." They help the cause quite a bit.
-----------------------------------------
I have seen three American tanks knocked out by a Mark V tank at over three thousand yards. I have also seen a 105-mm howitzer fired at 1,900 yards, which bounced off the enemy tank.
-Sgt Kervin Hoover
-----------------------------------------
In my opinion, I think that the German tank is much better than ours in firepower. They can sit back about 2,500 yards to 3,000 and knock us out. Were we able to get within a thousand yards we might be able to give them a little trouble with our guns.
I think most of our small arms are much better than the German. Theirs seem to fire faster than ours but they are not very accurate. If the first couple of shots don't get you, you have very little to worry about.
-----------------------------------------
Some thing I have seen in combat that were disturbing and disgusting to any tanker.
Many times I've seen our tanks engage German tanks in tank duels. Their tanks have the ups on us. Their guns and armor are far better than ours. On this particular occasion, just north of Wurselen, Germany, our column was advancing towards its objective when suddenly we began to draw direct fire from German tanks. At once we located two Mark V tanks at about 2,800 to 3,000 yards away. At once our tank destroyers and tanks opened fire on them. The gunners had the eye to hit but our guns didn't have the power to knock them out. I saw our tank destroyers and self-propelled guns get several direct hits on the Kraut tanks but the projectiles just bounced off the Jerries. The Jerries' guns didn't fail, they knocked out three of our tank destroyers and one Sherman tank at 2,800 to 3,000 yards. If our tanks had been as good as the German tanks they would never have scored a hit.
Give us the tanks that compare with the Jerries' tanks and we have the rest. No soldier could have ever fought with better spirit than our boys have, full knowing that we were facing better equipment than that which we are using ourselves.
I am a tank commander and a veteran of Africa, Sicily, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany. I have been wounded once and have seen most of the action that my unit has been in. I guess I am just lucky.
- Sgt Leo Anderson
-----------------------------------------
While attacking Weslen I had my gunner fire two rounds of 37-mm AP at a Mark V tank at a range of 150 yards. The rounds hit below the right sponson and above the top of the track. The Mark V tank fired three shots back and withdrew to a new position, apparently unharmed. It is my conclusion that there is no role in this war that the light tank M5A1 is capable of handling.
-Sgt Mervin Haugh Jr.
-----------------------------------------
After having interviewed both the enlisted men and officers whose statements are attached it is my opinion that the general consensus of opinion is that German equipment, especially tanks of all types and all German anti-tank weapons are far superior to ours.
The men all state that it is not individual tank fighting that is winning armored war but rather the masses of tanks which we employ and the speed of our attacks.
They all say to bear out their statements, "Give me German armor and tank guns and nothing could stop us."
Having had over ten months of combat in France and one month in Sicily, I the undersigned agree with the statements attached in all respects.
-Capt. Joseph S. Roberts, Company G, 66th Armored Regiment
-----------------------------------------
The Mark V and VI in my opinion have more maneuverability and certainly more flotation. I have seen in many cases where the Mark V and VI tanks could maneuver nicely over ground where the American M4 would bog down. On one occasion I saw at least ten Royal Tigers make a counterattack against us over ground that for us was nearly impossible.
The Mark V and VI have our tanks out-gunned and out-sighted in all cases except the new sight M71D on the American M4E8. They can hit at 3,000 yards in the M4 with a good percentage of penetrations. I have actually seen ricochets go through the M4 at 3,000 yards.
-Charles Carden, Platoon Sgt.
-----------------------------------------
I believe the 90-mm gun on the T26 is almost comparable to the 88-mm on the German Mark VI but does not obtain the necessary muzzle velocity to penetrate the Mark V or VI from the front.
I have actually seen the 90-mm Armor Piercing Cap bounce off a German Mark VI at 1,400 yards. In turn I have seen a German Mark VI with an 88-mm knock out an American M4 at 3,300 yards with a ricochet hit through the side.
-Harvey Anderson, Platoon Sgt.
-----------------------------------------
We want wider tracks. This new E8 suspension is a lot better as far as flotation is concerned than our old suspension system, but the German tanks still have better maneuverability in the field.
Don't have much complaint on this score ( interior of tanks). Believe we have got the Jerries beat here. Especially in the tanks with the 76-mm gun. They are far superior to the tanks equipped with the 75-mm in matter of conveniences. Actually believe someone had a hand in designing them that knew something of the tanker's problems.
None of us have ever seen a T26. But from what we understand it is certainly a step in the right direction. It sounds like it gives us a gun and armor that can at least begin to compare with what we are fighting against.
Light tanks. This new one with the 75-mm is okay. It can do about anything we can do and in most cases do it better. But the M5 with the 37-mm gun is not much good as a tank. Hard to compare with the Germans as we never run into a German light tank.
Half-tracks. Better than the German half-tracks. But what good is it? It has poor flotation and affords very little protection against enemy fire of any kind.
Trucks. Now we're talking. Our 2 1/2-ton truck is the best truck in the world. Got Jerry beat all the way here. Also our peep can't be beat.
No complaints about our small arms. There should be an easier way to change barrels on a .30-caliber machine gun. Germans can do it in a matter of seconds. But believe ours stand up better and are more accurate. But why can't our larger weapons be "souped up" a bit. We would like more muzzle velocity, especially in our tank guns. Both the Germans and the British seem to know how to pack a bigger charge in their shells.
Bazooka. Well, we had the first one. And that is about all that can be said for it. The German bazooka makes ours look sick, not only in effect but in accuracy.
Clothing. Our everyday clothing is good. Far more practical than the German uniform. it is only in special things that they have got things we would like. Our goggles are a joke; theirs are good. They seemed better prepared for winter warfare than we were.
-Lt Coulter Montgomery
-----------------------------------------
I think our tank is okay for stowage. We have got all around more room inside than the Mark V. The new 76-mm tank is far better than the 75-mm. As far as flotation and maneuverability are concerned, our new E8 suspension system is okay. But we need to be able to some way lock one track so we could turn in the field like the Mark V. On the road we were okay, but they have us beat in the field.
Raymond Kasner, Platoon Sgt.
-----------------------------------------
One day a Royal Tiger tank got within 150 yards of my tank and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him from ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got five or six hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today.
-Sgt Clyde Brunson, Tank Commander
-----------------------------------------
The German "burp" gun has a very good demoralizing effect with its rapid rate of fire (as all their small arms do), but it is not a very accurate weapon after the first few rounds of the burst have been fired. As my crew and I dismounted from the tank recently, two burp gunners fired at us from the rear and two opened up on us from the front, and none of us collected any Purple Hearts. But they sure scared us plenty with that "burp."
Sgt Arden Gatzke, Tank Commander
-----------------------------------------
On the morning of November 20, 1944, I was tank commander of a Sherman medium tank mounting a 76-mm gun. The Germans staged a counterattack with infantry supported by at least three Mark V tanks. Ordering my gunner to fire at the closest tank, which was approximately 800 yards away, he placed one right in the side which was completely visible to me. To my amazement and disgust I watched the shell bounce off the side. My gunner fired at least six more rounds at the vehicle hitting it from the turret to the track. This German tank knowing that I possibly would be supported by a tank destroyer, started to pull away. I was completely surprised to see it moving after receiving seven hits from my gun. At this time a tank destroyer mounting a 90-mm gun pulled up to my right flank, motioning to the commander, he acknowledged that he saw the tank. With one well-placed shot he put it in flames. Traversing to his left he also put another one in flames.
-Sgt Francis Baker, Tank Commander
-----------------------------------------
I believe the American M4 medium tank, a basically good implement of war, is beset by overwhelming disadvantages. I personally do not mind its height, with consequent size of target! Nor do I consider too much its lack of armor (an 88 will penetrate regardless of armor).
The greatest deficiency lies in its firepower, which is most conspicuous by its absence. Lack of a principal gun with sufficient penetrating ability to knock out the German opponent has cost us more tanks and skilled men to man more tanks than any failure of our crews, not to mention the heartbreak and sense of defeat I and other men have felt. To see twenty-five or even many more of our rounds fired and ricochet off the enemy attackers. To be finally hit, once, and we climb from and leave a burning, blackened and now a useless pile of scrap iron. It would have yet been a tank had it mounted a gun.
-Cpl Francis Vierling, Tank Commander
-----------------------------------------
My opinion, as a gunner, of how our equipment compares to that of the Germans is: AP is not as good as the German because of a slower powder charge. Our HE is better than theirs for we have less duds and the shrapnel breaks up better. WP smoke is the best and at least as good as that of the Germans.
-Pfc Arel McMahan
-----------------------------------------
At Oberamot, Germany, 27 February 1945, our second platoon on road block was engaged by two Tiger tanks, Mark VI, at 3,600 yards, and two of our Shermans were knocked out. Our 3,400 feet per second 76-mm HVAP ammunition was used and bounced off the side slopes, seven rounds. Definitely out-ranged due to better sights in the Mark VI and more muzzle velocity in their souped-up ammunition. Upon throwing smoke at the Tiger tanks, they withdrew because smoke means marking target for artillery and fighter-bombers to the Germans.
-----------------------------------------
On November 16, 1944, my light tank, M5A1, was hit by a German bazooka from about forty yards away. It made a hole about one inch in diameter and sprayed pieces all over the interior of the tank. It hit about three feet back on the left sponson. If the driver's overcoat had not been stuffed in tightly against the spot where it came through, I believe at least two crew members would have been killed. As it was, three members of the crew required hospitalization in excess of two months. Damage to the interior of the tank was light.
- Lt William Larock
-----------------------------------------
On 5 August 1944 in the vicinity of St. Sever Calvados, France, witnessed a German Mark V tank knock out three M4 and three M5 tanks during and after being hit by at least fifteen rounds of 75-mm APC from a distance of approximately seven hundred yards. All of these shells had ricocheted, with the exception of a sixteenth round which finally put the Mark V tank out of action.
On 6 January 1945 in the vicinity of Samree, Belgium, fired at an enemy tank at a range of 2,500 yards. Due to poor visibility, could not sense the rounds or their effect. The enemy tank opened fire and the first round which hit the tank penetrated the front slope plate.
On 4 October 1944 in the vicinity of Ubach, Germany, tank was hit by a 75-mm shell fired at a range of approximately six hundred yards, through the front slope. This shell went through the ready rack containing thirty-two rounds of 75-mm ammunition, through the engine and through the engine compartment doors.
On 19 September 1944 in the vicinity of Weir, Germany, tank was hit in the left suspension system by a 75-mm HE field gun fired from a range of 3,000 yards. The tank was put out of action.
On 22 November 1944 in the vicinity of Gereonsweiler, Germany, tank was hit in the left front slope plate by an artillery shell estimated to be 170-mm. This resulted in the entire front end caving in.
-Sgt Thomas Welborn
-----------------------------------------
We were ordered to engage a column of six Mark VIs of the early model and two Mark IVs. As gunner, I fired thirty-eight rounds from the 75-mm gun of our M4 tank. Some were HE, some smoke, and the rest AP. Each time one of the APs hit the tanks you could see them ricocheting two and three hundred feet into the air. Along with my gun firing, they're four more tanks of my platoon. Two or three M4 tanks from another company and two M7s firing at the same column. The range from my tank to the targets was five to eight hundred yards.
Two days later, having a chance to inspect these vehicles, we found the Mark IVs with large holes in the front, but of all the Mark VI's there was one penetration in one tank on the back of the turret. The numerous places where the other projectiles hit there was just grooves or penetrations part way through the armor.
I have seen our M4 tanks with holes in any part a person would want to name. These holes are clean, just like they had been melted through the armor. I saw two M4 tanks mounting the 76-mm and one M4 mounting a 75-mm knocked out in less time than I can write it. All three tanks were hit in the front of our heaviest armor. One 76-mm M4 was hit on the sloping part of the armor, next to the ground, just in front of the transmission. This projectile didn't stop until it hit the transmission. I could write all day telling of our tanks I have seen knocked out by their more effective guns.
Our best tank weapon, and the boy that has saved us so many times, is the P-47.
-Sgt Harold Fulton
-----------------------------------------
During our attack on Gereonsweiler, Germany, a platoon of Mark V tanks moved in on the high ground on our left flank and knocked out several of our tanks at about 3,600 yards. This was out of range of the 75-mm gun on our M4 tank. In order to place fire on them, I was forced to elevate the gun so that the target appeared completely below the graduation in the sight. We succeeded in holding them off, but did no damage to their vehicles.
-Cpl. Virgil Townsend, Tank Gunner
-----------------------------------------