George MC Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Great wee interview with Steven Zaloga. Covers s range of topics from 'Fury', through tank fighting on the Western Front and armoured research and sources. There is also a plug for his new book coming out 'Armoured Champion'. Grab a coffee and fifteen minutes http://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/27/zaloga_interview/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 George MC, Thanks very much for this most insight producing interview. Well worth my time! Zaloga's not kidding about the model building, either. LCM of USN's Boat Two (which one of my paternal uncles served in from D+1 on: search under the term on the Forums if you'd like to know more) lands a tank on the far side of the Rhine River. http://missing-lynx.com/gallery/dio/rhinedio_szaloga.html Polish 7TP light tankhttp://missing-lynx.com/gallery/allied/sz7tp.htm Italian P40 tank seized by the Germans http://missing-lynx.com/gallery/axis/szp40.htm Zaloga seems to have it all: a great job as a well respected military analyst, huge success as an author and tremendous skills at model building and figure painting. To me, the guy's amazing. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Thanks for posting that link, George. Interesting stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Fascinating, wonder how this statement will influence folks who really like the weathered look on their vehicles? This included the one other thing they had which was absolutely essential tank equipment if you were in Patton’s Third Army; a broom. One of the stories that doesn’t get out too much is that any tank unit in Patton’s Third Army had to have a broom. The reason was that you had to keep your tank swept down and clean. Because Patton would show up, and Patton had a bad habit of showing up at the 4th Armored Division because it was his favorite Division. He had people fined if the tank was too dirty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckman Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Time for a broom mod? Zaloga is excellent, as always. A proper historian, using a proper historian's tools, putting the Panzer Myth in perspective. A lot of it really comes down to who writes books and not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umlaut Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Fascinating, wonder how this statement will influence folks who really like the weathered look on their vehicles? I though you knew that this is already simulated in game: Every 4th Armored Division vehicle using a dirty Aris or Umlaut mod is fine - as long as it is not in full C2 If it establishes an unbroken command chain with the it's top HQ for more than two minutes, it's morale status automatically drops to "broken" (simulating a visit from George S. himself) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Here's one of my favorite pictures of Patton. It looks as though he has just given the poor Sherman crew a thorough dressing down, perhaps over dirt or stowage. Nobody in that photo looks particularly happy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Not sure how true it is, but a caption in one my Zaloga books states that it was taken just after he had chewed them out for all of the sandbags on the tank, which was against 3rd Army reg. 3rd Army had a policy on not allowing the improvised sandbag armor, since tests had not indicated that it was effective and the extra weight was another strain on vehicle maintenance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 you know its rlly funny but i think you.re right. i had no idea about the pic but i was gonna guess it was the sandbags because i too have heard Patton would get inflamed and demand sandbags be taken off tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinrich505 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Well, that AND the driver has a big dent in his helmet. Can't have that...misuse of government property and doesn't look proper... You must be right. No one in the picture is happy. Heinrich505 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Well, that AND the driver has a big dent in his helmet. Can't have that...misuse of government property and doesn't look proper... You must be right. No one in the picture is happy. Heinrich505 Pistol whipped by the General? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) Patton didn't believe the expedient armor was effective and railed against it because it prematurely wore out suspensions and, secondarily, drive trains. ISTR there was also something said about the practice fostering a defensive, hesitant mindset in the armor crews. While the crews were bent on preserving their lives, Patton was concerned with operational strategic mobility and logistics. Decrepit and dead tanks slowed the advance, and overloaded ones required more fuel, other consumables and parts at a time when supply lines were practically to collapse. Interestingly, when I went looking for some info on sandbags on Shermans, I found a Master's Thesis on US field expedient AFV armor in WW II, Korea and Vietnam. A most interesting, pioneering work. There are quite a few surprises in the thesis, including the fact that an entire AD had a standardized sandbag configuration! The WW II portion begins at page 13 and runs through 41, but is pretty front end loaded, requiring little reading to glean the main goodies. FIELD EXPEDIENT ARMOR MODIFICATIONS TO US ARMORED VEHICLES A thesis presented to the Faculty of the US Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE Military History by Matthew A. Boal, MAJ, USA (AR) www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA451272 Regards, John Kettler Edited July 4, 2015 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpitfireXI Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) I found this tidbit interesting, "And the British side did take disproportionate casualties in Normandy. And it’s largely for tactical reasons. I’m not going to get into it, it’s way too complicated to explain, but yes the British did suffer very high losses against the Germans for a variety of reasons. That was not the case on the US side." What does he mean by that? My understanding is that since the British had to contend with the majority of the armored units in Normandy they inevitably suffered more tank losses. Edited July 14, 2015 by SpitfireXI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 What does he mean by that? I don't know, but some possibilities: "The British systematically failed to coordinate movement and suppressive fires after about mid-morning of the opening day. ... The attack had by then moved beyond the reach of the British batteries on the northern side of the Orne River, and the congestion in the march columns had kept the artillery from moving forward into supporting range. ... The net result was thus an exposed, massed, nearly pure-tank assault pressing forward rapidly without supporting infantry or supporting suppressive fires." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Goodwood#Analysis 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) His point about "it's complex" is spot on. Some things to bear in mind: 1) UK/CW faced the bulk and the best of the German forces in Normandy, by whatever metric you care to use. 2) For the first month of the campaign there were more UK/CW forces ashore than US. 3) After that the US pulled ahead in terms of total numbers, but fairly slowly. It wasn’t till later in the year that the US forces became really preponderant 4) The size of armoured forces ashore was even more lopsidedly British for longer. 5) Despite all that, US casualties (excl airforces) up to the end of August were 124,394 6) UK/CW casualties (again, excl airforces) up to the end of August were 83,045 7) Zaloga writes some good books buuut … he’s kinda populist, and is here speaking to a US audience 8) In this particular article, he’s talking informally and responding off the cuff to questions rather than writing something considered It’s a good article. I enjoyed it – in particular his comments about Fury – but I think it needs to be taken with a few grains of salt, especially some of his more contentious opinions. Edited July 17, 2015 by JonS 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Zaloga is a wargamer too, I believe. I wonder if he's lurked here, or even posted under alias? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rinaldi Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) I found this tidbit interesting, "And the British side did take disproportionate casualties in Normandy. And it’s largely for tactical reasons. I’m not going to get into it, it’s way too complicated to explain, but yes the British did suffer very high losses against the Germans for a variety of reasons. That was not the case on the US side." What does he mean by that? My understanding is that since the British had to contend with the majority of the armored units in Normandy they inevitably suffered more tank losses. Having the bulk of the German armored units in front of you will lead to higher tank losses, that's part of it, not the whole picture though. Vanir's quote is relevant: "The British systematically failed to coordinate movement and suppressive fires after about mid-morning of the opening day. ... The attack had by then moved beyond the reach of the British batteries on the northern side of the Orne River..." ...its supported by gentlemen like Hastings, who I find you should never read with anything but a bit of scrutiny, the man is a journalist first and very much a historian second. JonS also brings up a lot of good points, particularly: 3) After that the US pulled ahead in terms of total numbers, but fairly slowly. It wasn’t till later in the year that the US forces became really preponderant ...which also ties into the fact that the apparent lack of effective combined-arms co-ordination between British infantry and their armor support may have to do with the great husbanding of British manpower. Remember, the British that landed in Normandy was the last great army they were able to muster - we're talking bottom of the barrel. They landed with what they had, not necessarily what they wanted, and the 'You may not get the reinforcements you need' was something that would've weighed on every regiment commander. I mean, full disclosure, but Zaloga is my husbando. I deeply respect his works if only for the dismantling of the Panzer Myth and challenging what was once a very dominated field of British authors in the late 60s and 70s. Unfortunately now the pendulum has swung the other way in English-language histories, and its quite visibly US-Centric. The US also had the advantage of 'standing on the shoulders' of the British, Soviets and German doctrine-wise. Attaches in North Africa and being able to be (distant and detached) spectators to the first 3 years of the war in the West and East gave the US a lot of practical and theoretical groundwork. They were able to see, at little cost, what the two sides were doing right, what they were doing wrong, and how best to proceed. Its an argument that Hofmann makes in Through Mobility We Conquer and I always found it compelling. Stuff translated from the German remains useless as always however, with a few shining exceptions. I die a little bit inside every time someone take's Carius's word as law. Edited July 16, 2015 by Rinaldi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.