A vet's unflinching account of service in the 104th Reg. 26th Inf. Div.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

excellent article!

of course it's incoherent etc but it was entertaining reading (at least for the first half, after that it got a bit tiresome) and i think it should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in warfare. i suspect it applies in general spirit to most wars, whatever the conflict or nationality. imagine if he had served on the German side and had to march next to horse wagons etc. or better yet, served as a Finn so that he wouldn't have necessarily gotten even an uniform and much of the equipment would PREDATE WW1.

judging from the author's style of writing i hardly think he would be insulted by JasonC's verbal commentary - on the contrary. on the other hand i don't quite see the need for such criticism of the article (provided i no longer remember what the exact words of criticism were, nor bother to reread as i am lazy and sleepy).

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michael kenny:

I am quite well informed about all the late war tanks used by The Allies and The Axis.

We have no reason to believe that based on what you've presented here. </font>

[JasonC]

mk - I already told you, in the stackpole volume "forging the thunderbolt", in the chapter before they get to Torch and US combat proper (roughly half-way - the book is about forming the separate armor branch within the US army and its doctrinal and force structure evolution etc), there is a discussion of the Grants given to the Brits, as a natural follow up to the discussion about getting Grants to exist in the first place.

In that chapter, a British armor officer, colonel or brigadier iirc, says when they got the Grant they wept for joy. I call it verbatim simply to point out the expression used is not my own coinage, but his. Now run along and look at a copy at your library or in a bookstore if you care to doubt it, and you will find it there just as I say, because I have no need to make these things up, and I read it, what, on Saturday, standing in the Barnes and Noble in Nashua New Hampshire if you care to know.

If you are silly enough to doubt my report of so elementary an unexceptional a fact, then knock yourself out going and looking. I find it incredibly amusing that you should think it a matter requiring urgent investigation.

URC - quite. I doubt half his "supporters" here get any of it, frankly. The man is transparently denouncing the worship of the gimps down at the VFW hall as a piece of humbug up with which he will not put, and when I call him a humbug himself, everyone gets in a tizzy and leaps to defend the git (lol).

[JasonC]

As a point of information, for the battle of Gazala the Germans have 4, count 'em 4, Panzer IV F2s with long 75, and all of 19 Panzer III Js with long 50. The balance of their fleet was 50 Panzer IIs, about 200 Italian M13/40s and a handful of 75L18 Semivo., and the main body 225 Pz III H with short 50mm, or Pz IV with 75L24. The Germans also had a handful of Marders mounting Russian 76mm.

The Brits had more like 150 Grants, along with similar numbers of Matildas and Valentines, and more like 250 each of Crusaders and Honeys (Stuart). The whole upper half of the Brit fleet by quality was proof against over 90% of the Axis force at range (Grants, Matildas, and Valentines), but only the Grants could also kill them back at range. They were also about twice as fast as the Brit infantry tanks.

The Brits fielded their own 6 pdr tank varieties for the first time only at El Alamein, and only a trickle of them (most Brit built tanks remained 2 pdr main armament at that time), by which time they had already received over 250 Shermans (shipped special order after Tobruk fell, by direct intervention of Churchill with FDR), on top of Grants already in the fleet.

[ December 19, 2006, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[michael kenny]

Excuse one:

Originally posted by JasonC:

I don't have a working scanner

Reasonable.

Excuse two:

Originally posted by JasonC:

I read it, what, on Saturday, standing in the Barnes and Noble in Nashua New Hampshire if you care to know

So even if you had a scanner you could not scan it.....so why say you had no scanner?

Quote one:

Originally posted by JasonC:

The comment about the Grant is taken verbatim from British officer's accounts of the desert war

so lets run down the quote..........

Quote two:

Originally posted by JasonC:

I call it verbatim simply to point out the expression used is not my own coinage, but his

Ah so now it is NOT a quote.

I find it odd that someone who delights in obscure literary references and word games is unaware of the dictionary definition of 'verbatim'

Originally posted by JasonC:

Now run along and look at a copy at your library or in a bookstore.

Sorry Jason but this book would not interest me. The subject is too lightly covered to be of any use to me. Look how it led you astray? I don't think I will be 'running' anywhere.

Originally posted by JasonC:

If you are silly enough to doubt my report of so elementary an unexceptional a fact, then knock yourself out going and looking. I find it incredibly amusing that you should think it a matter requiring urgent investigation.

You mean apart from the fact it was not a verbatim report?

Perhaps instead of tying yourself in knots you should simply admit your mistake.

Here is a link that may prevent a repeat of this error

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=88007&dict=CALD

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michael kenny:

I am quite well informed about all the late war tanks used by The Allies and The Axis.

We have no reason to believe that based on what you've presented here. </font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I am allergic to hyperbole, fanboys, injustice, ingraditude, vindictive spite, and forum nannies, but not to anyone simply describing a piece of equipment as inadequate when it is.

Did you actually read the preface before you went into "EXTERMINATE" mode ?

This article is about my experiences and impressions as an infantry soldier who did combat in the European theater of operations.

I do not speak nor claim to speak for the entire Division. I note that GI's (particularly my dear friends Neal Burdett and Jim Haahr) with the 101st Infantry Regiment of the Yankee Division tell me that their Regiment was well managed and they have enormous respect for the command of that Regiment.

With apologies to John Keegan this is about "The Face of Battle" and, in many ways, the result of reading all of the Keegan war works.

Has anyone ever praised a French 75 on a halftrack? (lol).

Not that I have seen.

Then again the Germans converted the same gun into a stop-gap 75mm PAK

In the case of the M3 medium the guy stated:

The vital flaws in this tank are fairly obvious and why anyone with any knowledge of tank warfare would produce this monstrosity is beyond me. There were people in the American Army who knew tank warfare from A to Z (General George Patton) and it had to be produced without their approval.

What are the flaws? For starters:much too high a profile, too straight a frontal area, a main gun that could not traverse more than 30 degrees so that the tank had to be turned to point the gun, escape hatches on the side and not in the back!

This was after the characteristics of the German tanks were well known since they had been on the battle field field since 1939! Whomever designed the GRANT apparently did no or little research or it was designed by a committee!

Your "debunking" this rant was way out of line and constitues prosecuting a heretic and not rectifying some "historical inaccuracies and factual mistakes".

On the 2 million US made Enfields of late WW I, touche and a fair point, of the "something new every day" variety. Don't see anything wrong with them, unlike the original website, but it was news to me.

The guy goes way beyond the outdated gear in his appraisal of the US infantry:

I was taken out of Officer Candidate Prepatory School [OCPS] since the war was going to be won in the air and no more infantry officers were needed) That meant that a vast effort went into producing, improving and researching airplanes.

It also meant that the infantry was hind tit and the innovations were negligible. All that we did, in essence, was to copy, duplicate, replicate and produce the Infantry equipment of other nations.

Again, his view is contrary to the established mantra about the "ingenious citizen soldier army".

[ December 19, 2006, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

To the first - prove him wrong, Tero, don't make unsubstantiated and very general claims.

Jason can't be proven to be wrong in his opinions. What I find wrong is his attitude towards the opinions of the other guy which are based on actual experiences and data he knew it at the time. And which he admits to in the very first paragraph of the page.

Then again I guess you yourself missed this bit too

I was a Canadian citizen and did not have to go.

To the second - the P17 rifle is no mystery. They were exchanged between Canada and the US at some point during the war and used for training at home.

It is no mystery. The mystery is how I could Google it in a few minutes but Jason did not bother to check the validity of the guys statement before jumping all over the "faulty recollection" and other seeming mistakes in the data.

[Michael Dorosh]

It also meant that the infantry was hind tit and the innovations were negligible. All that we did, in essence, was to copy, duplicate, replicate and produce the Infantry equipment of other nations.

US Army was the only one to field a semi-automatic rifle as standard; they also pioneered rocket propelled anti-tank munitions ("Bazooka"). So where does this come from? US Army was among the first to get rid of wool tunics in favour of more practical garb (though the M1944 wool jacket was supposed to be a field garment, it wound up rightfully so as a walking out or dress uniform, and the M1943 combat jacket became standard combat dress).

They had some dreadful stuff; cold weather gear was inadequate (Canadian soldiers commented that the Americans "looked colder" than anyone else in the winter of 1944-45), the BAR was not a terrific weapon and was aging (the M1919A6 was even worse as an "LMG"), the 1943 uniforms were not produced fast enough, the wool greatcoat was never repalced by something like the excellent German parka or even leather jerkins as worn by the CW. But to say that the US Army simply recycled the equipment of others doesn't hold up. I don't understand why you would bring this up?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

US Army was the only one to field a semi-automatic rifle as standard;

The Red Army went full auto.

they also pioneered rocket propelled anti-tank munitions ("Bazooka").

And left it at that for the next 20-odd years.

So where does this come from?

Lets see: the 37mm gun in M3 was lisence built Bofors, 40mm AA Bofors, Oerlikon lisence built Swiss, British helmets used early on, Enfield rifle. Attempts to replicate MG42 failed.....

These off hand.

US Army was among the first to get rid of wool tunics in favour of more practical garb

During WWII ? Not according to this guy.

(though the M1944 wool jacket was supposed to be a field garment, it wound up rightfully so as a walking out or dress uniform, and the M1943 combat jacket became standard combat dress).

They had some dreadful stuff; cold weather gear was inadequate (Canadian soldiers commented that the Americans "looked colder" than anyone else in the winter of 1944-45)

That much is clear.

the 1943 uniforms were not produced fast enough, the wool greatcoat was never repalced by something like the excellent German parka or even leather jerkins as worn by the CW.

That effectively defeats your previous claim.

But to say that the US Army simply recycled the equipment of others doesn't hold up.

Lets see:

in essence, was to copy, duplicate, replicate and produce the Infantry equipment of other nations

I do not read that as meaning recycle.

I don't understand why you would bring this up?

Why single out only the M3 Grant/Lee incident when there is a wealth of remarks and opinions to go over.

[Tero]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

or better yet, served as a Finn so that he wouldn't have necessarily gotten even an uniform and much of the equipment would PREDATE WW1.

I aboslutely loved these bits

We would run out of artillery support quite frequently. The artillery were limited on a daily basis on how many shells they could fire (memory says 8 shells a day per gun-but who can remember a detail like that?). A call for artillery fire had to be cleared at higher levels!

We even, on occasion, ran out of rifle shells and would borrow from each other. My rifle consumed 20 rounds of ammunition at a time;all in one clip ( a former officer wrote me it was not a clip but a "magazine"; so be it since "so what"?) I had an ammunition carrier (Henry Wojcicki aka Henry Wick) who never had much ammo to carry since we didn't have much! I never ran out because I watched my supply scrupulously. I was terrified of being caught without ammo!

Gasoline, food and ammunition were continuing nightmares. We not only ran out of them but frequently did not know if we would get replacements. Everything but everything was in short supply!

I do know from having seen it hundreds of times that too many of what maps were available were horribly inaccurate. I know that we would call for artillery support and it would land hundreds of yards away from where it was supposed to land. Our artillery was never that inaccurate. It was the maps!

[JasonC]

mk - not the stackpole author's coinage, the officer he quotes. You get sillier each time you post.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tero:

Lets see: the 37mm gun in M3 was lisence built Bofors, 40mm AA Bofors, Oerlikon lisence built Swiss, British helmets used early on, Enfield rifle. Attempts to replicate MG42 failed.....

But so what? The AA guns were beside the point by 1944, the 37mm anti-tank gun was fine for what it was intended to do at the time it was designed - and replaced by a 57mm gun identical to the 6 pounder which remained in CW service to the end of the war (ie if it ain't broke, don't fix it). Not to say it was great for Tigers or Panthers, but how often was that necessary? They were great for blowing buildings up and taking on lesser armour, and on occasion could even tackle the big cats if positioned carefully.

As for the "British helmets" you don't know what you're talking about (they weren't British, and they weren't used in combat outside the early battles in the Pacific). The Enfield Rifle was used in training and only because M-1 Garands couldn't be made fast enough. The Marines used the Springfield early on out of necessity.

The Bazooka most certainly did not go without improvement for 20 years, as improved models were fielded in 1945 and again in the Korean War.

The airborne version of the US 60mm mortar is still in use in Canada - the Germans abandoned the small mortar in 1944 or thereabouts for some reason. It looks a lot bulkier than the US M19 which doesn't have a large buttplate like the unwieldy 5.0cm German model.

White Phosphorous grenades and munitions, as well as napalm, were used extensively by US forces.

The Sherman was used as a mount for all kinds of flame and specialist engineering vehicles that the Germans could only dream of.

Personal equipment was well designed except for the lack of a decent small pack; I've owned complete sets of German, American and CW equipment - the German stuff was rickety and held together impermanently by hooks rather than buckling securely together.

[ December 20, 2006, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[JasonC]

Tero - fine let us start with your picked example of his picked example, the Grant.

First, it was known and planned as a stopgap measure from the very begining, while waiting for the Shermans to be finished. A 75 was wanted to match the best then in German tanks, and in fact exceeded theirs. It would not fit in the turret of the existing M2 so it was mounted in the hull.

Gee, did anybody else in the course of the war mount a gun turretless to get a larger gun to fit on an existing hull?

As soon as Shermans were in production with a fully turreted 75, the Grant designated a substitute standard (not first line in other words), and as enough of them became available the chassis were used for SPA. Which, gosh, also feature a larger gun mounted without a turret, don't they?

One of his supposed flaws is that the gun traversed 30 degrees so you had to point the whole tank. Gee, it is a good thing the StuG, Jagdpanzer, Hetzer, Jadgpanther, Semovente, SU-76, 85, 100, 122, 152 etc didn't have that problem.

He complains the front isn't sloped enough. The least sloped plates are more so than the front of a StuG (or any other German tank before the Panther in mid 1943), and about half the area is sloped at 45 degrees.

It is too tall - true enough, at 10 foot 3 it is a whole 6 inches taller than a Panther or a Sherman.

It was still the best tank on the field at the time it reached the field, and equal to the average on the German side by the time it was withdrawn. (Which was after Tunisia - rest sent to far east or used for SPA recovery vehicles or "rams" etc), where in case everybody forgot the majority of the German fleet were still Panzer IIIs and short IVs. Yes they had modest numbers of long IVs in North Africa by then, the US had immodest numbers of Shermans by then).

Then the claim is either that there was no innovation in the infantry or that all the innovation was in the air force.

In the infantry, bazookas. No they were not left without improvement for 20 years - before the end of the war there were also 57mm and 75mm shoulder mount recoilless rifles, and 105mm jeep mounted ones postwar, and 3.5 inch bazookas in Korea (which were copied from schrecks, copied from zooks). Which is not 20 years.

No the Russians did not "go full automatic", they fielded millions of bolt action 5 shot Mosin Nagants. Yes they also fielded PPsh in quantity, the US fielded tommy and grease guns in quantity. The US also fielded 20 round clip fed carbines, and fully equipped the bulk of the force with semi autos. Which was innovation by any standard. Small arms ammo was also improved.

The US also fielded WP in quantity for all sorts of weapons, fielded rifled mortars, fielded AT rifle grenades fired from semi auto, innovated endlessly in airborne operations, fielded pack howitzers air mobile and mountain packed, in air-ground liason, in organic air assets in the IDs spotting for artillery, in artillery fire direction (TOTs) and equipment (VT), in radar detection of enemy batteries, in walkie talkies (nobody else had anything comparable).

They also supplied independent armor battalions and SP TD battalions and armored cavalry to every infantry division, also AA, put more trucks in an ID than the Germans had in a PD, put all the infantry in ADs in armored vehicles and made all its artillery SPA - all of them innovations or equippage on a scale the Germans could only dream about.

Then he wants to talk about the artillery shortage, which featured the starved American artillery firing 10 times as much as the German in all the heaviest fights of the war. Yes 3rd army was shell starved in the fall of 44; it didn't stop the artillery from defending the Elsenborn position decisively etc. Ask a German if he would willingly swap artilleries with the Americans.

The places the Americans actually lagged were small unit tactics, night fighting, discipline issues (as in it was always loose and the tight asses this guy is bothered about, his "bullies", weren't a hundredth as mean as they needed to be), and replacement practices (by individual rather than cohort with cadre).

And of course in fielding the best tanks late, not early, in the war (which was more than half a production issue - the Sherman 75s had already been built in huge numbers by the time it became clear better guns would be needed - but included avoidable error on things like getting more APCR to the 76s actually delivered etc).

He is not finding important matters to highlight possible improvements, he is cherry picking minutae for spin value (he simply thinks the Grant looks silly e.g., or that calling equipment WW I era and old sounds like a plausible indictment). Why? Because he is a crabby git, that's why, trying to send up a pompous atmosphere he despised and taking out his dislike of the war as an event on those who in objective fact kept his sorry ass from being blown to smithereens.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Yes 3rd army was shell starved in the fall of 44;

Yes, and that was because the pesky Germans rather inconveniently refused to yield the Channel ports, and the 21st Army Group failed to advance 18 more miles past Antwerp to seal the South Beveland Peninsula (and thereby the fate of the German 15th Army). Had nothing to do with US Army failings. In fact, while the British Army suffered from a shortage of thousands of 3-ton lorries (due to defective pistons) at that time, the US Army was running the Red Ball Express. Really don't see logistical problems on the Continent being anything more than a problem borne of their own rapid success. On D+90 they were supposed to, according to the OVERLORD plan, be fighting on the line of the Seine, not at Aachen and Antwerp.

[The_Enigma]

hehe

I wonder, why does he even bring the tank up in the first place in his commentry on the site?

And also, i cant quite get my head around it - why does he call it by the British nickname?

Because he is a crabby git

I cant help but laugh each time i see this get mentioned!

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

Yes 3rd army was shell starved in the fall of 44;

Yes, and that was because the pesky Germans rather inconveniently refused to yield the Channel ports, and the 21st Army Group failed to advance 18 more miles past Antwerp to seal the South Beveland Peninsula (and thereby the fate of the German 15th Army). Had nothing to do with US Army failings. ...</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

Yes 3rd army was shell starved in the fall of 44;

Yes, and that was because the pesky Germans rather inconveniently refused to yield the Channel ports, and the 21st Army Group failed to advance 18 more miles past Antwerp to seal the South Beveland Peninsula (and thereby the fate of the German 15th Army). Had nothing to do with US Army failings. ...</font>

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

One of his supposed flaws is that the gun traversed 30 degrees so you had to point the whole tank. Gee, it is a good thing the StuG, Jagdpanzer, Hetzer, Jadgpanther, Semovente, SU-76, 85, 100, 122, 152 etc didn't have that problem

One is a TANK the others are SP Guns...........'Gee', wonder why no one noticed?

It is too tall - true enough, at 10 foot 3 it is a whole 6 inches taller than a Panther or a Sherman.

Enemies of the Grant(119 inches and 29 tons)

Pz III = 99 inches and 22 tons .

Pz IV = 106 inches and 21-23 tons.

Thus the Grant is TOO HIGH relative to the opposition it faced.

Also as the main gun is low in the superstructure 'hull down' is not really an option.

Comparisons to the Panther are simply absurd.

The Sherman, depending on type, was 108-117 inches and 33 tons

Panther is 118 inches and 45 tons

Note that nothing in the above is a criticism of any aspect of the Grant or Sherman. Flag waving defenders of any particular nation go fight someone else!

Can I suggest another field trip to Barnes and Noble? This time take your daddy and he can lift you up to the top shelves where the technical works are stored. A notebook would be useful to jot down any quote you intend using in nexts weeks posts-you never know when you might be asked for a source!

[ December 20, 2006, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

[JonS]

Michael D - see my edit/addendum. Also, note that the shortages you are talking about in Sept are of a general nature, not absolute. There is x tons of lift available to SHEAF, and x + y tons of supplies to be moved. The tricky bit is figuring out what mix of ammo, food, and fuel is going to make up x, not "OMFG, teh l33t hax0r stole a1l mi buletz!!1! Ohnoes!!1!"

[ December 20, 2006, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

One of his supposed flaws is that the gun traversed 30 degrees so you had to point the whole tank. Gee, it is a good thing the StuG, Jagdpanzer, Hetzer, Jadgpanther, Semovente, SU-76, 85, 100, 122, 152 etc didn't have that problem

One is a TANK the others are SP Guns...........'Gee', wonder why no one noticed?

It is too tall - true enough, at 10 foot 3 it is a whole 6 inches taller than a Panther or a Sherman.

Enemies of the Grant(119 inches and 29 tons)

Pz III = 99 inches and 22 tons .

Pz IV = 106 inches and 21-23 tons.

Thus the Grant is TOO HIGH relative to the opposition it faced.

Also as the main gun is low in the superstructure 'hull down' is not really an option.

Comparisons to the Panther are simply absurd.

The Sherman, depending on type, was 108-117 inches and 33 tons

Panther is 118 inches and 45 tons

Note that nothing in the above is a criticism of any aspect of the Grant or Sherman. Flag waving defenders of any particular nation go fight someone else! </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

interesting information. It hasn't been emphasized in the handful of accounts I've read - which may indicate I may be reading the wrong books.

It is fairly desperately dry and boring, but Steve R Waddell's book United States Army Logistics: The Normandy Campaign, 1944 is very good.

[ December 20, 2006, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

Michael D - see my edit/addendum. Also, note that the shortages you are talking about in Sept are of a general nature, not absolute. There is x tons of lift available to SHEAF, and x + y tons of supplies to be moved. The tricky bit is figuring out what mix of ammo, food, and fuel is going to make up x, not "OMFG, teh l33t hax0r stole a1l mi buletz!!1! Ohnoes!!1!"

Yep...so not really something we are using to indict the US Army.

I mean, there is so much legitimate stuff that we could do - the Replacement system, as Andreas points out, the cold weather gear as Kettles mentions; it's when you try and pick on every little thing that you start to come up looking foolish.

Every major army in the Second World War grew at least 10 fold, often much more from 1931 to 1945. That any army would be able to train and equip these growing forces and do everything - or even most things - well is asking too much. Hard lessons were learned. The fellow whose website started all this may have been on the **** end of some of those lessons. Unfortunate. I'm glad he stuck with it. I can't bear the thought of living in a world where fascism, militarism and Nazism were allowed to flourish. In fact, they paid those high prices and died in large numbers so we could go back to exactly what caused them to die in such large numbers to begin with - fat, happy democracies full of civilians oblivious to thoughts of peril.

[The_Enigma]

for referance: side on and front views of a Grant

http://tanxheaven.com/ljs/m3grant/05-M3'Grant',Brussel.JPG

http://tanxheaven.com/ljs/m3grant/04-M3'Grant',Brussel.JPG

Edit lol now that should work .... 55th time lucky!

[ December 20, 2006, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]

[JonS]

n/t

[ December 20, 2006, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]