Office Tank Battle! (1 Viewer)

Louis, First, remember that the History Channel has a point of view to present, they only show the interviews that support what the producer wants you to see. I spend more time strudying armor in a weekend than the average documentary producer does in a year.

Second, I suggest that you look at some of the Osprey titles by Steve Zaloga. As mentioned earlier, look at "Lorraine 1944, Campaign #75" by Steven J. Zaloga published by Osprey in 2000.

I take the liberty of quoting one paragraph; "The popular myth of the superiority of German tanks in combat in north-west Europe is belied by the record of their actual performance. In an engagement of the type seen around Arracourt, with both sides in an offensive posture and neither side enjoying particular numerical advantage, panzer units were overcome by the superior American training and tactics. While airpower played an important role in some encounters, such as Dompaire, most of the fighting took place under rainy and foggy conditions where airpower could not intervene to a significant extent. German tanks and anti-tank guns could still exact a painful toll against American tanks when skillfully employed from defensive positions, as would be evident in the remaining months of the war. However the same was true of American tank and tank destroyer units, as was seen in the difficult opening weeks of the Ardenes offensive, when the panzer offensive was stopped in its tracks far short of its objectives."

In the book Mr. Zaloga talks of German losses, where 616 tanks and assault guns were committed to the Lorraine fighting in September only 127 were operational by 10/1/44. Losses included 101 PzKPFW IVs, 118 Panthers, and 221 assault guns. There were an additional 148 vehicles in German units that were damaged and/or in need of repair. He mentions that total armor losses for the Third Army in September included 49 light tanks and 151 medium tanks and tank destroyers. A total of 392 tanks were issued in September, so that, by the end of September, Third Army had more than replaced all its losses.

Further, the Sherman was in many ways superior to the original T34 (gun was about equal, better radios, better crew layout). Biggest problem - the Germans ran into T34 first, they learned hard lessons and went for technical superiority. By the time they met the Sherman in large numbers that had adopted better weapons to meet its challenges. By the time the US Army took the German Panther seriously it was too late to get a replacement into production and shipped over to the ETO. The US armor doctrine also delayed any replacement for the M4 series. Again, locate a copy of "Faint Praise, American Tanks and Tank Destroyers of WW2" by Charles M. Baily, published in 1983. An excellent overview of why the troops were stuck with an obsolescent tank in Europe.
 
Hi Guys,

As an alum of the 2d Armored Division Hell On Wheels! I feel I need to wade in on this subject as it is very near and dear to my heart. Normandy was a terrible place to try and fight tanks anyone who has looked at the terrain there will be able to tell you that a well sighted and determined enemy will be very difficult to deal with as was the case for the British forces in Operation Goodwood and we were equally stymied by the terrain during the break out from St Lo. The bombing that proceeded Operation Cobra in July was a big help in some areas but also created a lot of problems for the Division especially when the bombs fell in the wrong place, all told we lost 111soldiers to include General Leslie McNair KIA and another 490 wounded thats nearly a Battalion strength but the Air Force was considered the strong right arm for the Army and eventhough we did loose some folks to our own bombs their help was greatly appreciated by the troops on the ground.

During the fighting we really put a beating on one of Germanys best Units, Das Reich and we managed to kill its commander Tychsen. We estimated the German Casualties for a one night single engagement at:

KIA 1000
WIA ?
POW 200+
Destroyed Vehicles
3 Mark IV Tanks
4 Mark III
29 Trucks
1 SP 88
4 towed 75 MM AT Guns
15 VWs
4 towed 88's 3 Ammo Carries
1 150mm SP
2 Towed 150mm
12 Staff Cars
2 170mm towed guns

the 67th Armor Regiments losses during this engagement were

16 KIA/22 WIA
4 Medium Tanks
1 Light Tank
4 Half Tracks
1 jeep
1 Towed 57mm AT Gun

These are just the figures for one relatively small engagement and the trade off was pretty reasonable by my standards. I havent crunched the numbers for the 66th Regiment yet but will try and do so since they put a beating on the Germans they were facing too.

I know a lot of people talk about the Shermans vulnerabilities etc so let look at it clinically Panzers Verses Shermans

M4 Shermans weight 32 tons with 2,5 inches of armor plate on the front slope or glacis of the vehicle inclined at 45 degrees. Most were armed with the short barreled low velocity 75mm gun which threw a shot or kinetic energy round at 2,050 fps (feet per second) To put this in perspective the standard 30-06 round from the M-1Grand is traveling at 2500 fps at 100 yards. They switched about 15% this gun to the 76mm High velocity type a little into the campaign this was an improvement as the round was going 2650 fps and the significantly faster round gave much better penetration. I wont even discuss the Stuarts here as by this time in the war they were mainly being used in a reconnaissance role since the 37mm gun was totally outdated and was really only good for getting out of trouble or for popping trucks and infantry with its canister round (the only tank with one).
The Shermans Height was also an issue as it was significantly taller than most of the Panzers at 9 feet tall. The Panzers they faced were the Mark IVs which had a 75mm gun that was high velocity 3000 fps but was 10 tons lighter then the Sherman and had 4 inches of vertical armor it was only 2.65 meters tall. They also faced the Panther which was 20 tons heavier than the Sherman had 3.5 inches of Armor inclined at 38 degrees on the front slope also armed with a high velocity 75mm gun (3300 fps) ans was 2.98 meters tall and the King Tiger which was double the weight of one Sherman 64 tons with 6 inches of armor at 45 degrees of angle on the front slope armed with the 88mm gun that was moving at 3250 fps and it was 3.08 meters tall. Looks like a really big difference and it was we can also look at things like mobility which a lot of people felt was going to give the Sherman the edge but it really didnt especially when in boggy terrain. The one thing we had going for us was numbers and the ability to repair the battle damaged equipment faster than the Germans could.

I would love to discuss this sort of stuff more so I hope the tread keeps going.

Have a good one

Dave
 
Dear Dave

I like this thread too. I completely agree that you cannot separate out the terrain and doctrine. Rommel argued that in NW Europe the only place to fight with tanks was on the beach as the allies landed, Hitler overode him. Compare that with 1940 and in the desert - Rommel's doctrine was not to fight tank v tank - he saw the tank as a mobile battlefield bully destroying the soft logistical support, communications and morale of the enemy. His doctrine was fight with balanced all arms forces (never just tanks), using mobility to hit where the enemy was weak and to withdraw his own tanks onto a prepared anti tank gun screen which then destroyed the following allied tanks. Unfortunately in the desert, the british tankers at that time usually did charge in true cavalry regiment fashion, pitching tanks with puny 2pdrs (with no HE capability until the M3 and sherman arrived) against 88s and 50mm atgs - see the battle for Sidi Rizergh airfield for example. It was Monty that mainly stopped the practice of charging, in the defensive battles before El Alamein. The Sherman was considered excellent at El Alamein and it was terrific of the US to send them to 8th Army.

But Normandy was almost 2 years later and it was firstly a seige train that was needed - using AVRE churchills and sherman dds against fixed obstacles and bunkers - the 79th armoured used by the British - and then build up faster than the Germans to break out. Monty's plan was correct as the germans were forced to concentrate their armour around the plains surrounding Caen. Tank v tank must have been terrifying for the allied troops in the open, encased in their 'tommy cookers' as the germans named the Sherman. But even with the camouflage and flak it must also have been awful for the Germans wondering how they were supposed to stop the apparently limitless allied tanks, with naval and airpower support whenever they tried to concentrate. I have read accounts of tankers in Normandy for example having breakfast, hearing a spotter plane and breakfast then being 'interupted' by concentrated naval gunfire.

In 1942 the sherman was as good as any tank and better than most, but I agree that after the shock of meeting T34 and KV1 in Russia, the german tank development really took off in comparison. At short range, or against a pz4 or 3, or thinly armoured spg of which there were plenty, the sherman would be adequate in 1944 (were not most combat ranges in western europe much less than 1km?) - but at anything more than a couple of hundred yards against tiger or panther a 17pdr or 90mm would be needed.

The T34 was a brilliant tank, earlier than the sherman, with a ground pressure less than a man, fast (due to Christie suspension) and hard hitting for 1941. The armour was also superior compared with early german AT guns except of course for the 88. Also the endless Russian plains meant that the T34 gave strategic mobility which was vital. However - Combat ranges were longer due to the open terrain and there are accounts of small numbers of tigers and panthers from 1943 on, with their superior optics taking out forty t34s at 1-2km range. Perhaps the main similarity between the T34 and Sherman was the 48,000 or so of each made - compared with just over 500 king tiger, 1300 tiger and even only 7,500 or so panthers, the germans did not go onto a full war footing until 1943 when it was too late.

I understand that the main deal with the sherman, keeping it to nearer 1942 standards, was the shipping weight, bearing in mind that the russians drove their tanks out of the factory to fight - literally at Stalingrad - whereas the US sent them across the Atlantic first. You could get more shermans in a liberty ship than building heavier armour to match the tiger / panther although when new armour eventually came, the Pershing was excellent - as was the British Centurion 1.

When the Allied armour was able to exploit its superior mobility - as with the 'Hell on Wheels' discussed above, they were more than a match, although I agree with Louis that the lack of air superiority and poor logistics for the germans - especially fuel - must have been factors. Accounts of the Ardennes offensive surely prove this. That is the point isn't it? You can't actually separate out any of these many factors.

At the risk of starting an argument I suggest russian armour was generally superior to the western tanks, including the sherman, and the late model T34 85 was the best tank of the war because of its combination of mobility, firepower and armour.

Kevin
 
This thread certainly took off from when I went to bed - **** time zones :)

Firstly I should point out that I said the approx 100 German tanks were destroyed by air-ground rockets in the said campaign. Of course this number doesn't include the majority that were destroyed by other means such as: bombers, artillery, tanks and tank destroyers, etc - a team effort all round.

So lets recap a few things other people have already said, plus a few more I can think of:

* Defenders have a natural advantage in most battles. However several factors were against the Germans in a number of their lost battles, such as:

a) Hitler - He often didn't listen to wiser council susch as refusing to loose ground to improve position etc.

b) Allied air-power, sea power and productivity.

c) Allied code breaking and other intel.

d) Allied leaders, Generals etc were finally learning how to combine air, land and sometimes sea power to win land battles.


* Tanks: for maximum effectiveness a tank should have a balance of the following three requirements.

a) Lethality - being the capacity to destroy the enemy by main weapon, machine gun(s) etc.

b) Survivability - armor thickness and angle, low profile and other 'defences' to reduce the effect of offensive action against it.

c) Availability - includes speed, cross country performance, reliability, range, repair turnaround, and of course numbers.

So what was the best all round tank in WWII.
(excluding some late comers and one offs etc)

The American M4, aka by the British as: Sherman and Ronson (always lights first time) and by the Germans as: Tommy Cooker. It had rather good 'availability' but the other two requirements were lacking.

The British tanks weren't much different as they, like the Americans, thought of the tank as being an infantry support weapon for far to long (of course most allied troops new what was required, but who listens to them).

Which leaves the Russian T34/85 and the German Panther imo, both had their faults but they were good all-rounders. In a 'one on one - shoot out at noon' situation most wise people would pick the Panther, but to win a battle/war the T34/85 is the winner.
 
The last two gents are fully correct, that "combined arms" is the best way to use your forces. A number of German commanders understood this, that was the real strength of the panzer division - a balance of tanks, protected mobile infantry, artillery, engineering assets, with good tac air on short call. It took the Allies quite a while to get it right (funny, since the concept of modern combined arms mobile warfare is credited to a Britisher, Sir Basil Liddel-Hart). When an army loses sight of that balance, there are terrible results. Look at the Israelis in the Sinai in 1973. Their first counterattacks against the Egyptian Suez canal bridgeheads were tank-heavy and suffered terribly from Egyptian defenses that included massed AT guided missles back with tanks. Not unlike the British desert habit of charging tanks forward against the Afrika Korps into a combined arms defense laid out by a master.
 
As well as combining your forces its also vital to learn from experience and know your enemy.I am sure that is how Monty totally out thought Rommel and thouroughly whupped him.Shame he was slow in chasing him and let him get out of N.Africa.
 
Hi Guys

All of you have made excellent points and I would generally agree with most of what has been said. Now a few points of clarification There were in excess of 60,000 Shermans made of course many of them went to the Pacific Theater also. The powers that be in D.C. decided to stay with the Sherman because it was a fast made and easily modified vehicle that would not require retooling an entire factory base to produce the larger more lethal vehicle needed to deal with the larger German Armor. Now we did manage to get the M-26 into production also the M-24 inorder to eventually replace the lighter armored M-4 series and M-5's. Of course most of these vehicles did not make their apparence until late 44 early 45 so they didnt have a very large impact on the strategic level but on the local tactical level they were very well received and could go head to head with the Panthers.

Now as to who came up with the idea of modern combined arms warfare, some folks feel it was Sir Basil others myself included feel it was the brain child of MG J.F.C. Fuller during WWI at the battle of Cambrai. I dont want to get into a side bar on this particular subject but felt I should try and set the record straight. Now if we want to discuss these two incredilby brilliant military thinkers we can however I think people should read Brian Reid's book Studies in British Military Thought, Debates with Fuller and Liddell Hart and we'll go from there.

Anyway back the question at hand Which Tank was best? My answer is going to have to lean toward the Panzers especially the Panther and fortunately for us they werent able to produe the numbers needed to fight against us. I have taken a close look at the T34/85 and will tell you guys this you would not want to be a crew man on one of them talk about tiny. But they were pretty tough and could deal with the Germans fairly evenly.

Have a good one! I am really enjoy this thread.:)

Dave
 
Dave, you are right about the "numbers vs improvements" issue, plus the flawed Army Ground Forces doctrine of "tank don't need to fight other tanks".

Dave, since you were an Armor branch officer, you can probably appreciate that the biggest single killer of Allied tanks in the 1945 period wasn't German armor, but the hand-held AT weapons like Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck. Those sandbags on the sides of tanks were more for shaped charge warheads, not kinetic energy shot.

Speaking of the M24 light tank. Nice vehicle, just too bad it came so late. Can you imagine being a Stuart crewman in Europe? At least a Sherman had some chance, but about 25% of the US tanks in the ETO were lights (M5A1). Those make the M4 look GREAT!
 
Good thread Guys - keep it going!:)

I put up the T34 because of its balance on armour/firepower/mobility AND the fact that so many could be made. A tank is no good if it is absent - it was also so roughly made and simple that I even heard it ran on unusual fuels in extremis.

As for small inside, are not most tankers of optimal size for a small workplace - my son had an opportunity to ride on a 1960's chieftan tank which he really enjoyed but at 6'4" and broad to match he could not get in it and had to sit on top!

The average Russian in ww2 was what - 5'2" ? anyway - I have no idea of the real size before you all write in but you catch the drift of my argument?:D

Add in the KV/JS series with JSU 152 etc - It must have hurt with one of them firing a five-six inch shell at you ('animal killer')! Russian armour was in reality the best because it was there - technically brilliant because of its simplicity - not over complicated or underproduced like the tiger and panther series. The panthers for example could freeze up between the complex wheel arrangements and fires sometimes had to be lit underneath to start them in winter.

Right to the end, in the Ardennes for example, Guderian liked the sherman equivalent pz4 because it was so reliable rather than the over complicated gas guzzling tiger. The 70t King Tiger couldn't get over the bridges even if they were left intact. Try getting one over one of Andy's pontoons:eek:

I agree the PantherG was excellent and I might want to be in one myself, not that I could fit in it - but would there have been one in the right place at the right time to put me in? Even if there was - would I run out of ammo before all the T34 or shermans got me?

Or would I have to make do with a tactically inferior mock up 75mm on the back of a pz2 instead - Marder? Possibly even with a rechambered 76.2mm russian gun! Or a french tractor - Lorraine schlepper!

Kevin
 
Hi guys,

I will throw my hat in to the ring with Guderian as I too feel the Mark 4 was their single best vehicle for versatility. As the Panzers go my ratings for top three are:

1 Mark 4
2.Panther
3. Tiger 1

As for the Panzerfaust they were without a doubt one of the best and cheapest weapons the germans produced the Panzershrek was sort a rip off of the bazoka but it was effective. I would say that the panzerfaust was the weapon the Russians used as the proto type for the venerable RPG. As for the KV series wow were they lethal. I would not like to be on the receiving end of that.:eek:

Also an intersting note the Sherman 76mm versions carried slightly less ammo than the Panther. Sherman = 71 rounds, Panther =79 so not much of a difference but it could be if there were an unequal number of tanks facing each other.


Anyway, I am so glad to see there are some knowledgeable armor enthusiasts out there. Take care guys

Dave
 
Hi
another use the russians found for the panzerfaust in the house to house
fighting in the fall of berlin, was to blow holes in the walls as they worked
their way down streets,not what they where intended for but apparently pretty effective.
 
Dave, as a tanker you can appreciate that while the Sherman had RACKS for 71 rounds of 76mm ammo, the tankers reportedly carried extra sowed in as they were able. This reduced the effectiveness of the modified ammo stowage ("Wet Stowage feature") in the 76mm Shermans. I imagine the Panther crews carried as many rounds as they could, also. It would be interesting to see how many times German tankers had to go into action with less than their full load because Allied air interdiction screwed up their logistics.

Gary
 
Hi Gary,

I would imagine there was quite a bit of that sort of thing going on for both sides. I know they would store large amounts of fuel in racks on the back of the vehicle that were improvised so they wouldnt have to stop for the fuel trucks to catch up of course this sort of improvision was probably frowned on since it made the vehicle more vunerable to small arms or artillery fire.

I am always looking for pictures with these sort of modifications made by the crews I used to use them to help make my models look more battle worn and lived in since the tank is your home. We used to stack ammo boxes and boxes of mines and all kinds of other stuff on the back of the turrets of our M-1's which at that time did not have a bustle rack for storage we did have a form of cargo netting that we used to sling our bags and other soft equipment like camo nets but the Army finally got smart and developed a retro-fit bustle rack so we could carry even more stuff. You would not have believed the things that we had to drag around with us.

I can tell this much though the friends I have in Iraq told me the equipment load has been really well looked at and is finally being modified so they arent carrying a ton of cr-- they dont use like the mines and extra concertina wire.

Amazing what it takes to get things like the basic load for a tank modified to the real essentials.

Have a good one

Dave
 
Wow! I go to somebody else's office today and miss all of this. First of all, Dave, it is an honor to share this forum with a veteran of the Hell on Wheels Division. I have made no bones of the fact that I believe that your generation, who stopped the Axis powers, are truly "the greatest generation". As a man married to a wonderful Jewish woman, thank you for my freedom and my wife's life. It is interesting that the only WWII allied tanker on the forum agrees with me that the German Tanks were superior. Next, Kevin, I completely agree with you that the Russian T-34 was far superior to the Sherman. For further opinion on the subject, I refer you to one of my best friends, Captain Christopher Sybert, who served in the Gulf War as an enlisted man in an armored division, then after becoming a Sergeant, entered OCS, got his butter bar, and spent several years in Op4 (the "bad guys" who kick the heck out of NATO forces to train them to fight our anticipated enemies) at Hohenfels, Germany, before doing a couple of years in South Korea, and finally returning stateside to teach Armor tactics at Fort Knox. Chris, in no uncertain terms says he will take the basic T-34 with the 75mm gun over the original M4 Sherman, and take the T34-85 over the later 76mm Sherman everytime.

As far as the combined arms doctrine, I believe that Fuller, B.H. Liddell Hart and Heinz Guderian are each equally responsible for the development of the doctrine. I know that in his book Panzer Leader (page 20), Guderian gives a lot of credit to Liddell Hart (who helped him a great deal after the war, and wrote the forward to his book), I believe this is revisionist on Guderian's part, out of gratitude. In his earlier 1937 book, Achtung Panzer! Guderian does indicate that he studied translations of english and french military literature, but over approximately 17 years, he basically redefined modern warfare by putting these doctrines into actual service for the first time.

Finally, for my money the best tanks of WWII which saw a lot of service are the Russian T34-85 and its doppleganger, the Panzer V-a Panther. However, the American M-26 Pershing deserves honorable mention for its sucess in extremely limited service at the end of the war. I believe that the T34 should get top honors because, when it came into service it had highly effective and innovative sloped armor and suspension system, was produced quickly and in high numbers, and was very reliable. Its only true weaknesses were its 75mm gun, the fact that the tank commander had to double as the gunner due to the small turret and the lack of a radio. The addition of a high velocity 85mm gun and a radio with plenty of war left to fight cured most of its problems. The Panther, which was the German response to the shock that came from its Panzer III and IV's inability to deal with the T34, gets high marks for its sloped armor, good mobility for its weight and its high velocity 76mm gun. However, there were many problems with the Panther when it first came into service, it was never produced in numbers coming anywhere close to the T34 and it was too complex a tank not to have frequent mechanical difficulties. The Pershing, which saw only limited service, according to Belton Cooper, who actually worked on the first such tank to see service with the Third Armored (Spearhead) Division, installing a special breach in its high velocity 90mm gun, knocked out a heavy german tank from more than 1,000 yards away during an engagement. It had sloped armor, was the first tank with a gyroscopic gun mount so it could fire while moving (as it did in the famous film where it knocked out a Panther in front of a cathedral in a German City), and, due to a combination of wide tracks and a powerful engine, was faster and better off road than the Sherman. I often wonder, as Cooper argues, if mass production of this tank perhaps six months to a year earlier could have saved thousands of allied lives.
 
Last edited:
Hi Louis,

I wish I was of that generation because I too am very thankful for the sacrifice those incredible soldiers in the WWII Generation made unfortunately I was only a cold war era Hell on Wheels Alum who stood on the border watching the Soviets fall apart. I have met a lot of the really great guys from that period as we studied many of the battles indepth at Ft Knox and Ft Hood and had forums with veterens that participated in the fights like the battle around Nancy in France and of course The Normandy Breakout. I have actually met Col Long who Commanded a battalion of the 66th Armored during the breakout after one of the LTCs was killed and CPT James Burt (CMH) awarded after the battle for Aachen, both whom have unfortunately have passed away. My thoughts on the equipment come from discussions with vets like the Post Master of my home town who knew before I did that I was going to the 2d Armored Division and came out of his office to talk to the young 2d Lieutenant about things like listening to your sergeants and always remembering your troops welfare and needs. He actually had met the man General Patton and told me about the meeting it was an interesting little story. I wish I could except the honor of your thanks but I can't unless of course I do it for the Division I loved being a member of.

I think I have heard of your friend by the way. Which units did he belong too? I am sure we have either been in units together or have been on the other side of the battle from each other at Hohenfels and I am positive we know a lot of people incommon since the Armor community is a very small place now adays. I also would agree with the opinion he has of the Soviet tanks because they could really take a beating and dish one out too!

I will of course do a little reasearch into the subject of Fuller or Sir Basil because I know they were both very deep thinkers and if they had had the right equipment and technology they could have had an even bigger impact.

Talk to you all later

Dave
 
Hi Louis! Glad to have you back in this discussion. By the way, the Pershing wasn't the first tank with a gyrostabilizer for shooting on the moove. Later M3 mediums and M4 series' with 75 and 76mm guns had them too! Reportedly the WW2 vintage stabilizers weren't all that effective. They tried to keep the gun staedy in the plane of elevation only, which did reduce the fine laying once the vehicle was halted, but truly effective fire-on-the-move didn't come until the later M60A1/A3 and the M1 Abrams generation. You're right that the Perhsing was a good tank. A little underpowered and having a tendency to overheat - it was the same basic engine as the M4A3 in a vehicle that was 10, or more, heavier. In Korea some units favored the M4A3E8 over the M26, both repeatedly chewed up T34/85s, but when they got to hilly country, the ligter Sherman had better performance. The problem was addressed by getting more M46s to Korea. The M46 "Patton" was basically an improved M26 with an 800hp engine (but a real gas guzzler).

By the way, I appreciate all the fine contributors to this thread. We don't all agree, but the discussion has been interesting and enlightening. Louis, I value your imput, even though you and I don't often agree. David, I always enjoy hearing "tanker stories". When we are discussing a "best tank" I remember that any tank will NEVER be any better than the men inside it. That's how Israeli Shermans could take out tanks that were 20 years newer, or the M1 could have such a lopsided kill ratio in 1991. Its more the tanker than the tank!
 
Well thanks for the info about the gyrostablizers, I was not aware that the late war Shermans had them as well. You are certainly very knolwedgeable about tanks (far more so than me) and I certainly agree that it is the quality of the tank crews that is paramount. I is funny that you should mention the Israeli Super-Sherman, I was watching a show on the history channel about the Six Day War yesterday, and they did a detailed analysis of the improvements the Israelis made to the Sherman, including the french 105mm gun, the improved suspension and special tracks for desert mobility, and the much improved armor.

Dave, as far as your not being a member of the WWII generation, I still owe you, and all other veterans, a debt of gratitude for ensuring my and my family's freedom and lifestyle. It would be great if you know Chris, he is a wonderful guy, and one of my oldest friends. As a former NCO himself, Chris certainly has the same opinion of listening to sergeants and looking after the mens welfare that your postmaster friend taught you. As far as knowing Patton, my best friend Bill's father, (the late) William McGrath, Sr. was a highly decorated (a Silver Star and two Bronze Stars) WWII veteran serving under Patton as a communications specialist. There is a famous photo of Patton taking a leak off a bridge in Germany, with his African American aid and another GI on the Patton website. The original of this photo is my friend Bill's house, as the other GI was his dad. As an aside, Bill sent a copy of this photo with a letter to Andy telling his father's story, and asking Andy to produce a Patton figure for him to display with his father's memorabelia. I don't know if it had any effect on Andy's decision making process, but about a year later Andy released the Patton Command Car.
 
Hi Louis,

I have seen that picture and it always makes me laugh because it is so "joe" (joe is how we refer to the GIs when they are being silly) I have some very great pictures of him from WWI with the Renault Tank and a great one I got when I was in grade school and wrote to the Dept of Military History because I was doing a paper on Him as my hero (made some waves with the liberal teachers back then:D ) and they sent me lot of info on him a great 8x10 and some additional information on Normady. I still have the picture and some of the other stuff to include the paper. I always love to hear the real stories from old soldiers that were there. Anyway, have a good one off to do some of the honey do list:eek:

More on Tanks later

Dave
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top