[narmer71]

Let me start with the battle of the Chosin Reservoir. Outnumbered, terrible terrain, below zero temps, frozen weapons, air support in daylight only, lack of unity of force on Army orders, uncommon valor was common virtue.

[telewinz]

Wake Island, WW2. I'm an Army Man but they don't make them any tougher than THOSE Marines. They did what we as young boys (and girls?)day-dreamed about. The movie with William Bendix could not overstate the common heroics the Marines displayed.

Some civilian workers did get involved but most were flown out against their wishes.

[MeekandMild]

Shiloh

[Wanderer]

Wake Island, wasn't that the one where even the civilians got into the battle?

[444]

Lexington
Now that was courage.


* Yes, I supose you could say that these were not yet Americans, but in my mind at least, they were.

[critter]

Can't argue with any of the above. Must add:

Normandy-D day
Battle of the Bulge
Guadalcanal
Iwo Jima
Okanawa

I was not at any of them. To decide on one is too hard for me to do.

[Hkmp5sd]

Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944. Soldiers in the first waves knowing they were cannon fodder. The airborne troops knowing the leaders thought they would be annihilated. Even the Supreme Allied Commander so unsure of the outcome, he had penned a failure press release before the invasion began.

[Fly Navy]

Iwo Jima. The Marine Corps won 1/3 of all their Medal of Honors in one month during that battle. Throughout the war, they won something like 85 Medal of Honors. That says something.

[.45Ruger]

Okinawa, From the stories my grandfather told me it was hell on Earth. I would also think Gettysburg would be right up there as well. Think of the courage it would take to fight in a battle that claimed 50,00 lives in three days.

[MessedUpMike]

To many to choose from. As well as the above mentioned:
Khe Sanh
Hue
The Samar Pennisula
Anteitam
Mogadisu


interesting that so many of these battles involved the USMC

[Loaded]

The Battle of the Hurtgen Forest. It was fought in the Rhineland. Biggest military blunder ever. Lasted almost 3 months. Thousands of men were killed needlessly for a piece of real estate that proved worthless.

My grandfather was moving up a hill in the forest with an officer and one other enlisted man carrying a radio. An incoming 88 (I think) exploded and killed the officer and the other guy immediately. My Grandfather had part of his right foot blown off and took some more schrapnel in his calf. He lived but was never the same physicaly again. He died at the age of 79.

Do a search on Google - Type in Hurtgen Forest. You'll be amazed!

[RepublicanMan]

Hands down, Gettysburg. Want courage??? How about Chamberlains defense of the hill for the US Forces.
How about Picketts charge for the CS Forces??

Either of those rank up there.

[Boats]

The modern Marine Corps was born on Tarawa. The Normandy D-Day of 6 June 1944 wouldn't have been possible without the Navy and Marine Corps pioneering amphibious assault while under murderous fire in the Pacific and gaining some expensive lessons to pass on to the ETO.

The invasion of Tarawa in November 1943 was the first amphibious assault in the Pacific in which the Marines faced opposition on the beach. It was also covered by the media more thoroughly than any previous Pacific action. The reports of over 1000 Marines and 30 Sailors killed in just 3 days, coupled with photos of dead Marines washed ashore, shocked the nation. The heavy losses of US forces on Tarawa prompted a congressional investigation. It was eventually stopped by a personal request by Lt. Gen. Vandegrift, Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Many lessons were learned from Tarawa. First, naval gunfire, as powerful as it was, was often too short and often ineffective against the man-made and natural defenses of the Japanese held islands. Secondly, Maj. Gen. Holland "Howlin' Mad" Smith argued for the greater use of amtracs as transportation from ship to shore was realized to be the most efficient mode to get the Marines to the beach and also handle the difficult tides and treacherous reefs. Also the concept of "more is better than less" was demonstrated at Tarawa as many amtracs were disabled before they could land their troops. Naval and Marine planners overestimated the effects of naval gunfire and aerial bombardment and underestimated the Japanese willingness to fight to the last man. Many of these factors led to the success of the Normandy invasion less than a year later.

Marines of the 2nd Division landed on Tarawa on 20 Nov 1943. Planners considered Tarawa an obvious target as Allied planes would be able to use the airstrip to control the Gilberts. Japanese also saw this and strongly fortified it. By the time the US Marines landed, the Japanese had 4800 navy troops on the island including 2600 men of the Special Naval Landing Force-Japanese Marines. They constructed beach defenses of concrete and barbed-wire fences to stop amphibious craft. A formidable array of heavy-caliber harbor defense guns were put in place and ranged in on the beaches.

Heavy naval bombardment and carrier-based bomber strikes preceded the invasion. Six million pounds of explosives were hurled at the island from naval gunfire. But because of flat trajectories, many of the shells bounced off the atolls into the ocean beyond. Because of heavy dust and smoke Navy pilots couldn't see their targets, thus they spent very little time over Tarawa. The bombardment was only effective enough to keep the enemy's head down and allow the first three waves of Marines to land on the beaches. However, the Japs were still able to disable or destroy 72 of the 125 amtracs that were launched during the first three waves.

Second Battalion, 8th Marines, under the command of Major General Julian C. Smith, even made it as far as the air strip. The rest of the landing force didn't have it that easy. Because of the changing tides and shallow depth of the water at the coral reef, the surviving amtracs had to unload their troops half a mile from the shore. Because of poor communications, smoke, and coral dust, naval bombardment was then halted for 30 minutes. This break in the action allowed the Japanese to regroup and reset their defenses. Because the assault lingered into the coming of the low tide, the following wave of Marines waded ashore in a hail of gunfire, suffering heavy casualities. It was during the long wade in that the phrase "Bloody Tarawa" was born.

As Marines landed on the beach, some were trapped in barbwire or cut down by the murderous machine gun and artillery fire. Others were cut off from their units, and because of bad communications Marines were unable to move to their proper beaches. The Japanese commander, General Shibasaki was said to have been killed on the first day by naval bombardment, therefore the Japanese suffered communication problems as well on D-Day. Because of the loss of General Shibasaki, and poor communications, these two factors conspired to deprive the Japanese of their only chance to repell the invasion of Tarawa. Many observers believed that if the Japanese had carried out a counterattack the first night it might have succeeded in throwing the Marines into the sea.

As it stood, several Japanese were able to swim out to a grounded enemy freighter and set up machine guns. Marines on the beach were then getting hit in a crossfire. It wasn't until midnight of D-Day-plus-1 that the tide was high enough to enable the Higgins boats to bring in badly needed supplies and reserve Marines. On D-Day-plus-2 the Marines were finally able to start destroying Japanese pillboxes and bunkers that blocked their advance.

During battles or skirmishes when the Japanese knew that they would be overrun, they attempted suicide charges. The aim of these wild frontal assaults was to kill as many Marines as possible while "saving face." It was not unknown for Japanese marines to strap TNT to their bodies to explode upon jumping into a Marine position. These charges took the name of the yell the Japanese troops made, "Banzai!"

After three days of bloody battle, and heavy US casualities, enough Marines were finally able to make it ashore in fighting trim to sweep the atoll, aided by tanks and howitzers. By the afternoon of the 23rd of Nov, Tarawa was fully in American hands.

Only 17 out of 4836 Japanese survived Tarawa. Proportionally speaking, it was the bloodiest engagement the USMC has ever been in.

[Norm357]

IMHO Any battle where an American laid down his life.


Norm

[goon]

Any of the above fully qualify, but two scenarios stick in my mind that would really scare the hell out of me.
One is any situation where you could be exposed to chemical weapons. WWI comes to mind.
The other is most land battles during the Revolutionary War and during the Civil War. You march up toe to toe with enemy, point your musket at him and shoot. Then he shoots. You stand there, hoping you don't get hit. You know that if you do, you just lost a limb at best, but you are most likely dead no matter what.

[Majic]

Gettysburg!!!!

[Mannlicher]

The Lost Battalion

http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/lostbatt.htm

[BB93YJ]

Little Roundtop, Gettsyburg.

[gburner]

December, 1862. Fredericksburg, VA

Union Army of the Potomac, led by the self admitted incompetent General Ambrose Burnside, builds pontoon bridges and crosses the Rappahannock River under continuous fire from Confederate snipers
hidden in the ruins of bombarded buildngs in the town.

After seizing Fredericksburg, the Federals move on Confederate positions located in the heights just west of the town. Wave after wave of Federals assault uphill over open terrain some 300 yard long by almost half a mile wide, only to be mowed down like winter wheat by the withering fire of Rebel infantry and artillery, much of which is located in a naturally fortified area known as Sunken Road. The Federals pile their dead on the field like cord wood, hoping to give those still alive cover from which to fire or just survive. Thousands of largely Irish immigrant troops throw themselves against these fortified positions in an afternoon of bloodletting, the likes of which had only been seen thus far in the East at Antietam, earlier that September.

Many of the Federals that survived this slaughter would find themselves at the center of the Federal line the following July 3rd in Gettysburg, chanting 'Fredericksburg, Fredericksburg' as the Army of Northern Virginia broke it's back and ceased to be an offensive threat, during Lee's greatest blunder, Pickett's Charge.

[cdbeaver]

Believe me, the roughest battle is the one you were in.

[cool45auto]

D-Day.

[Bigjake]

The alamo

[Mike Irwin]

Meuse Argonne

Wake Island

Guadalcanal


My vote, even though it wasn't a land battle, but was fought to preserve a land battle?

Battle of Samar.

The USS Johnston, USS Hoel, USS Heerman, and USS Samuel B. Roberts in defense of the light strike/support carriers in the Taffy III battle group, attacked a Japanese Task Force consisting of 4 battleships (including Yamato), 8 cruisers, and 11 destroyers.

Johnston, Hoel, and Samuel B. Roberts were sunk, but in a series of mini-engagements, the ships assisted in sinking several Japanese cruisers and ultimately in repulsing a vastly superior strike force.

Essentially, those ships, and aircraft from the carriers, which attacked without torpedos or armor piercing bombs as they were supporting the landings on Leyte, saved the invasion of the Philippines from catastrophe.

[Bigjake]

isn't that battle also know as laite gulf (sp)

[Mike Irwin]

Jake,

The Battle of Leyte Gulf is more appropriate termed the Leyte Gulf Campaign, in my mind. It ranged over several thousand square miles from October 23 through October 26, 1944.

It encompassed the invasion and naval activities associated with it, as well as 4 major sub-battles:

1. The Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, essentially air elements of Halsey's Task Force 38 against Japanese ships.

2. The VERY famous night Battle of Surigao Strait, in which US battleships crossed the T of a Japanese battleship/cruiser force and just beat the living hell out of it. Interestingly, as the case with Taffy 3, Adm. Jesse Oldendorf's old battleships (all survivors of Pearl Harbor), were there to support the landings on Leyte Island, and didn't have a lot of armor piercing ammunition.

This is Samuel Eliot Morison's tally for the battle:

"Even so, by twenty minutes after four on 25 October, with only another twenty minutes to go before the first glimmerings of dawn appeared over Dinagat Island, Nishimura's force, which had counted on being off Dulag by that time, was done for. Of the two battleships only the burning stern of Fuso was still afloat, three destroyers were sunk or stopped by torpedoes in mid-strait, a badly-damaged heavy cruiser and a damaged destroyer were retiring. And there was no consolation for the vanquished in having damaged the victors; for of Admiral Oldendorf's force only destroyer Grant had been hit, and that mostly by her own side."

3. The Battle of Cape Engano, in which the last of Japan's major carriers was blotted off the face of the earth by planes from the Third Fleet.

4. The Battle of Samar (or Battle of Samar Island).

[OEF_VET]

NUTS!!
- BG Anthony C. McAuliffe
in response to the German demand for surrender
December, 1944
Bastogne, Belgium

Now, that's courage. Those men went in there completely surrounded, with little ammo or cold-weather gear, and held Bastogne against insurmountable odds. Then, ole' Blood and Guts had the nerve to think he saved their bacon. Hell, the 101st was just being kind enough to let the Germans live past Christmas. The Screaming Eagles don't need no threadhead to save them. DAT! (DumbA** Tanker)

Frank

[Rangerover]

Cold Harbor.

[Mike Irwin]

Cold Harbor was just pure, unmitigate insanity of the first order.

Grant should have never held command after that fiasco.

[Orthonym]

Cold Harbor established the U.S. Army tactical style for the next hundred years, i.e., "Hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle!"

[Orthonym]

I'm just as overwhelmed as anyone by the ferocious, desperate courage displayed by the destroyermen at The Battle off Samar, but we're talking about LAND battles here, huh?

I nominate the assault crossing of the Lower Rhine at Nijmegen during the Arnhem campaign. Think about it! Flimsy boats, improvised preparations, the enemy was ready for them, etc etc, and yet they prevailed! People who were present and later wrote books about the event said it was the greatest feat of arms they'd ever seen, or even heard of! I don't remember if it was the 82nd or 101st who did it, it doesn't matter, they ALL gave a good account of themselves.

[greyhound]

What about the Battle of New Orleans? Buncha ragtag Americans whupped the british, and we haven't had any trouble with 'em since!:)

[RTFM]

Honestly, ANY battle where an American goes in harms way for our freedoms is the most courageous (land) battle by US troops in History.

We've had some bloody engagements on land, in the sea and in the air. I don't think that one should rank supreme, all were heroic.

[TheeBadOne]

Posts like this usually result in the answers listed above. I think what gets lost in this are some truely heroic battles that are never known, at least not on a national/world level. All wars, all battles have men fighting men. Some of the hardest fought actions are foxhole vs foxhole. We only give notice when the battle is involving major units, hundreds/thousands of combatants on each side. Instead, I often think of actions such as Audy Murphy's. There were some courageous battlefield actions. Audy was awarded and publicly acknowledged, but there are many more who remain unknown. A local man was awared the CMOH a few years ago for his actions in WWII. It seems some long lost letters were recovered by his Unit Commanders daughter. She brought them to Washington and the local guy was given his due. The letters (reports really) contained great detail about ferocious fighting in the pacific, and the local guys actions. The report nominated him for several metals, which he now received 50+ years later.
What was even more amazing, the man had never told his tales when he returned home. None of his children or grandchildren knew what a hero he was. They're pretty proud of gramps.
Anyway, just wanted to put my 2 cents in. As far as major conflicts, hard to argue with any of the ones listed, they were all courageous, instilled with the very best of America.
http://smilies.crowd9.com/contrib/navigator/usa.gif

[JohnBT]

Speaking of Cold Harbor, there was another interesting battle just down the road to the east of Richmond.

From the Henrico County site:

"At New Market Heights on September 29, 1864, Union black infantry troops dislodged Confederate defenders in a heroic action for which fourteen men received Medals of Honor. Two hundred more received a special medal commissioned by their general."

They got 14 of the 16 MOH awarded to black troops by the Union in the Civil War.

John

[Jim March]

My vote goes to the side that won a whole war in 1861.

Cochise of the Chiricahua Apaches held off 5,000 US Cavalry with 36 troops. It was the Army that backed down from that little brawl, not knowing the Chiricahua were down to 17 combatants. The Chiricahua were a civilized bunch and had been trading guns with Mexico for generations, they had their own fairly competent gunsmiths and every single one of 'em could shoot, and knew their own territory.

It was still the most lopsided win I'm aware of.

[Waitone]

You can draw a tactical straight line from Cold Harbor to trench warfare during WWI. Cold Harbor was insanity at its finest. It is well worth an afternoon to find the place and walk around. It is not one of the better preserved battlefields. What struck me was how small the field was compared to the casualties.

Grant said his only regret during the War of Northern Aggression was ordering the attack at Cold Harbor.

[DaveB]

Grant said his only regret during the War of Northern Aggression...

It's unlikely that Grant ever used the phrase "War of Northern Aggression".

db

[Mike Irwin]

It's a LOT more likely that Grant actually said...

"My only regret during the War of Southern Stupidity..."

:neener:

[Hutch]

Mike Irwin, there's a great, fairly accurate account of the Battle off Samar (Ziggy Sprague's Taffy Three) in the novel "War and Remembrance". A fictional narrator, Pug Henry, made the observation about the action you describe of the DE's and DD's hurling themselves at the Kurita's vastly superior force (as best I can quote): "Our schoolchildren should be taught this <how Americans can fight, even without superior forces>; Our enemies should ponder it".

Confining myself to the question posed (land warfare), I suppose it would have to be one of the many battles fought during The Late Unpleasantness, either Pickett's charge, the defense of Little Roundtop.

[Cosmoline]

"I don't remember if it was the 82nd or 101st who did it, it doesn't matter, they ALL gave a good account of themselves."

Um, I thought that was actually done by British troops, and only filmed with Americans for "A Bridge Too Far." Could be wrong, though.

I nominate Cold Harbor, as well. By that point, the troops knew perfectly well they were going to die during the futile assault on Lee's entrenched position. Earlier in the war, it's possible many involved in those massed assaults actually thought they would punch through. But by '64 that sort of thinking was long gone, though the massed assault remained. Marching into certain death must take some incredible courage. Determination in the face of a completely hopeless situation.

[agricola]

Bastogne is the pick of the bunch IMHO - its the only occasion I can think of that US troops faced and beat down the pride of the Wehrmacht while operating under a marked inferiority (unlike Normandy or Falaise).

Leyte Gulf was as good - one recalls HMSArdent and Acasta performing like, if ultimately futile, actions during the sinking of HMS Glorious in 1940 - but Kurita should have cleaned up the "jeep" carriers with or without those desperate attacks, especially given the attitude displayed by his countrymen of the Special Attack Corps.

Tarawa IMHO was the perfect proof of the old Roman axiom that you train hard and fight easy - the lessons learned in blood there should have been learned pre-war.

[moa]

There were probably too many actions in too many wars to make one single battle the greatest demonstration of courage.

One thing that does spring to mind for me, is the US Army tankers during WWII fighting the Germans during the later part of the war. The M4 Sherman tank they were using as a main battle tank was a disgrace. It had no business on the battlefield trying to fight the much superior German Panther and Tiger tanks as well as the 88mm cannon used as an anti-tank gun. The Sherman was a death trap.

Tank casualities of the machines themselves for units like Third Armor Div. was 600%. Tank crews did not fair much better. Toward the end of the war incoming infantry replacements were dragooned into becoming tank crewmen, with very little training. There were not enough experienced tankers left to fill out the units except maybe one per tank out of crew of five IIRC.

How would you like riding into battle in a tank the Germans nicknamed the "Ronson" (named after the cigarette lighter) because of its tendency to burst into flame when hit because it was gasoline powered.

[Sean Smith]

The Sherman was an excellent tank in 1942, decent in 1943, and a total failure in 1944-45. It was designed around maximizing shipping space on cargo ships, hence its tall shape and narrow treads, two things a tank should NEVER have. Add thin armor and a weak gun and you have death (for the crew) on wheels. At least the Brits had the good sense to stick a 17 pounder cannon on it to create the respectable Firefly variant.

So the U.S. tanker pick for 1944-45 isn't as crazy as it sounds.

Personally, I'd pick the Civil War, because it was the "nasty spot" where weapon technology leapt ahead, but medical science was still barely better then medieval. Tactics were out-of-date for the hardware used, resulting in casualties on a nearly unprecedented scale, and everyone knew that even fairly simple wounds could result in a slow, agonizing death from infection and disease.

[Rangerover]

I don't remember if it was the 82nd or 101st who did it, it doesn't matter, they ALL gave a good account of themselves.
It was the 82nd. "Slim Jim" Gavin made the crossing with his troops, if I recall correctly. That particular action isn't as well known as it should be, and in my opinion is the single greatest feat of sheer ferocity and courage by any American unit during WWII.

[emc]

To amplify on a couple of things that Sean discussed:

1. Joseph Lister only developed the concept of antiseptic conditions for medical treatment in 1861, and the medical establishment fought him tooth and nail for some time afterwards.

2. The typical infantry rifle in use at the time was .58 caliber, but a single shot percussion rifle. Trained shots could reload in 20 seconds or so, but that's a long time to wait when you're trying to keep someone at a safe distance. Lots of bayonet usage as a result. Nasty way to fight, or die.

FWIW,

emc

[DeadCalm]

This strays slightly from the original post, but since there are a number of mililtary historians here it may be the best place to ask: a friend of mine contends that the bloodiest battle in the Pacific of WWII was not Iwo, Guam, etc., but was one of the lesser known engagements. Tarawa? Total KIAs, both sides, allies only, any thoughts? Neither of us can remember and since she's a 17 year old high school student I feel obliged to set her straight--whatever that is. Thanks for your help.
Ross

[Sean Smith]

The correct answer is Okinawa. 49,151 Americans wounded and 12,520 killed in battle. The Japanese had 110,000 killed. The last battle of the war against the Japanese was the costliest.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/okinawa/chapter18.htm#b4

[telomerase]

>I think what gets lost in this are some truly heroic battles that are never known, at least not on a national/world level.

Have to agree with TheeBadOne; we never hear about most of the really brave acts (after all, they're dangerous!) Of those we've heard of, I'd have to nominate Hugh C. Thompson Jr. and his men who stood up to other American troops and helped stop the My Lai massacre. That took actual bravery, not just machine obedience which most SS or Soviet Guards troops could claim as well as ours.

[Duncan Idaho]

IMHO Any battle where an American laid down his life.I can't say it better than that.

[Mike Irwin]

"The Sherman was an excellent tank in 1942, decent in 1943, and a total failure in 1944-45. It was designed around maximizing shipping space on cargo ships, hence its tall shape and narrow treads, two things a tank should NEVER have. Add thin armor and a weak gun and you have death (for the crew) on wheels. At least the Brits had the good sense to stick a 17 pounder cannon on it to create the respectable Firefly variant."

I wouldn't even go that far, Sean.

Even by 1942 standards, when the T-34 first began to hit the ground, the Sherman was out of its league when fighting other armor.

But the Sherman was never designed with the thought that it would be fighting armor.

It was designed to meet the Army's requirements for a fast infantry support tank.

Slightly under half of the Shermans built were actually armed with the much more effective 76mm HV gun which, with American designed shells, was slightly superior in performance to the British 17-lb. gun.

The later Shermans, especially the "Easy8," were much more capable of handling German armor than their predecessors.

[Sean Smith]

It is all relative to the competition; the Sherman in 1942-3 was facing almost entirely Panzer III and IV models in North Africa. In 1944-45 it was facing up-gunned IVs, Panthers and Tigers.

The Shermans were improved in U.S. service, of course, but the U.S. high-velocity guns remained inferior to their German counterparts by a wide margin. I used to have a neat chart that compared the ballistics of pretty much every tank cannon there was from 1939-1945, but I'll be darned if I can find it.

And there is no doubt that you are right about U.S. armor doctrine being messed up, which contributed to buying the wrong sorts of hardware (tanks destroyers, anyone?).

[cuchulainn]

What do casualty numbers have to do with bravery? The landing at Guadalcanal took guts. Though the landing would be mostly unopposed, the men jumping out of the LSTs didn't know that at the time.

Why are the men slaughtered at Iwo Jima, Inchon and Normandy more brave than the men in 1991 who assaulted Iraq, which had the 5th largest military in the world at the time ... an army battle tested by a decade of war?

[Orthonym]

Moral courage seems much rarer than physical courage.

[Mike Irwin]

Sean,

Even against Tigers and Panthers the Sherman wasn't quite as bad as everyone moans about.

As for the 88 vs. the 76 HV, depending on the type of shell used, they were actually a lot closer than one would think.

As for tank destroyers, well, it looked like a good idea. That's why the Americans, Germans AND Russians all employed them in great numbers.

In fact, it was with a tank destroyer that the American 90mm gun actually saw service, and proved that it could open up Tigers and Panthers in the way that the 88 opened up American and British tanks.

Finally, don't be too hard on American tank tactics.

Remember, prior to September 1939, everyone conceived of the tank as a vehicle to support infantry, not as an instrument of breakthrough, mobility, and battle in its own right.

The Germans largely invented and put into practice that concept.

[Langenator]

That same 90mm gun was the same one used in the M26 Pershing, which was the first US tank designed to kill other tanks. A few of them actually made it into front line service in Europe before the end of the war. Even so, Shermans were still used in Korea.

One battle I haven't seen mentioned here, in the category of herioc stand against huge odds, would have to be Bataan.

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, Langenator, you beat me to that one. I went on a tour of Corregidor in 1949. Seeing the "before" and "after" photos of the entrance to the Malinta Tunnel is awesome. The Japanese artillery blew off over fifty yards of the rock face of the mountain.

Those men knew there was no hope of relief, rescue or resupply. They could have surrendered at any time, but fought on until out of just about everything but guts.

No one who was there, nor their friends and families, will ever forgive--much less, forget--the ruthless brutality of the Japanese during the Bataan Death March.

Art

[Cosmoline]

"The Shermans were improved in U.S. service, of course, but the U.S. high-velocity guns remained inferior to their German counterparts by a wide margin. etc etc"

Hey! Who won the stinking war?!

That's what I thought :D

[Watchman]

Every battle mentioned here took courage.

I think the most one sided and ill thought out act of battle occurred during Picketts Charge. Even the Feds felt sorry for the men yet they respected the courage shown that day.

The men had over one mile to walk through fields that were covered by cannon. When they finally closed the distance, they were met with shot.

They all had to know that they stood little chance of living, yet they chose to do it because it was their duty to do so.

Knowing that you have little chance of making through, yet choosing to give it an honest effort takes courage.

Yet we see it time and time again and its happended in just about every war that was ever fought by Americans.

[Ian Sean]

(the sound of a can of worms being opened)

Hey! Who won the stinking war?!

Statistically speaking, the USSR bore the brunt of the fighting against Nazi Germany and were responsible for 8 of every 10 german casualties.

Even after D-Day, German divisions were still being shifted from the Western to the Eastern fronts in attempts to stem the tide of the Soviet advance.

I am not trying to minimize the USA at all in Europe in WW2, but the Eastern front was absolutely savage.

[moa]

Getting back to the M4 Sherman, it had none of the prerequistes for a quality tank. That is, superior armor, armament and mobility.

It main gun was originally was low velocity 75mm artillery piece which had one advantage. It could fire up to 10,000 rounds before needing replacement, which much more than the high velocity German 75mm and 88mm tank guns.

Part of its armor problem is that the tank's profile was quite high, part of this to accommodate a gasoline aircraft engine. Being gasoline powered made it easier to catch fire when hit. Also, as tankers like to do, they leave the engine idling for long periods of time which caused spark plugs to foul. The high profile made for an easier target. The high profile made for less angle to the frontal armor which is less useful for deflecting rounds fired at it.

The hull of the Sherman was cast steel, which allowed high manufacturing rates with something like 75,000 made.

The narrow tracks with rubber blocks was designed on purpose for fast road speed and long track life. But in the soft ground of western Europe or thick snow pack, the narrow tracks were a serious disadvantage compared to the Panthers or
Tigers which were much heavier, but had wider tracks and more road wheels. Less pounds per square inch of track.

During the 11 months or so of combat in WWII after the Normandy invasion, some of the heavy armored divisions like the 3rd AD suffered more than 100% casualities.
What few advantages the Sherman had were far out weighed by its disadvantages which made it a death trap before it ever went into battle.

[Mike Irwin]

"Getting back to the M4 Sherman, it had none of the prerequistes for a quality tank. That is, superior armor, armament and mobility."

A more correct way of saying it would be that it had none of the prerequisites for a guality ARMOR vs ARMOR tank."

As has been previously noted, the Sherman was NEVER designed to be a main battle tank in the sense that it was to go out and duel with other tanks.

It was an infantry support vehicle, and at that it was actually pretty good.

That low velocity 75mm gun came with EXCELLENT high explosive shells shells to be used in taking out enemy pillboxes, buildings, etc. The armor piercing shells were virtually an afterthought.

Remember, when it was laid down on paper, the Shermam was the most capable tank known to the designers at that time. The T-34 was unknown, and the later German tanks were also virtually unknown.

[moa]

Mike, all you say is true. But, the Sherman was a tank designed by committee. The thought process was an infantry support weapon (to appease the infantry lobby) and a high road speed break-out main battle tank (to appease the armor lobby). They ended up with pretty much a POS in large numbers.

[Mike Irwin]

"a high road speed break-out main battle tank (to appease the armor lobby)."

That, I think you will find, is incorrect.

The high road speed was a continuation of the tactics that were inherent to the arm that actually owned the tank corps -- the Cavalry.

High road speed for scouting, reconoitering, hit and run against enemy positions...

In other words, everything that mounted men did with a horse.

Just as the cavalry was not designed to be "break out troops," the Sherman was never originally designed for armored breakout and maneuver. That was the use to which it was put later.

Remember, the Germans pretty much developed the concept of the armored break out, and COMPLETELY turned the conventional wisdom of tanks supporting infantry on its head. Other nations were aware of the tactical theories of the Germans, but largely gave them no creedence.

Also, at the time the Sherman was designed, the concept of the "main battle tank" didn't really exist in any military other than the German military, and even then it wasn't expected that German Panzers would be facing tanks of other nations in great tank duels.

In hindsight people try to claim that the Sherman was so many things more than what it actually was, and of course its reputation will suffer when judged in those terms.

But that's about as viable, and fair, as trying to judge a 1911 in the same terms that you'd use to judge a submachine gun.

[Sean Smith]

Remember, prior to September 1939, everyone conceived of the tank as a vehicle to support infantry, not as an instrument of breakthrough, mobility, and battle in its own right.

You are dead wrong on that point. Some Brits (Fuller comes to mind off the top of my head) already envisioned the use of tanks for mobile breakthrough operations - NOT just infantry support - before the end of World War I, though of course the current hardware couldn't support that use very well. Guderian's Achtung - Panzer! was heavily influenced by Fuller and Liddel-Hart (who he cites in his footnotes), and was published in 1937. What we would call Blitzkrieg was already well along its development as an idea in the 1920s.

Even against Tigers and Panthers the Sherman wasn't quite as bad as everyone moans about.

Maybe not, but it was bad enough. See the Sherman casualty rates for details.

[Mike Irwin]

Actually Sean I'm not dead wrong. I was't precise enough in my answer.

What I mean is that prior to 1939 no one (other than the Germans) put those theories into practical usage in a military force. A theory without a practical trial or application isn't of much use.

Yes, many envisioned using the tank as a break out weapon.

But those theories were positively scoffed at in many military circles.

I can't remember for certian, but I believe that in the United States Patton saw the possibility of using the tank for armored break out in the 1920s and 1930s, and didn't make himself many friends among his fellow cavalry and infantry officers.

Their acceptance in the German military was likely heavily influenced by the lessons Germany learned in fighting two previous wars against the French, and the lessons of Cambray (crap, was it Cambray where they were used for the first time?).

Obviously that lesson was lost on the British and French.


I'm also fully aware of the casualty figures for Shermans vs. German tanks.

But it's not as if it was a one-sided slaughter festival, either.

Shermans were responsible for knocking out quite a few German tanks, even Panthers and Tigers, in their own right.

And given the more highly refined German armored tactics, and the fact that they were largely fighting on the defensive, as opposed to the offensive, much of the time, it's not surprising that the Shermans took losses.

Even T-34s took losses against German tanks.

I've said it before, though, and I'll say it again. The Sherman was never designed to go head to head with other tanks. Prior to WW II I don't think too many people really envisioned the kind of tank battles that broke out, or we would have seen far heavier tanks than were employed at the beginning of the war.

To say that the Sherman was categorically was a bad tank because it couldn't take on other tanks and win 100% of the time is an unrealistic evaluation.

That's like saying that Japanese cities were poorly designed because they fared poorly against the atomic bombs. Hum... Perhaps the city builders didn't anticipate the dropping of an atomic weapon?

[Boats]

This strays slightly from the original post, but since there are a number of mililtary historians here it may be the best place to ask: a friend of mine contends that the bloodiest battle in the Pacific of WWII was not Iwo, Guam, etc., but was one of the lesser known engagements. Tarawa? Total KIAs, both sides, allies only, any thoughts? Neither of us can remember and since she's a 17 year old high school student I feel obliged to set her straight--whatever that is. Thanks for your help.

While Iwo Jima was "deadlier" in terms of sheer numerical casualties, Tarawa, as I said, was the "deadliest" in terms of ratio. The number of Marines committed to the number killed or wounded was at its height at Tarawa, mainly because contested amphib assault had never really been tried before with any success and some things that were thought to work in theory didn't work quite that well in practice. Someone said "train hard, fight easy" which is fine so long as a force is training on the right things. The axiom at Tarawa might be said to be, "train wrong, die easy." Tarawa corrected the deficiencies of the combined arms seaborne invasion doctrine, and nothing like that experience was ever repeated.

FWIW, the Japanese themselves turned to allowing the Marines to land mostly unopposed in subsequent landings, but "why" is an official mystery (mostly unoffically explained through a lack of IJN control of the skies or sea lanes making the IJA and marines duck out on being "softened up" for lack of replacements or supplies.) Allowing a beachead to the American logistics system (which is our not-so-secret unmatchable strength in all of the services) is controlled suicide, a mistake repeated twice by Saddam most recently.

Normandy, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa were assaults that benefitted immensely from the successful, though expensive lessons of Tarawa and the generally disasterous failure at Dieppe, France.