Opinion: most courageous land battle by US troops in History

[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]

telomerase, I concur:

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

 

[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.