The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by kfz, Nov 11, 2006.

  1. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    [/QUOTE]




    Someone has already taken up that crusade. A full-time Chieftan 'ghostbuster' already infests the internet.


    http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1985737#p1985737

    If you Google his username Chepicoro & 'Chieftan' you will see he has posted the exact same word-for-word argument across as least 5 forums and he takes no notice of anything that contradicts his belief the Chieftan must be wrong. He seems a lot like you!
     
  2. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    The film is a general overview of the facts and as such does not go into any great detail. The Chieftan does make a number of small errors but overall his case is solid. The problems are confined to the shrinking minority brought up on outdated unverifiable German accounts of WW2. People like you in fact. I know you think you are well read but that s simply not true. If you were posting 10 years ago you might have some standing. Today you are a dinosaur.
     
  3. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    Books can get things wrong. An author could 'chose' a source that best fits the story he want to tell and ignore a source that contradicts.

    Example:

    Page 184 Reynolds: Steel Inferno.
    'but then as the 5 RTR (5th Royal Tank Regiment)tanks surged forward just before 1900 hrs on either side of Bouguebus they ran headlong into Jochen Peiper's 1st SS Panzer regiment and lost 8 Cromwells cite 42 There was nothing to be done but pull back into Four and Soliers'

    cite 42 = 22 Armd Brigade War Diary 19 July 1944

    So Reynolds used the War Diary of the parent Unit for 5 RTR.


    This is what the actual 5 RTR War Diary says:

    19July
    ’B’ Sqn plus 2 platoons of ’l’ Coy 1 RB passed through ’A’ Sqn who had formed a firm base at Grentheville and pushed into Soliers, clearing minor Inf. opposition on the way, which they then made firm. Spasmodic AP fire came from the direction of the left flank (direction of Four) but nothing was seen of the tanks or SPs. ’B’ Sqn was ordered to put 2 troops in Bourguébus which arrived in the outskirts after carefully working their way there, a few minutes before
    3 Tigers and 2 Panthers came into the village. In the ensuing fight 2 Tigers and 1 Panther were brewed up for the loss of 1 Cromwell. The enemy then withdrew and at first light the 2 troops of ’B’ Sqn returned to Soliers where the Sqn leaguered for the night.


    So there we have an example of an author using a recognised source to say one thing when another more authoritative source says another. Reynolds certainly had the 5 RTR War Diary but he chose not to use it. Only by checking can you find these things out and work out where the author wants to take you.
     
    canuck and Owen like this.
  4. Andreas

    Andreas Working on two books

    Michael, that's quite a startling discrepancy. Any thoughts why?

    All the best

    Andreas
     
  5. Swiper

    Swiper Resident Sospan

    Reynolds was a curious character. He certainly idolised much about the Waffen-SS and painted an exceptionally sympathetic picture which exaggerated their combat performance.

    In digging deeper into his books (as Mike did) you notice more subtle discrepancies - entire engagements where the Waffen-SS take no casualties due to him massaging figures to zero. Further exploration of footnotes shows that he just ignores evidence that did not fit with his view of the campaign, very much a chap who thought 'I will write a book to change perceptions, facts be damned'. There are several telling phrases tucked around in his prose which repeatedly crop up, he more or less recycled other people's work at times and presented it in a reasonable (if clunky) narrative.

    Frankly his books are less history and border on a fantastist's view of the campaign. His reputation as a General gave him suitable gravitas and allowed him to create and propagate myths, his real agenda be damned so to speak.

    Ironically enough Richard falls rather heavily into the mythstory category, who needs facts when we can have a k00l st0rah lul.
     
    TTH likes this.
  6. Richard G

    Richard G Junior Member

    Lots of lol comments to my attempt to bring some rational thought and discussion to the table, facts are everything and there is a proven and recognised system to test and ascertain them, a system which is being largely ignored here and replaced by opinions seemingly based on what people want to hear and believe in. I can't respond to that general sort of attitude, it's IQ damaging.

    A couple of specific responses though. The value of Anne Frank's writing is irrelevant here A? See that exactly illustrates your attitude of misconstruing comment that you have no sensible response to, schoolboy stuff. Anne Frank was mentioned as an example of the value of someone's first hand experiences, that's all. If it's a bad example then say so, I invite you to with reasons.

    Now according to our American friend I'm out of date and a dinosaur. It's quite obvious that there are trends in historical interpretation, eg WW1 Haig used to be dammed by everyone then a few years ago when it became popular and trendy to seriously suggest he was not so bad after all. The facts hadn't changed, the interpretation had. It's understandable in one way, as an author you are more likely to be noticed if you come up with a new interpretation, same old same old does not sell books or gain recognition. It's the same with the Sherman, putting the Tommy cooker type rubbish to bed is good (although I have a theory on that) but selecting suitable facts and opinion and ignoring unsuitable is just plain wrong. As is accepting a claim at face value without testing or thinking about it is just plain sloppy.

    One of my current favourite pro Sherman comments is the one concerning comparing Sherman and German tank losses in Europe and then claiming that those figures show the quality of the Sherman in battle. That's a nonsensical claim. Allied air domination put the Germans at a big tactical disadvantage, to survive finding cover was their first priority, a good tactical position or move without cover exposed them to danger from above before they ever came close to contacting enemy ground forces. So they became predictable and limited tactically, a big advantage to any Shermans in the vicinity. There is more on that subject but meh, it's not trendy so it's irrelevant.
     
    Smudger Jnr likes this.
  7. Andreas

    Andreas Working on two books

    I didn't bring it up. Why don't you explain to us how the diary of a school girl who hid in an attic until she was killed by the Nazis has any relevance to the topic at hand, and in the process maybe also discuss the difference between it and Belton Cooper's book and why they don't matter?

    All the best

    Andreas
     
  8. Andreas

    Andreas Working on two books

    Thanks Swiper!

    All the best

    Andreas
     
  9. Richard G

    Richard G Junior Member

    I can't help myself but it is fun. So, when have I mentioned Belton Cooper at all let alone quote him for authority on anything? I can see what you are trying to do, bring in a discredited author as authority to discredit any and all authors who had first hand experience of their subject matter but who you prefer to ignore. Just think for a moment, you can't be serious.

    Querying the example of Anne Frank as an example of someone with valuable first hand experience of a particular subject matter? Surely you know what an example is, it's all about illustrating a proposition to help to understand it and has nothing to do with the example's subject matter. Are you a block head hun or something with English as a second language? You seem to have access to a lot of good info but that's about it.

    PS I have been through the German memorial in Egypt, it's sneakily located further east than they ever got, the Italian memorial location is about right. Both are impressive but meh, they lost, my mob won :p
     
  10. idler

    idler GeneralList

    I'm going to go with 'Digger', looking at the size of that hole you're in...
     
  11. Andreas

    Andreas Working on two books

    I'd say so too. Timing of the posts fits for someone who had one or two too many after diner.

    All the best

    Andreas
     
  12. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    And so the long day wore on.
     
  13. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    My laptop has been out of commission for three weeks so I have not had consistent internet connection. I am surprised to come back here and find this still dragging on. I thought I hit it fairly well a month ago--the Sherman was NOT great, but with better guns and ammo in 44-45, plus good crews and tactics, it was good enough (just) to do the job. Wasn't it? if it wasn't, then how did the Allies win the armored battle? That they DID win it seems evident to me from the final result of the ground war in the West. And please don't just say "numbers." Numbers count--they always have and always will--but it takes skill and intelligence to make proper use of numbers.

    The defects of the Sherman are well known, and you cannot shock anyone or win any medals for courage by pointing them out. I don't think anyone here is simply denying them. The armor wasn't terribly thick, the tracks were narrow, it was too high and conspicuous a target, it caught fire too easily (not because of the engines but because of the ammo), and the 75mm was a mediocre AT weapon against the later generation of German tanks. Given all this, then, just how and why did the Allied armor still manage to come out on top? That, it appears to me, is the real question about the Sherman in WWII.
     
    Swiper, Tricky Dicky and Owen like this.
  14. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    Terry, my intention was to uptick you comment, not what I did. I agree with you fully.

    Adam, is there a way to fix my egregious error?
     
  15. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    i've awarded pos rep to cancel out your erroneous neg rep
     
  16. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    Thanks all!
     
  17. Richard G

    Richard G Junior Member

    Seeing that A keeps mentioning Belton Cooper as some sort of example I guess I'd better respond. Read the book once and have never quoted it as authority for anything but it is some sort of example of someone writing about something he had no knowledge of outside his own experience. And that experience is recalled apparently only from memory 60 odd years after the events. What do people expect given those circumstances? Seriously?

    But now we have a mini industry involving those apparently determined to discredit anyone who would criticise their precious Sherman. That that industry would go to such lengths to pick on an old veteran is quite illustrative I think. If such people really want the truth, which I seriously doubt, they would direct their energies to doing proper research and not just looking for anything that they think will support their opinion and ignoring everything else.
     
  18. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    Does anyone know what the "repair pool" was when allocating tanks? The British accepted an additional 1000 Shermans in 1943 in order to "fill" this repair pool. I'm assuming that it was a reserve of tanks to replace other tanks undergoing short-term repair, but if anyone knows any better...
     
  19. idler

    idler GeneralList

    It's set in a bit of context here, but its actual purpose is not explained:

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/thread/1322929289/21+AG+Admin+History+-+some+snippets

    I will try to have a look in the Ordnance staff history later to see if it expands on this.
     
    Don Juan likes this.
  20. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Sorry, mate, but you're being a drama queen.
    The points being made, are that combined decades of sensible and serious enquiry have eventually led to the entirely calm conclusion that M4 was 'alright really', 'not half bad' in many circumstances, has a few real claims to fame, and is certainly undeserving of the determined drubbing it's reputation has received over the years.
    That's it.
    There is no 'industry', and there's certainly a lot more balance and wider 'research' from your opponents here than you've so far demonstrated on this specific score.

    But this is more circular re-stating of what has gone before.
    It would be nice to see this thread drift off into more interesting detail like Idler posted above than for this to-&-fro to continue. Everybody's said their piece.

    Just a thought, but how about instead of dragging out your kicking from pillar to post here you have a browse through some other tank threads. Find some stuff on the Panzers and see what you have to say there maybe. I've seen you post on other stuff on other forums, and this particular horse is getting flogged into a dull pool of ichor. Surely everyone's getting bored with it now. (Maybe we can all have the same argument in a few months time... As is apparently traditional. :rolleyes: )
     
    Smudger Jnr and Don Juan like this.

Share This Page