A solid counter to the typical EuroSnob Academias ‘analysis’ of the World War II American Army. The one thing I would add is that the US always considered 1 other element of the combined arms attack integral to anti-tank operations: The air strike. Ground Support attacks were perfected by the USAAF. The Sherman was never meant for toe-to-toe slugfests with their counterparts. It was meant for exactly the kind of tactics the former cavalry officer Gen. George S. Patton employed them during his race across France and against at the Ardennes.
Laugh at the equipment all you want. It won. And no, it didn’t win by sheer weight of metal. It won by superior logistics, superior reliability, and superior use of combined arms tactics. The only thing a weapon of war needs to do is kill enemies. Try to find a more efficient machine at it than the US Army in 1944.
I’d honestly suggest you might have to go back to the Grande Armee at its height.
If you see any discussion about the US Army during WW2 you will quickly hear that the US Army couldn’t pour sand out of a boot with instructions on the heel. The choices of just about every piece of equipment will be bitterly criticized aggressively. You would honestly come to the conclusion that the US Army was just able to win the war because of accident or sheer overwhelming production. The Chieftan debunks much of that here.
Still, there are some issues I would like to perhaps clear up. The funny thing is how long some of the myths about the US Army and the Sherman tank have been around. It seems that the American tanks were being disparaged at home even before the US entered the war or the tanks even saw combat. It wasn’t just tanks either. Just about every piece of equipment on the TO&E got hit…
View original post 5,928 more words