QUOTE: Originally posted by Larry_Dunn
I think it's more that the Panzers, and their jockeys, have this elite cache that seems to be magnetic.
Do a websearch for Barkmann. Then do a websearch for Sergeant Pool. Note the disparity in websites.
|
|
My take is that this is due to the capabilities of German tanks vs. that of the Sherman. There is also the perception, somewhat mistaken, that the vaunted German Blitzkrieg was due to the superiority of their tanks, which admittedly overlooks the fact that the Blitzkrieg victories were done mostly with Panzer II's, III's, and the Czech tanks. Between the early Blitzkrieg scaring the daylights out of people and the true superiority of the later Tigers, Panthers, and Tiger II's, German armor takes on almost mythical proportions. Above and beyond all that, German tanks generally look the part of a really efficient AFVs, and thus are popular historical subjects.
In contrast, we had the Sherman. It was decent mechanical vehicle, albeit something of a hodge-pdge stopgap, but in 1942 it wasn't too bad of a tank. Unfortunately, from 1943 on, it was getting to be increasingly outclassed on the battlefield, and by 1944-45 it was at a serious disadvantage. So I think a lot of Americans have a tendency to ignore it rather than admit that we had a second-class weapon.
My simplistic nutshell summary is that later writers ascribe German victories due to the superiority of their tanks while Allied victories were achieved in spite of the inferiority of our tanks. The irony, of course, is that with a weapon such as the Sherman, any useful exploits such as those performed by Pool, really should be trumpeted all the more loudly, because those successed are naturally balanced more in favor of the skill of the crew rather than simply having a better weapon.