SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Top Allied tank ace of WWII

12642 views
27 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Saturday, August 30, 2014 2:32 PM

tigerman

IMO, only tanks should be qualified as a kill. Jeeps and halftracks can't defend themselves in most cases and are unarmored. I believe pilots didn't count planes shot up on the ground as kills, only air-to-air combat.

Just like WWI pilots counted tethered observation baloons as kills (due to the danger of supporting AA located around them) in late WWII there were also ground kills credited to pilots, and for the same reason. But those kills do not count towards their tally of aerial victories and "acedom". Just as V-1s downed by various methods do not count towards those tallies either.

Now the whole tank "ace" thing is something that is really hard to compare to the air ace concept. Aside from being an invention of the Goebbels propaganda machine, a tank is run and fought by a crew, as opposed to a fighter plane. If the gunner is a poor shot, they loose. If the driver can not drive his vehicle in a tactical manner that enhances survivability, they loose. If the commander is not looking around for threats and spotting them first, they lose. If the loader can not load quickly for rapid follow up shot to insure a kill, they lose. Oh yeah, they all gotta maintain the beast so that it does not break down at a critical moment and they end up toast. 

Now the fighter pilot has to fly and fight his machine solo. Yes his ground crew keeps him flying, but all the variables of flying and fighting the plane, mechanical issues aside, are in his control: manuevering, shooting, looking,etc. all fall in his lap.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Rain USA, Vancouver WA
Posted by tigerman on Saturday, August 30, 2014 1:52 PM

IMO, only tanks should be qualified as a kill. Jeeps and halftracks can't defend themselves in most cases and are unarmored. I believe pilots didn't count planes shot up on the ground as kills, only air-to-air combat.

   http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/wing_nut_5o/PANZERJAGERGB.jpg

 Eric 

  • Member since
    August 2014
Posted by Old Man Dan on Friday, August 29, 2014 7:41 AM

This is an 11 year old post but it is wrong and I feel the need to post correct information.

Lafayette G. Pool had 12 Tanks, 246 AFVs/trucks as registered kills

BUT

The man credited as the Western Allies Tank Ace of WW2 was Canadian

Sydney V. Radley-Walters. He had 18 tank kills and an unregistered number of AFV's/trucks.

Tanks under his command are also thought to have killed German Ace Michael Wittmann.

  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by shermanfreak on Sunday, July 13, 2003 11:29 PM
With a little work you can build Pool's M4A1 76 from the Italeri kit. Cooie Sewell does a review on how to build one on the AMPS site. As far as decals go, "In The Mood" doesn't have a set on the market that I know of but a set can be built up using various decal sets from Archer.
Happy Modelling and God Bless Robert
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 13, 2003 9:50 PM
Is there a model of Pool's "In the Mood" Sherman in the market? I know the 1/35 figure of SSgt Pool is already for sale. Are there decals for his tank on sale?
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: NE Georgia
Posted by Keyworth on Sunday, July 13, 2003 9:05 PM
Sounds like another motivated GI field leader and all-round ballsy tanker. It would take a lot to get me in one of those moving foxholes, though. Don't get me wrong! I love the M-60 series and the Abrams and the M-48 series, becasue they've come thorugh for outfits I served with in a 20-year career, but I'm still a rifleman at heart, and those things just attract way too much negative attention! :)
"There's no problem that can't be solved with a suitable application of high explosives"
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by M1abramsRules on Sunday, July 13, 2003 8:57 PM
That's a fact
  • Member since
    February 2003
Posted by Anthony on Saturday, July 12, 2003 9:18 PM
In fact the US Army has already honoured Pool by naming the tank simulators room in Fort Knox as Pool Hall in July 1993. Yet, I too would like to see a new US tank named after him, because he deserved that honour. However, whoever design and build it must make surre it will be a realiable great tank. I don't want to see them disgrace Pool's name like the way they disgrace Sgt. Alvin York's name with the M-247.
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by M1abramsRules on Saturday, July 12, 2003 7:41 PM
you won't hear me disagreeing!!!
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Rain USA, Vancouver WA
Posted by tigerman on Saturday, July 12, 2003 7:23 PM
In honor of Pool's accomplishments, perhaps the military might name a future MBT after him. Until then, M1's rule the world!

   http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/wing_nut_5o/PANZERJAGERGB.jpg

 Eric 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 12, 2003 2:34 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by edog


The link states that Pool would always ride with his head out of the tank, constantly on the look out for the enemy. Call this stupid, smart, or gutsy, it worked. Like in most fights, it sounds like his aggressiveness is what made him so good at his job
.Big Smile [:D]



riding with your head out was common practise for all armour commanders, you have to see the enemy first and is harder to see anything buttend up
plus it would be quicker to get out if your hit
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 12, 2003 3:22 AM
In one of the links that Anthony provides, it says that Pool died on May 30, 1991. Also seems like he got a lot of first shots off. Sounds like the one time the Panther got the first shot, Pool lost his tank.

The link states that Pool would always ride with his head out of the tank, constantly on the look out for the enemy. Call this stupid, smart, or gutsy, it worked. Like in most fights, it sounds like his aggressiveness is what made him so good at his job

This guy seems like the kind of guy you always want playing on your team.Big Smile [:D]
  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by shermanfreak on Saturday, July 12, 2003 1:05 AM
Tigerman - I believe he passed away recently (within the last couple of years anyway). As far as his story goes, he had a deal with one of the major studios to produce his story, but got into some sort of conflict with them so it never got off the ground. Not sure if there was an autobiography produced or not.

Abrams -
QUOTE: you have to go with facts once in a while
Yes, the 5 to 1 ratio was a commonly used tactic in taking on a Tiger. And yes there were many losses in achieving the end results. And yes going nose to nose on a level playing field with a Tiger the Sherman would always lose, but battles aren't often fought on a level playing field. Terrain, buildings and a myriad of other factors like range and the first shot come into play. Under those conditions could a Sherman take out a Tiger nose to nose, absolutely.
Happy Modelling and God Bless Robert
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by M1abramsRules on Saturday, July 12, 2003 12:04 AM
it would have to be an ambush for a sherman to take out a tiger(I like the sherman, shermanfreak, but you have to go with facts once in a while) Also, during the battle of the bulge, the way they would take out tigers is they would send abut 5 or 6 shermans around in a flanking maneuver, and (because they were faster than the tigers) get around behind and start blasting away at the weak rear. They would lose 2 or so shermans but they would take out the tiger.
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Rain USA, Vancouver WA
Posted by tigerman on Friday, July 11, 2003 11:40 PM
Just tickling your funny-bone Shermanfreak. Sgt. Pool gets kudos from me. Is he still alive? Did he publish anything?

   http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/wing_nut_5o/PANZERJAGERGB.jpg

 Eric 

  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by shermanfreak on Friday, July 11, 2003 9:33 PM
In regards to the debates about Sgt. Pool's kills. His kills as pointed out in one of the earlier posts included everything from the Panther down. 258 kills and I will add that these were all armoured vehicles (not ox carts or bicycles) is still impressive in its own right. Yes the Tiger would have been a little more formidible a foe but would he have come out on top or not would be purely speculation.

After all .... how could a lowly Sherman ever take out a Tiger.

Oh ya .... I remember now ....see below
Happy Modelling and God Bless Robert
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 11, 2003 2:40 PM
in a second book ive got says Col Creighton Abrams
Abrams was one of the most successful US tank commanders of ww2, and the current US tank is named in his honor. his Tanks were named Thunderbolt
Thunderbolt IV was a M4A3(76)W HQ 37th tank Bn., 4th Armored Division . Dec 1944
Thunderbolt VII was a M4A3E8 head of the 4th Armored Combat Command A . feb 1945
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 11, 2003 2:27 AM
Thanks for all the replies. They're all pretty useful. Though I'm a little skeptical about the 258 kills with a Sherman M4A1. Looks like I'll have to dig my nose into a few more books to find out the real score. After all we are looking for tank killers here right? I guess it was to Pool's great fortune that the biggest he ever got to kill was a Panther. I'd hate to think of what would've happened had he bumped into Tiger Is or IIs. Sherman's didn't tend to survive long when hit by by an 88mm shell.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 11, 2003 2:03 AM
My question is, did the Germans count trucks as kills or did only a tank count. 258 kills had to definitely be a lot of trucks and half tracks. Machine gun kills
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 11, 2003 1:49 AM
I’m going to have to agree with tigerman on this one. I’m a little skeptical. We are talking about a little over 3 kills for each day in combat. Sounds like he racked up a lot of light armored vehicles for kills.

Still, I have to say sounds like a typical Texican, and a boxer to boot. The man had balls in that Sherman!!! Good to hear that the germans weren’t the only ones kicking behind in tanks over there.
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by M1abramsRules on Friday, July 11, 2003 12:14 AM
hate to see a bicycle after it got hit with a 76 HE.
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Rain USA, Vancouver WA
Posted by tigerman on Wednesday, July 9, 2003 5:38 PM
Not to discredit Mr. Pools accomplishments, but 258 kills in less than three months of combat? Are you sure some of those kills weren't ox-carts and bicycles? Ah... but he was at the helm of that infamous tank-busting vehicle - a Sherman!

   http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/wing_nut_5o/PANZERJAGERGB.jpg

 Eric 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 8:28 PM
I know it had no more fire power but it did have thicker armor so just saying there was a possibility that a tiger round could have like grazed it or something and a round that would have taken out a regular sherman didnt take it out.
  • Member since
    February 2003
Posted by Anthony on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 8:16 PM
Thanks Shermanfreak. BTW one more site of Lafayette Pool:

http://www.3ad.org/wwii_heroes/pool_lafayette/pool_ordnance1.htm

Hyperscale site has a report for a resin figure of Pool:

http://www.kitreview.com/reviews/sgtpoolcs_1.htm but there is no pic.
  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by shermanfreak on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 7:26 PM
According to the info that I have gotten on Pool, the score of 258 kills was achieved in only 83 days of combat ... quite impressive. His first tank was a standard M4 or M4A1 with a 75mm gun. Both "in the Mood II and III" were M4A1s with the 76mm gun.

Airbrush - just a side note, the Jumbo had no more firepower than a standard 75 or 76 Sherman. It had thicker armour and was used quite often as a point vehicle.
Happy Modelling and God Bless Robert
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 12:05 PM
just a guess but if he racked up that many kills he would probably have had a better sherman like a Jumbo Sherman.
  • Member since
    February 2003
Posted by Anthony on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 1:54 AM
According to my resources, a book called 'Tank Aces' written by George Forty, there was an American tanker called Lafayette Pool. He served in the 3rd Armd Div. According to Forth's book, Pool credited, together with his gunner Cpl Willis Oller 258 enemy armoured vehicles during the fighting in Europe. His kills included Panther, PzKpfw IIIs and IVs, StuG, anti-tank guns, and various half-tracked APCs.

You can also check with this site

http://www.3ad.org/wwii_heroes/pool_lafayette/pool_home.htm

Boy, isn't that incrediable? I wonder why Hollywood never makes a movie about him.

BTW, Pool used 3 Shermans called 'In the Mood', 'In the Mood II' and 'In the Mood III'. But I don't know what Sherman version he used. Anyone has any idea? Shermanfreak can you shine any light? Thanks.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Top Allied tank ace of WWII
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 7, 2003 11:27 PM
This is in line with my earlier question on the greatest Tiger I tank that ever fought in the war. Does anybody know who the top ALLIED tank ace of WWII was? I'm presuming it to be Russian as Western tanks tended to cut to pieces when facing Panthers or Tigers. What tank did he use? or while I'm at it, who was the top AMERICAN tank ace of the war? What version of the Sherman did he use or did he have to wait for a Pershing?
JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.