Yeah, read the review yesterday. Thanks for posting it IWM. 

Confirms what I'd kinda figured about this book...... 

Yup, reference back to my very first reply in this post.  It looks like I was pretty much on the mark.

http://amps-armor.org/SiteReviews/ShowReview.aspx?id=4114&tf=4&sf=0&mf=-1&rf=-1&nf&df&p=1&s=-4

AMPS posted a review of this horrible book and it looks like it is full of errors.

AUSTanker

Among the more bizarre online criticisms of our best-selling book "For Want Of A Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WWII" is the claim that the Sherman tank- which often burned when hit- couldn't have been nicknamed a "Ronson," after the cigarette lighter that "lights every time."

The online haters and armchair quarterbacks are attacking the book by claiming that no GI, Tommy, German soldier, etc., could have used this slogan, because (they claim) Ronson advertisements didn't use it until the 1970s.

In seconds, you can Google a Ronson cigarette ad from the Saturday Evening Post. Notice the slogan "Light Every Time." The date? 1927!! So by 1945, Allied and Axis soldiers would have familiar with this slogan for almost two decades.

Our book has over 1300 footnotes, extensively referenced- each individual chapter has more footnotes than most entire tank books. But why let facts get in the way of a good hate, right?

 

I did do some online research about this Ronson ad. This one-time ad was in 1929 where it says "It's a shame to take the money A Ronson lights every time".  This logo was not used again until after the war. So I really doubt that Allied and Axis soldiers would have been familier with an one-time ad from 10 years before the war started.

He is a link to some more info on Ronsons: https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/04/28/from-the-editor-lights-first-every-time/

I believe this was a myth created after the war. Kind of like calling a M4A3E2 assault tank a "Jumbo".

Thanks, brother- you're a class act! I'm sure more people in Houston would be safer if they were in buildings you designed!

Quite an adventure to have a book out, but the sheer personal hatred (especially from those who haven't read it) is stunning...I'm a disabled Army Veteran with relatives buried in Arlington, but I've rec'd online death threats and called a Nazi because I'm supposedly "unpatriotic" for looking at WWII in a fresh light, away from the decades of propoganda!

My wife and I were on our honeymoon when she noticed that one of the hatchet job "reviews" on Amazon was posted...four days before the book was even published! It came out 30 MAY, but this "review" was posted on 26 May. The Guiness Book of World Records needs to be calling him to document his psychic ability to "review" a 500-page book four days before it's published, without seeing or reading it.

Communications in that era were far different, and slower, than today. I can see some US soldiers being familiar with an advertising slogan from that era. Perhaps even some Commonwealth troops as well, if Ronsons were advertised and sold where they lived. But not any Axis troops. Especially the Germans. The press and radio was quite controlled by the Party from the time that they took power. I have read of the Germans calling the M4 the "Tommy cooker". 

But then again German tanks were also gasoline powered and burned quite well when penetrated. Their own complaints of the Mk.III and Mk.IV compared to the T-34 during the Barbarossa combat is testimony to that. And even into 1945, if you watch the well known footage of the Köln Cathedral Panther show that tank catching fire very quickly upon penetration. 

Hi Christian,

You've got some good reviews on Amazon. I really think you can let the book speak for itself at this point. Your tone of defensiveness doesn't do it or you any positive things.

If I had no prior knowledge of the book and saw it on Amazon, I'd probably buy it. As it is, now it becomes an exercise in "let's see what all the fuss is about".

Let your work speak for itself, sir. I'm an architect, if I were to defend my work I'd be running all over town.

Among the more bizarre online criticisms of our best-selling book "For Want Of A Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WWII" is the claim that the Sherman tank- which often burned when hit- couldn't have been nicknamed a "Ronson," after the cigarette lighter that "lights every time."

The online haters and armchair quarterbacks are attacking the book by claiming that no GI, Tommy, German soldier, etc., could have used this slogan, because (they claim) Ronson advertisements didn't use it until the 1970s.

From the book's Forward by COL David Johnson, AUS (Ret.):

"This is an angry book, and rightly so, based on the evidence author DeJohn has uncovered in his exhaustive research."

"DeJohn brings the voice of the American enlisted soldier into the discussion about the failure of one of the key US fighting vehicles of WWII- the M4 Sherman tank."

"DeJohn brings the pragmatic views of the Cavalry Sergeant to the Sherman tank controversy."

"As DeJohn eloquently points out, Allied tankers paid a heavy price of the US Army's prewar institutional failures."

If anything, he should have wrote a book about the scandal surrounding the F-35. Talk about 9 years and billions of taxpayers dollars later, and it's still not perfect. 

FWD: "SGT Christian DeJohn and the Cost of Standing up for Free Speech-"

https://www.thefire.org/sergeant-christian-dejohn-and-the-cost-of-standing-up-for-free-speech/ 

The Hobbyist

...yes...

 

Yes, and three hours flight time for 15 seconds time over target does have an effect.

One of his last combat missions, you'll maybe remember this Hobbs, but my F-in-law flew four hours up to the Brenner Pass from Pisa Italy, made one firing run over a tunnel boring train, then flew four hours back.

pemihiker

Thanks, I stand corrected.  I have seen a bit of footage of our planes shooting rockets (the HVAR?) at tanks, and read where Rommel, et al. complained about what our airpower was doing to his precious panzers.   I just read a book on the battle of Kursk (Blood and Armor, great read) and it seems the Germans used airpower to great effect against tanks.  

 

Yes, the Brits were better at it. They had their 60lb rockets off of Typhoons from Normandy onwards, and in the late stages of the Desert campaign, Hurricane Mk II Ds with 40mm underwing guns. US aircraft at best had 20mm guns on early Mustangs, or mostly 4x, 6x, or 8x .50 cal.s. Great for soft skins but pretty harmless to buttoned up AFVs. The US did not start fielding the 5" HVAR until later 1944 or so. And rockets were far less accurate than gunfire. The dispersion gets worse with distance and getting close for an accurate shot puts the aircraft into the effective envelope of light AAA.

Well I think that it's a matter of degree. Both were very deadly, aircraft do operate under a whole series of limitations.

Thanks, I stand corrected.  I have seen a bit of footage of our planes shooting rockets (the HVAR?) at tanks, and read where Rommel, et al. complained about what our airpower was doing to his precious panzers.   I just read a book on the battle of Kursk (Blood and Armor, great read) and it seems the Germans used airpower to great effect against tanks.  

"When I get to heaven
Saint Peter's gonna say
"How'd you earn your livin' boy?
How'd you earn your pay?"
I'll reply with a whole lot of anger,
"I made my living as a CAVALRY TANKER!
Blood, guts, sex and danger
That's the life of a CAVALRY TANKER!"

"When I get to hell
Satan's gonna say
"How'd you earn your livin' boy?
How'd you earn your pay?"
I'll reply with a boot to his face
"I made my living sending souls to this place!"

I'm actually engaged and used my wedding fund to finance the travel and research for the book- have a wonderful fiance who believes in the book and supported me all the way in getting it to the finish line.

So you all would be contributing to my "domestic tranquility" in supporting the book when it comes out! Ha ha!

Best, Christian M. DeJohn

BlackSheepTwoOneFour

I wish you the best of luck on the book. I can't see myself spending $80 on the book but I will keep an eye out once my local libraries get them in their collection to borrow. Who knows... maybe Barnes & Nobles (if they stock them) will move them to the clearance aisle if they don't sell well within 3 years time of book release.

It looks interesting to read though.

 

That is me too. My hobby budget aint what it used to be. I'm definately a bargain hunter nowadays. But I am a big Sherman fan so hopefully things will work out.

The Hobbyist

I have many things for sale as well---please PM me for a full listing...

 

Thanks, Brother! I only researched for 15 years and wrote it, so I don't set the price, that's all the publisher- but it's a very hefty, substantial book- not the usual thin, soft cover "typical tank book" with the same old recycled black and white photos we've seen before.  It has @ 500 new high-quality images of rare tanks and tanker gear from museums in the US, Germany, Britain,France, etc., and images of 1/35 armor models...the Army was very gracious and supportive, gave us access to their massive 400-plus rare tank collection- guess it pays to be an old disabled Army CAV tanker veteran!

The book is hefty- weighs almost 2 pounds, with @ 500 pages and @ 500 new high quality images.  I'm sure Amazon will discount it as they usually do.

I also appreciate the civil response from you and other gracious supporters! I've been an FSM reader since the first issues (1982? Remember the Bob Letterman 1/35 "Winds of War" diorama?) and been reading these forums for ages, so it's wild how much heat this topic is stirring up on a forum where typically, the most controversial post is along the lines of "Hey, who makes the best M4A3E8 kit in 1/35?"

Along with being an old Army tanker Bosnia veteran, I have an Uncle buried at Arlington who served at the Nuremburg War Crimes trials- so it's wild to be attacked so personally before the book is even out, by speculators and haters- I'm being called "Pro-Fatherland" just for trying to take a fresh look and cut through the fog, the mythology on both sides!

Best, Christian M. DeJohn

I wish you the best of luck on the book. I can't see myself spending $80 on the book but I will keep an eye out once my local libraries get them in their collection to borrow. Who knows... maybe Barnes & Nobles (if they stock them) will move them to the clearance aisle if they don't sell well within 3 years time of book release.

It looks interesting to read though.

The upcoming "For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WWII" is based on 15 years of extensive research by a US Army CAV tanker veteran; @500 pages and approx. 500 new color and archival B x W images of rare tanks, tanker gear, and scale models, from museums in the US and Europe and private collections.

I'm amazed at the passion this topic has already aroused; I'm being called everything from "Belton Cooper, Jr." to "Pro-Fatherland-" and no one's even read the dang thing yet!

All good because the book takes a fresh look behind the myths.  When you have BOTH sides attacking you before your book is even out- you might be on to something!

Thank you all for the "lively" predictions, suggestions, and feedback.

Here's the sneak preview video-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99UaCetvfXw

Here's the Amazon listing-

http://www.amazon.com/For-Want-Gun-Sherman-Scandal/dp/0764352504

PS Yes, I'm the author, a Fine Scale modeler reader since the first issues (1982) and a US Army CAV tanker veteran of service in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Best, Christian M. DeJohn

No.... Actually our best weapon against Tigers and Panthers were the Shermans and the various tank destroyers. Plus the fact that we didn't see very many of them. Plus the Tigers and Panthers were essentially their own worst enemy considering how often they broke down or were taken out of action for reasons other than combat. Allied airpower accounted for few actual tank kills in the large scheme of things. They might have been terrifying to the troops on the ground, but being terrified doesn't translate into an actual kill (but yes, they did cause damage). They definitely disrupted the infrastructure and did account for the destruction of a lot of supply trains, but there weren't too many actual tank kills caused by Allied attack aircraft. A .50 caliber round isn't going to do too much to the actual tank, even the top of it, unless the rounds manage to get into the engine area and cause damage there. They would definitely be devastating to any unarmored vehicles and foot soldiers on the group, though. The 5-in HVARs could be devastating to a tank (I don't know as I've never looked into it, but from what I've quickly read it could penetrate up to 4 feet of reinforced concrete) but it would need to aimed accurately to have a chance of hitting it. It doesn't do anything if the spread hits anywhere but the tank. Bombs can also cause devastate tanks... If they hit close to or on the tank. These are unguided weapons so the chance of getting an accurate hit isn't all that high. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that there isn't a high probability of it happening. 

All great points a the Sherman.  My understanding is that many factors influenced the design and like all mass produced vehicles trade offs were made. They had to transported across an ocean. They had to work on bridges. We had to build 50,000 of them.  And they were designed for infantry support not AT roles.  We adapted.  Our best weapons against Panthers and Tigers were p-47 and p-51s.  Great discussion. 

I just came across this Sherman site. This guy really has the opposite point of view on Shermans. He loves them! And presents a good case as to why.

http://www.theshermantank.com/sherman/sherman-tank-epic-info-post-introduction/

NOBUT Sherman tanks were built by Westinghouse.

I hear that there were ice cube makers in the good ones.

EDIT: and the Fireflies had tea boilers. Maybe those were Lucas, Prince of Darkness.

If there is some secret/conspiracy about it?

Well the OP has certainly stirred interest in his new book hasn't he?