I wonder if this is related to Belton Cooper and his contentions that General Patton kept the Sherman in service while holding up development of its replacement (T-26)?

A very interesting (but long) thread on this controversy.  I found it informative.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=113&t=43502

Gary

On the subject of Shermans themselves and battle damage to them, check out this link. From the British Guards Armoured Divsion War Diaries this covers individual tank casualties for a certain period with detailed damage listed, as well as photos. Sobering and enlightening at the same time.

http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/46405-2nd-armoured-battalion-grenadier-guards-gad-tank-casualties-1945/

Rob Gronovius

One of the reasons the Sherman was successful and designed as such was that it was one of the few tanks in existence that could road march for a hundred or more miles and roll into the fight. Mechanically speaking, it was automotively one of the best tanks on the battlefield.

(My paragraph break).It was developed by a country that knew it would not be fighting at home and had to make it to another land to fight.

I knew a guy, who was a member of a Volkswagen car club that restored and ran Beetles with original parts. Mine was a 63 with a sunroof.

He ran the things into the ground. One he had went 350,000 miles. Three transaxles and ten engines.

He claimed to have been, and I believe him, a member of the Wehrmacht during the war, a mechanic. He always said that they lost the war because every part number had 12 digits (his opinion, not mine), and that what made VW great was the engineering expertise that the Allies brought in after the war to the company. Canada was a major factor.

WTH let me jump in here. i am currently preparing to teach a class on LENINGRAD and the siege and a class on THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR so i am eastern campaign focused but that has never stopped me from opining.

i understand part of the problem was shipping requirements and unlaoding capability. not sure how much is a scandal, any more than the Germans putting 37mm on PZ-III when hitler wanted a bigger gun. 

we developed an entire branch called tank destroyers which weren't needed as envisioned by the time they were deployed. same with ADA.

i will look into the book. it does sound interestin.

.

Slivovica- hoo boy! When I was serving in Bosnia we would be patrolling and the civilians would come out with a tray of little shot glasses full of it. We had to explain that as much as we appreciated their Yugoslavian hospitality, the US Army was forbidden to drink on duty! Meanwhile the other 20 or so armies serving there beside us were gulping it down!

We recovered WWII arms there alomost on a daily basis, doing what was called a "Weapons Harvest-" PPSHs, Mauser K98s, MG 42s, the works. The OSS was working there at one point, so would hear rumors of some GI recovering "Tommy guns," but I suspect they were really PPsHs.

Would have loved to incorporate some of these experiences into "FOR WANT OF A GUN," but it wasn't directly tank-related. But probably my most dramatic "tank memory" of Bosnia was stepping off the plane at Eagle Base, Tuzla, on day one of my lovely tour, and upon descending the airplane steps, being confronted by the bombed-out hulk of a T-34 right off the runway. You can imagination the impression that made on a Trooper just arriving for his deployment.

GMorrison

Didn't you use the King of Yugoslavia's deluxe train to travel to Weich's HQ? And drank all of his Slivovitz!

 

Until the Partisans blew the bridge...

Didn't you use the King of Yugoslavia's deluxe train to travel to Weich's HQ? And drank all of his Slivovitz!

The one on Lake Bled

GMorrison

I stayed in Tito's Villa on my honeymoon. That guy must have had an offshore account?

 

Which one? He had few  

I stayed in Tito's Villa on my honeymoon. That guy must have had an offshore account?

Trading TOWs for money?

Why are these "scandals" and "conspiracies" always about something western, preferably American things? Whenever somebody decides to cash in on something it is the easiest thing to do. "Dirty secrets" of this or that, "hidden/secret" whatever, but it always referes to something American or western. Can you spell boring and overused? Can somebody be inovative once for change and write someting new, say, about something scandlous  in Chinese army wepon development or Soviet/Russian army conspiracy? Anything about Iranian army scandal or something? Anything about scandals/conspiracies/dirty secrets about Israely army?

AUS, honestly, what are you up to?

The Hobbyist

How about a book on the Tiger II scandal?  I mean, at that stage of the war the Germans had NO business building such an expensive and unrelaible tank designed for breakthrough operations when they were clearly fighting a denesive war...actually, a case could be made for the Tiger I being a scandal as well... 

 

So in the spirit of really dumb things militaries do, how about the Graf Zeppelin and her sister ship "B"?

When by 1943 the US had lost 4 fleet carriers, but would go on to build 12 more before the end of the war, the British had lost 6 and would build 4 more, and the Japanese had lost 4 and would build 1 1/2 more, the Germans plugged along with the fated sisters.

The steel alone could have built by my estimation 50- 60 Type 9 U Boats. Wouldn't that have been a sweet command? Good thing they didn't; might have changed the war.

Frankly, I know just enough about the M4 Sherman to know that it was designed with a specific purpose in mind. It was built to fulfill that purpose. And it performed that role very well when it was used in that role. If I remember correctly, that role was infantry support. That's why it was armed with a medium velocity 75mm cannon with very good HE characteristics. As far as I can tell, it was designed, built and intended for that role. I see no reason how there was a scandal.  Could there have been a better tank used? Sure. Did we need that tank at the time the Sherman was designed? Not really. The Sherman was more than good enough to do what we needed it to do at the time of design. That is not what I call a scandal. Now if you wrote a book called the Pershing Scandal... That might garner a bit more of a positive result than this book has. Maybe. There, I just gave you your next book idea. 

The Hobbyist

Is solicitation even allowed in here???

 

My thoughts exactly.

stikpusher

 

 

AUSTanker

QUICK- Somebody tell the National Armor and Cavalry Foundation that they don't exist- because their Museum is going to take up 30-plus acres of land and 100,000 sqaure feet at Ft. Benning!!

armorcavalrymuseum.org

"Our mission" to create a world-class museum to honor all our mounted warriors, past, present, and future, and their families.  The site is on land adjacent to the National Infantry Museum.

When completed, this site will be the US Army's largest museum complex."

A worthy cause- support and pass it on.

 

 

 

 

I hope they did not replace my Infantry Museum at Ft Benning 

Good luck with your book.

 

Nope its still there...just now the D.A.T.'s and stinking Cav have infested Ft. Benning like cockroaches. 

Its no longer Home of the Infantry. Sad day for sure.

Steve Zolga's book Armored Thunderbolt is one of the best books on the M4 Sherman that has been written.

Rob Gronovius

Talking about one's self in the third person while knowing others in the conversation do not know you are the third person is bad form.

 

I gotta agree with Rob on that. It is deceptive. Especially when one is pitching an item for sale.

I seriously do wish him well on the sale of this book, but it's way out of my price range personally. I'm a bargain shelf/overstock clearance/secondhand kind of guy for most of my library.

Everything has to be a 'scandal' or 'dark conspiracy' to sell a book these days. Otherwise I doubt another book about the Sherman would sell any copies at all. Simply telling the truth, that the Army believed the M4 was adequate for intended role (infantry support and exploitation of breakthroughs) and that doctrine was the tank destroyers were supposed to handle enemy armor is not sexy enough for 'AUS' to sell his tome. 

I think it's a double post, there's one book.

AUS has identified himself as the author, Christian DeJohn.

AUSTanker

 

Yup, the Infantry Museum is hugely impressive- with a little publicity and support, the CAV and ARMOR one will rock, too!

Amazon listing for major new book- "For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WWII." See also the brief sneak preview video- lots of tank photos:


http://www.amazon.com/Want-Gun-Sherman-Tank-Scandal/dp/0764352504/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460227550&sr=8-1&keywords=christian+dejohn

 

I can't say it will be a great book since both books you listed do not come out until January of 2017. Considering the price, I'm not sold whether it's worth buying for those prices. How can anyone give high praises for the books without reading it first? Sounds to me you're promoting these highly for a colleague or for yourself.

Hmmm;

 Yeah , I gotta get my two cents in here !

 Although I don't know much about Armor I do know the general histories of some of the vehicles , but , Not the Generals .

 In the Navy we had some Lu-Lus too . take two well known admirals whom shall be unamed here , from the Pacific Theater . The Sherman , I do remember from my uncles, was referred to as the "Ronson ' Because of it's Gasoline fueled powerplant .

 Hey , this thing can get out of hand .We did not have the kind of Armor the other side had . Even from the very beginning . I will say this .The men who fought these machines were brave Outstanding men .And they made the decisive use of the product they were given .

    I don't care what you want to argue , the Tankers of the ETO were some of the best . The Machines , Well, I hold that in reserve .  Tanker - Builder

My father served on the M40 GMC from 1950 to 1954. Defended the Michigan UP against invasion. He did not get sent to Korea, but many of his like did, early.

The M4 chassis served so many armored units in so many countries for so many years, that it proofs out as probably the most successful armored fighting vehicle of all time.

That tank helped win a LOT of wars.

Oops, sorry about the caliber mixup. Like it said, I'm no expert in armor. 

I'm still trying to figure out why Oddball was wearing an AAF flight helmet...and remember those "tanker helmets" in the BOB movie- looked like rejected props from a 1950s sci-fi B movie!

That old Monogram 1/72 "short-wing" B-26 is a fun kit!!

Remember what Moriarty said to Oddball in "Kelly's Heroes": "this thing's a piece of junk!" as he was talking about their newly acquired Tiger.

Gamera

AUSTanker, thank you for your service and good luck with your book. I'll give 'er a look though I need another reference book like I need another hole in the head... 

Steve: OG and SP, have good points there. You also might want to read this, Zaloga takes on some old misconceptions: 

Link

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/27/zaloga_interview/

 

I've just finished reading the interview with the author and found it very interesting and informative. Funny when you get comments from John after the interview. This guy is a tool with some of the stuff he's posted.

Thanks for the link Gamera. I enjoyed it.

AUSTanker, thank you for your service and good luck with your book. I'll give 'er a look though I need another reference book like I need another hole in the head... 

Steve: OG and SP, have good points there. You also might want to read this, Zaloga takes on some old misconceptions: 

Link

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/27/zaloga_interview/