"Sherman Tank - FURY" Topic

Read this very good article on the Sherman tank and the movie Fury.
link

Read this very good article on the Sherman tank and the movie Fury.
link

so good you read it twice?

HA!!!

It's not a very good article. The author doesn't know anything about tanks. There is no way to confuse an M2 and M4 tank.

M2:
link

M4:

The author says that Panzer referred to the Tiger 1. I think it was colloquial for any German tank, but more specifically to the extremely numerous Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks.

Finally, using a photo from a video game as the lead wasn't reassuring. Why not a photo from the studio?

"Fury" M4:

Anyway, just my opinion.

Aaaaaagh! You should have warned me that this was Reynard News.

This piece is a bit more accurate :

link

What the article did not state (nor was there a deep back story to the history of the tank and crew in the film "Fury") was that tank crews changed to new/different tank models if the crew survived their tank being shot out from under them, so maybe this was not the only "Fury" Sherman Wardaddy and crew fought the war in. Didn't Creighton Abrams have six tanks named "Thunderbolt" shot out from under him until he finished the war in "Thunderbolt VII"? This article was worthless…

I must agree with previous posters that this article is rife with not only errors, but non-sense errors.

CorpCommander is right, the author uses M2 and M4 as if they were both models of the Sherman. They most certainly were not! The M2, produced pre-war, was a predecessor of the M4 (and the M3 Lee/Grant). Only about 100 were built, and none saw action. Period. If the author had only used the M2 label once, we might cut him some slack thinking perhaps it was a typo for M4A2 or some such, but even then it does not make sense as he uses the M2 label repeatedly, not just once, and anyways the US Army never operated the M4A2 in combat.

In the film's telling, the crew was really attached to this particular tank – enough to bestow the name "Fury" on it – and they'd been fighting together in it since the North Africa campaign in 1942. With that provenance, "Fury" likely would have been a Sherman M2 or M4A3, each of which went into production in 1942.

In addition, his statement about the M4A3 is wrong as well. If they had been fighting together since North Africa, the Sherman version they would have been in would either be an M4A1 (most likely) or a baseline M4. The M4A3 only began appearing in combat in the post D-Day, post Normandie campaigns in ETO, in the fall of 1944. None of the veteran units received M4A3s until very late in the war. It was only new units, formed in the States in 1943 and 1944, that were initially equipped with this version of the Sherman.

Veteran units continued to operate M4s and M4A1s from mid-war production with post-North Africa updates including applique plates on hull side and sometimes turret chin, and with the wider M34A1 gun mantlet.

But here's the rub: It would have been unlikely for an early-model M2 or M4 to have survived all that time. Tank battles in that part of the war, you see, had a 50 percent casualty rate.

A generalization that extrapolates one event to a broad conclusion. The US 1st Armored Division certainly suffered such casualties at Sidi Bou Zid in February 1943, when it went into action piecemeal, for the first time, against German armor in the form of two Panzer divisions launching a coordinated attack. But that's about it. How does this one event suggest that 50 percent losses were the norm in that part of the war?

In fact, only one Sherman tank – a Canadian one – is known to have survived all the way from the D-Day landing in June 1944 to V-E Day in May 1945. One!

Maybe the author was only able to find one specific case. Hardly seems to prove, or even suggest, that only one Sherman tank "is known" to have survived from D-Day to V-E day.

Also missing from the author's consideration is that 60-80% of tanks that were "knocked out" were repaired and put back into action again, usually within a few days.

Didn't Creighton Abrams have six tanks named "Thunderbolt" shot out from under him until he finished the war in "Thunderbolt VII"?

Exactly. A tank was lost when it ran over a mine, or fell into a ditch, or took a hit to the engine. Just looking at the numbers, there was about one KIA and one WIA in Sherman crews for every tank lost. But more than 50% of crew casualties occurred OUTSIDE of the tank, whether because the crew bailed out under fire, or because they were standing guard duty in lager, or got caught in a mortar barrage while in the chow line. So the actual losses were about one casualty, WIA or KIA, per event of a tank lost in action. Yet we all know that a tank that was catastrophically hit might generate 2, 3, even 5 casualties. So the majority of tanks that were "lost" generated no casualties at all.

Role over a mine, lose a track and a bogey set. The crew is shaken, but not stirred. Get out, hoof it back to HQ. Pick up a new tank tomorrow. Your original tank will probably be back in action in 3 days, with another company, with another crew.

Take a Pak round through the engine. Everyone out! Maybe someone is hurt in the process. Maybe not. Take cover. Hoof it back. Pick up a new tank tomorrow. Maybe get a new hull gunner too (whoever the casualty was, the new replacement was probably placed in the hull gunner or loader role, and one of the existing crewmembers moved to the more critical driver or gunner role). If your unit holds the ground, the tank will probably be back in action in a week, with another company, with another crew.

That's the way the US Army worked. Most US armored units went into action most of the time at almost 100% authorized strength. Not always, but most of the time. Most crews rode multiple tanks over time. Most tanks saw multiple battles over time. 50% losses in tanks per battle is non-sense. At that rate all Shermans in the theater would have been used up within 2 weeks.

Hardly qualifies as a very good article. Certainly should not among those who consider themselves enthusiasts of the era.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Thank you, Patrick.

To expound a bit on Mark 1's post: statistically speaking, American armored formations took about one half of their total wartime losses in the first 4-6 weeks they were in action. I would not be surprised to find this true of other nationalities as well.

Also of note: the most common variant of medium tank present in the 4th Armored Division when it engaged in the Battle of Arracourt in September 1944 was the baseline M4 (welded hull with R970 radial engine).

, Mark 1!

As with much of the various media forms. It does not surprise me the author got a number of things wrong. It seems to be the norm more & more. With the internet there should be few errors as you can find and research almost anything.

I've seen this type of "journalism" many, many times when it come to military topics, history, etc.
E.g. I saw on one large very well known worldwide news network. They showed a picture of an F-117 but the subject of the report was about the B-2.

I'm still annoyed that FURY has not made it to HBO too !

The movie "Fury" will be broadcast on History Channel tomorrow night (Wednesday, 22 Feb 2017) at 8 EST.

I shall finally see this much-talked about tale.

V/R,
Jack

Didn't Creighton Abrams have six tanks named "Thunderbolt" shot out from under him until he finished the war in "Thunderbolt VII"?

Abrams wore out 6 Sherman Tanks but he never lost one to enemy fire. Actually two or three were stateside and in training in England. And he turned in his M4 after Arracourt and was issued an M4A3(76)W

None of the veteran units received M4A3s until very late in the war. It was only new units, formed in the States in 1943 and 1944, that were initially equipped with this version of the Sherman.

Just a slight correction here, the 4th Armored, which Creighton Abrams was a part of replaced its M4s and M4A1s with M4A3(76)s starting after the Battle of Arracourt in Sept of 1944. The Division Commander asked Abrams to switch to the new tank, knowing that no one in the Division wanted one unless Abrams took one. 2nd and 3rd Armored had started to receive the M4A1(76) just prior to Cobra. Initially the US Army made the logistical decision to only send the radial engine versions of the Sherman (M4 and M4A1) to France to ease logistical problems. Meanwhile, until the advance on St Lo when the Americans really started encountering German tanks there had been a reluctance to accept the 76mm armed tanks as the 75mm HE round was superior and most of the tank fighting was as infantry support. The M4A3(w) would become the Army's preferred version of the Sherman although they never completely replaced the radial versions.

BTW, I don't buy that only 1 Sherman made it all the way from Normandy to the end of the War. Allied repair and recovery units worked miracles in putting knocked out and worn out Shermans back into service. The statement above that if your Sherman broke down or was knocked out so you got a new one and the ordnance teams recovered and put your old one back in service is true. In fact German anti-tanker gun crews and tankers were instructed to keep firing at a Sherman until it burned (not all that often with the "wet" versions) to make sure that they were truly destroyed however ammunition supply problems generally meant that this wasn't done.

Thank you, Patrick.

Agree with vtsaogames. Good link, Patrick.

A notably more accurate article. Pretty much spot-on, in fact.

…

Well, OK, maybe I can find one flaw if I look real hard …

There were no M4A1(76) HVSS or M4A2(76) HVSS used in Europe before the end of WW2.

I'm pretty sure that this statement, while true of ETO, is not true of "Europe". I believe M4A1 (76) HVSS tanks saw combat in Italy before the end of the war. M4A3 (76) HVSS were prioritized to ETO. So those M4A1 (76) HVSS tanks that were sent, were sent to MTO.

And, from my last check, Italy was part of Europe in that timeframe (well, actually, probably today as well).

So true, none in ETO. But not true, none in Europe.

At least that is my understanding. Could be wrong. Been known to happen …

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Surprised he didn't call it a panzer tank…

The movie "Fury" will be broadcast on History Channel tomorrow night (Wednesday, 22 Feb 2017) at 8 EST.

I shall finally see this much-talked about tale.

I just saw that ! I too will be watching !

Someone must have screwed up on the History Channel … They are actually showing something related to actual history ! Seems they are showing real history related shows all day !!?!?! What no Pickers Marathon !?!?!?!? (Thank the Gods !!!!)

Well – hard to choose between Fury and American Pickers, Fury has more bang bang while Pickers probably has more accurate history.

Well I'd rather watch a movie like Fury … Than guys looking thru piles of junk !

Well I hope you still feel that once you watch it, mate.
It's an action-er really.
You particularly need to suspend disbelief for the final mission imo.
Several beers may help.

Sometimes the guys on Pickers find some really cool stuff. One episode, they find this "old German electric typewriter" in a wooden box. It had some funny wheels up where the paper roll normally was.

Yeah, they found a complete freaking Enigma machine! :shock:

I know Pickers is "orchestrated". But the finding of legendary pin-striping artist Von Dutch's long missing custom motorcycle in NC was a great episode.

When has anyone ever seen a pin-striped Sherman? I ask you.

B

Well … I thought Fury was entertaining, a lot of "Hollywood". Added in for obvious reasons. It was clearly not a Documentary, as was not supposed to be.
Yes, I'd expect some things to be inaccurate, but what I did like the vehicles, weapons, etc., even if GCI. Were basically "accurate" … imfdb.org/wiki/Fury_(2014) It was "refreshing", as when I grew up, most war movies didn't even try to "portray" an AFV anywhere near to being to what is really was.

In the 50s-70s I saw Shermans being used as Japanese Tanks(Type 97s ?), or even for Panthers. M47s & M48s were Panzer IVs to Tiger IIs, etc., etc., …

That was one of the many things I liked about Kelly's Heroes. They converted T-34s to look like Tiger Is. And then even in BoB they converted existing AFVs to at least look very much like the German AFVs they supposed to represent.
And more modern movies, etc., have done similar, even if it was just CGI.

As far as the last mission . It may have appeared to be a bit "contrived" to fit the story line. I get that. But based on my experiences, as a Rifle PL and Mech CO., things can get pretty screwed up during military ops. But not always, fortunately. And hopefully you are never put in that sort of situation, as a Leader or Trooper. As the movie tries to portray. The M4 called "Fury" was more like a scenario as the Alamo or Custer at Little Big Horn, etc. Or the FFL at Cameroon in Mexico, etc.

Was the Infantry CO that Fury's Tank Plt was attached to a "great tactician ? I'd have to see more of this fictional character to weight in on that.
Was "Pitt" a "great" Tank PL or TC ? I'd say "generally". Did they both make mistakes ? It appears that may be so. Could they have done better ? Maybe … based on the fictional storyline, etc., ?

And I remember when as an ROTC cadet. When SGM was instructing basic Squad/Plt level tactics. You really don't always know the "quality", etc., of your enemies' leadership.
Instead of defending on the "high ground", he may decide to deploy in the lower terrain. That was one of the examples that was discussed, etc., etc, …

Now I'm not saying "Fury" was anywhere near a 100% accurate documentary level movie. However it was entertaining and there were a lot of generally accurate weapons, equipment, etc. Again much better than most of the movies of the 50s, 60s,& 70s.

So sorry guys regardless, I'd rather watch "Fury", Kelly's Heroes, etc. Than Pickers … but that may just be me it seems.

When has anyone ever seen a pin-striped Sherman? I ask you.

No … but I did see a pic of a T34/85 parked somewhere in the UK. Near a disco or something like that, IIRC, painted bright Pink !?!?

Legion4 wrote – " I did see a pic of a T34/85 parked somewhere in the UK. Near a disco or something like that, IIRC, painted bright Pink !?!?"

Can you imagine if instead they had been able to find a Panther?!

;-]

B

Hell hath no fury like a tread-head spurned…

Mark;

One interesting thread I am pursuing, will let all know if it pans out. It has long been held that while the Marines used the M4A2 in combat the US Army only used it for training in the US, never in combat. However, lately, have seen some reports, unsubstantiated, that following the losses suffered by the 1st Armored Division that some M4A2s were taken from stock meant for the French in North Africa and used in the hurried attempt to rebuild 1st's strength.

The research may yield nothing but love the search.

Marc33594:

I will await results of your investigation with great interest.

I have seen the standard wisdom on a few cases of "they never did that" overturned by good research. For example everyone knows that the British Covenantor tank was never deployed to a combat zone. Wikipedia even says: "The tank equipped various British armoured divisions in the home defence and training roles. It never left the British Isles …"

Hint: This pic ain't in ol' Blightey. Look at the third tank back, between the M3 Stuart/Honey and the Valentine. Looks like just another Crusader until you notice the rather distinctive radiator structure on the glacis plate.

And the US T-28 super-heavy tank (more of an SPG, but whatever) was certainly never deployed for combat, in part because it was simply too heavy to ship overseas. Again as Wikipedia describes it: "The T28 never went into service due to the obsolete design, expensive maintenance costs, and the heavy weight prevented it from being transported across seas, but was retained to test the "durability of components on such a heavy vehicle"."

Except, that, well, I've seen the orders for its deployment during the fight for the Pusan Perimeter during the Korean War, and have photos of it being landed in Suncheon (so far no evidence it actually saw action, but it WAS deployed).

So I invite evidence to overturn the conclusion that the US Army didn't use the M4A2 overseas. I let the well researched evidence guide my own adoption or rejection of "the conventional wisdom".

And yes, I too find doing good research to be quite enjoyable. But then so too is reading well researched posts.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

@Legion 4

My recollection of a pink T34 comes from a visit to Prague.

More details at:

link

link

While casting my net Mike Canaday, who is well known in Sherman modeling circles, provided the following:

The British lent us some M4A2's. I have attached a photo of one that was used by the 7th Armored and some issued to a separate tank battalion. The stills from Critical Past clearly show the British features. If you can watch the move, it shows that they are M4A2's very clearly. There is a whole column of them. The platoon leader's (attached) is one of the Fisher built with the welded hoods.

Here is the original message which contains some stills from the movie he references. The message is on the G104 group on Yahoo:
link

I have asked Mike for a link to the movie itself.

And now it appears much more likely. The following discussion includes confirmation of delivery from British stocks of the M4A2 to 7th Division from Steve Zaloga and another source (Rich Anderson)referencing a memo from the Chief of the armored section, 1st Army to the Ordnance Officer of 1st Army breaking down the shipment of Shermans from the British to the US 7th Armored. The memo includes 61 M4A2.
link

I am still looking into use by the 1st in Tunisia

Can you imagine if instead they had been able to find a Panther?!

Good heavens !?!?!?!!!!

My recollection of a pink T34 comes from a visit to Prague.

Yes now that you mention it, that sounds correct as your links pointed out. I'm old … I do forget things … Could have sworn it was a T34/85 …
Wait … wait … I'm not losing my mind[well maybe a little !] ! Pink T34/85 in the UK link Who knew !?!?

Except, that, well, I've seen the orders for its deployment during the fight for the Pusan Perimeter during the Korean War, and have photos of it being landed in Suncheon (so far no evidence it actually saw action, but it WAS deployed).

Wow ! I never heard that. And of course I never heard of it seeing combat, either. I don't doubt the pic of the T-28 landing at Suncheon. But it really could be anywhere with a landing point on a beach. Regardless, that is an amazing factoid … T-28 deploys to Korea … Who knew !?

The following discussion includes confirmation of delivery from British stocks of the M4A2 to 7th Division from Steve Zaloga and another source (Rich Anderson)referencing a memo from the Chief of the armored section, 1st Army to the Ordnance Officer of 1st Army breaking down the shipment of Shermans from the British to the US 7th Armored. The memo includes 61 M4A2.

That other source, Rich Anderson, worked as a professional historical researcher for the Dupuy Institute in that timeframe. He has also authored or co-authored a few books on WW2. All in all a very credible guy, when it comes to primary research.

It all looks pretty good. I'd love to see the original docs. But with 'em or without 'em, I'm ready to turn my statements over and say well waddya know, the US Army evidently DID operate a few M4A2s in ETO!

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Can you imagine if instead they had been able to find a Panther?!

Oh the humanity… that's just bad.

LOL !!!!!

Over 20 years ago a buddy lent me a book which listed British Sherman's numbers and percentages of how they were put out of action.
My memory recalls something like this.
Most Sherman's were put out of action by mines.
Second most hand held AT weapons.
Third AT guns.
Fourth Tanks.
Fifth artillery.
This being the case, the greater proportion could have been repaired and put into the field fairly quickly.

Yes, depending on the size of the mine. Most M4s taken out by mines could be repaired. I saw on the History Channel years ago. The interview with a Maintenance NCO/Ofr in 3AD. They said some of the M4s hit by AT weapons or tanks could be repaired but many were beyond that.

They had to use Alcohol etc., to remove the smell, etc. of the dead former crew members. And many of the replacement crews didn't like using these tanks. Could never get the smell out and the crews thought it was something like "bad luck", etc. using these refurbished tanks.

And many of the replacement crews didn't like using these tanks.

Usually but not always, Ralph.

From Belton Cooper's "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II".

He writes a lot about the details of the horrific losses of Sherman tanks and the men that crewed them. Tellingly towards the end of the Battle of the Bulge there was a critical shortage of tank crews, because the crew of a knocked-out M4 Sherman tank mostly did not survive. As described in the excerpt below, during that battle the surviving personnel with any "tank experience" would be split up, each given a tank to drive and expected to lead two other crew members who were fresh off the boat with no tank experience at all. The survival time of these replacement crews was measured in hours.

"While the work was going full blast on recovered tanks, we secured a list of the "W"numbers as well as the extent of damage and map coordinates on all the tanks and other vehicles that had been damaged beyond repair and left on the battlefield. We turned this list over to Division Ordnance in order to secure replacements as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, the mad rush was on to repair those vehicles we had in the best and most expeditious manner. If the tank had not been set on fire completely, we could usually repair it. When a projectile penetrated a tank, a series of incandescent particles usually showered the inside of the fighting compartment. Any crew member in the way would be killed instantly; if not, the ricochet effect inside the tank would utterly destroy him.

In some cases, at close range, a projectile would strike the side of the tank and go all the way through, exiting on the other side. In this case the crew would be lucky because they would avoid the terrible ricocheting effect.

The incandescent particles would also generate many small slivers, which embed themselves in the electrical cables, causing them to short out. Often the sparks from this would set the tank on fire. There were manual fire extinguishers inside the tank and also a master lever, which the crew could pull to engulf the fighting compartment with CO2. A penetration in this compartment would often kill or severely wound several crew members, and those abandoning the tank would not have time to set off the fire extinguishers. The oil and gasoline vapors inside the tank plus the paint, seats, insulation, and other flammable materials made any fire difficult to put out once it started. Penetration of the gas tanks or the engine would also cause fires. Once the gasoline and the ammunition went up, the tank would explode. The open cupola acted like a smoke stack, and the fire would generate such great heat it would anneal the hardness of the armor plate leaving the tank beyond repair. If the tank struck a mine, the bottom plate would sometimes be warped to the extent that the hull could not be repaired. In this case, if the turret was not severely damaged, it could be removed and replaced on a good hull. If the turret was struck in the trunnion mount, jamming the gun elevating mechanism, it could not be repaired but could be removed and replaced with a good turret. If the tank was penetrated in the ring mount (the junction between the turret and hull), it would warp and damage the ball bearing races on the bottom of the turret and the entire tank would have to be replaced.

One of our maintenance welders found a spent projectile inside a hull. He took a carbon arc and cut the tip off, using this cone to make a plug to weld up the hole the projectile had made. After he ground the surfaces smooth on both sides and we painted the tank inside and outside, it was difficult to find the patch. I always thought this technique was one of the true ironies of warfare, that the projectile also served as the patch. It took considerable skill on the part of the welder to grind and thus camouflage these patches, because a tank crew did not like to get a replacement tank that had been penetrated, particularly if they felt there had been casualties in the tank. In spite of this, tank crews liked to get their old tank back because of sentimental attachments."

Movies like 'Fury' & 'Brave Heart' etc are often entertaining but don't pay in terms of historical accuracy.

My criticism of 'Fury' is that it ways it seemed to have Vietnam & later attitudes even if they got weapons & uniforms right.

This article sums it up well, I think:
link

"And many of the replacement crews didn't like using these tanks."

Usually but not always, Ralph.

Yes, that is what generally "many" means in respect to my post … Not all … but many i.e., some … E.g. usually does not mean always but some.

My criticism of 'Fury' is that it ways it seemed to have Vietnam & later attitudes even if they got weapons & uniforms right.

Yes, as I said, I was impressed with the accuracy of the weapons, equipment, etc. That in part "sold it" to me. Plus as I said, it was entertaining and not meant to be a "documentary".

As far as the attitudes of Fury crews. They may have not been in the norm,[of course I was not there !]. But I'm sure some, especially a crew that had been together for years. From North Africa '42 to now Germany '45. May have developed a "rabid hatred" for the Germans especially the SS. Which IMO is the seminal paradigm for the movie's theme.

I can see some[not all] soldiers having that much distain, vitriol, loathing, etc. for an enemy. That has been killing off their comrades and trying to the same to them, for years. You could even see that in the Germans/SS. For similar reasons as well as others. By that time in the war. It was on German soil. As the SS Commander stated to his troops in the movie. So they were willing to fight to the death, etc., … for their "homeland/Fatherland".

You usually see in some literature, movies, etc. about in WWII PTO. The hatred the Allies have for the "Japs". And the IJFs had for the Allies, etc., … And I'm sure as in Fury. The crew had a similar hatred for the Nazis/Germans/SS. Almost to the point the Russians and Germans did thru out the war. Based on all the history I had read, etc., … Had those been Russians that entered that town. Where Fury's crew went to the apartment to get some eggs cooked. Well the Russians may not have been so "magnanimous".

My pleasure, Ralph. Glad you enjoyed the excerpt & link.

I think you're overstating the "distain" (sic) the Yanks had for the Germans.

Here's something from a Combat Veteran:
link

Always good to get the thoughts of someone who had fought (like in the book excerpt I gave) rather than someone who hadn't.

One of the advisors for 'Fury' was Bruce Compton. Ex-Para & military enthusiast but never in combat. I think it shows.When he talks about "hardware" he's knowledgeable but his view of the history tends to be comic book & Hollywood.
See Bruce, here:

link

If you take a movie like 'A Bridge Too Far', the advisers were men who had fought on *both* sides & Dutch civilians who were there. Didn't the ACW Combat Veterans talk about "seeing the elephant": you could be in uniform but unless you actually experienced combat you simply didn't know. I think 'Fury" shows this.

I think A Bridge Too Far, is one of the best war movies I have seen. Sticking very much to history as it could generally. [And I'm just not saying that because the 101 was one of the major units in the operation and movie of course.]

I think you're overstating the "distain" (sic) the Yanks had for the Germans.

Again, I'm not saying All US soldiers felt that way about the Germans but some probably did. And yes, I've read/seen a number of interviews from US WWII Vets. Like e.g. the interviews with the Vets from Band of Brothers. Many said out right they did Not hate the Germans.

Always good to get the thoughts of someone who had fought (like in the book excerpt I gave) rather than someone who hadn't.

My Father an INF SGT in 90th ID in France. AFAIK/IIRC, never said anything like that. About hating the Germans. The few times he spoke of his combat experiences in WWII.

He was awarded the S/Star, B/star & P/Heart. So he did see a good amount of action. Until a German FA or Mortar round blew his one ear drum out, etc., …

However, I believe that some US soldiers in both the ETO and PTO[probably more so in the PTO]. May have had as much hatred as we see in Fury's crew. How many ? I don't think anyone may know for sure. But I'd think certainly there were some in both theaters.

Didn't the ACW Combat Veterans talk about "seeing the elephant"

Yes, it is often mentioned when discussing the ACW. And for sometime afterwards. Even today, among those that know the history, etc.

A mention of Braveheart….The best bit is when John Wayne jumps down from his Sopwith Camel and tells the martian ninja to get up on his milk and drink his horse…or some thing like that.

Ralph: we'll (unusually) have to disagree here.

I think 'Kelly's Heroes' is a WW2 movie set in the 60s or 70s. I think 'Fury' is one set in the 2010s. Entertaining, sure, but anachronistic not in visuals but in tenor.

Read this:

link

@ uglyfatbloke

Now don't you go encouraging Mel Gibson (one of my all time worst movies; 'The Patriot').

Well, OK, maybe I can find one flaw if I look real hard …

There were no M4A1(76) HVSS or M4A2(76) HVSS used in Europe before the end of WW2.

I'm pretty sure that this statement, while true of ETO, is not true of "Europe". I believe M4A1 (76) HVSS tanks saw combat in Italy before the end of the war. M4A3 (76) HVSS were prioritized to ETO. So those M4A1 (76) HVSS tanks that were sent, were sent to MTO.

And, from my last check, Italy was part of Europe in that timeframe (well, actually, probably today as well).

So true, none in ETO. But not true, none in Europe.

At least that is my understanding. Could be wrong. Been known to happen …

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Photographed March/April 1945. I trust you can interpret the bumper codes.

Cheers

Ralph: (sic) L4 : we'll (unusually) have to disagree here.

I think 'Kelly's Heroes' is a WW2 movie set in the 60s or 70s. I think 'Fury' is one set in the 2010s. Entertaining, sure, but anachronistic not in visuals but in tenor.

I understand all that. As I said I'm very well aware of the historical accuracy vs. Hollywood vs. "tenor" vs. anachronistic. Yes, Oddball was a "hippie" from the '60s. That is one of the things that made it "funny & entertaining" … Again … Not a documentary …

M*A*S*H* the movie and series was supposed to take place during the Korean War … However, it really was more about the Vietnam War.

Just like all the movies made about Custer. Made during WWII he was a Hero … The movie(s) made around the time of Vietnam … he was an incompetent "nut job". And based on "all" my "research", i.e. literature read, documentaries watched, etc. … the truth is very much somewhere in between …

From my personal standpoint I don't rate him as a "great" leader. Especially after the ACW. But as we know. I nor you were there. And in the long run … my opinion means little to anyone … even me …

Now don't you go encouraging Mel Gibson (one of my all time worst movies; 'The Patriot').

Again as much fiction as fact … but I do find it entertaining, with a "modicum/minimum" of "accuracy (?)". Gibson was a melding of 3 actual US Patriots. But that was even mentioned in the written previews and even later reviews.

However, like Braveheart, most who watched it couldn't tell the difference. Unless having some knowledge of history … Which sadly most Americans, especially the youth have little to no interest and in turn little to no knowledge of history.

Photographed March/April 1945. I trust you can interpret the bumper codes.

Interesting. Nice pic! Clearly a late production M4A1 76(w) HVSS, or in the popular vernacular an M4A1E8.

Now as I try to decipher the bumper code, I think I get to this:
1A 735 (Delta) B 43

Is that what others see? If so, that means this vehicle was the 43rd vehicle with company B of the 735th Tank Battalion of the US 1st Army (a GHQ reserve battalion attached to at least 4 different infantry divisions during the war).

And that means ETO. 735th fought from Normandy across France, to Metz, through the Ardenne, across the Rhine at Koblenz, and deep into Germany all the way to Czech border. ETO all the way, no doubt about it.

So that's TWO in one thread!

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Regarding US use of M4A2s in Tunisia :

The following quote is from Steve Zaloga's Osprey book "US Armored Units in the North African and Italian Campaigns 1942-45" pp41-42

"The heavy tank losses suffered in Tunisia were redeemed initially by stripping tanks and crews out of the idle 2nd Armored Division. However, losses at Faid Pass were so heavy that it was necessary to use M3 medium tanks being stored in Algeria. As a result, the 1st Armored Division in March 1943 had more older M3 medium tanks in use than in February 1943. A number of diesel-engined M4A2 medium tanks were also obtained from British Lend-Lease supplies and were used to re-equip the decimated 2/1st Armored for a short period of time until a new supply of M4/M4A1 arrived from the United States."

Cheers

As we are used to saying in the Sherman community, never say never!