|
Post by quincannon on Dec 24, 2015 3:07:49 GMT
Anyone with a DSC is someone special.
Abrams was the best tank battalion commander in WWII, and I don't know anyone better since. A few come close.
He did have a little bit to do with the Bulge. His task force was the first to break into Bastogne, after five days of very hard fighting.
He died of Cancer while in office as Chief of Staff of the Army.
The first M-1 off the production line was named Thunderbolt II after the tank he rode in WWII commanding 37th Tank Battalion, 4th Armored Division.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 24, 2015 12:27:43 GMT
Almond was a complete ass, who outlived his usefulness in about the third grade. Chuck, to me he sounds a bit of a Nut!
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 24, 2015 12:38:57 GMT
One bloke described Abrams as a Stocky, Lantern-Jawed, Cigar-Chomping Cavalryman. Here are some more complements; Captain Abe Baum of the 4th Armored Division said of Abrams, “He was sincere, honest, didn’t speak down to people. In eight or ten words, he could put more emphasis than someone who spoke for an hour. He led his troops. He didn’t have a headquarters out there in his lead tank. Instead, he was another gun in the tank". Patton said, “I’m supposed to be the best tank commander in the Army, but I have one peer, Abe Abrams. He’s the world champion". Here is a shot of the first US tank to reach Bastogne, if anyone is interested it is a Sherman "Jumbo" which is a beefed up M4 with extra thick armoured plates added, its full name is the M4A3E2 and could absorb more punishment then the regular M4, just look how they simply welded another plate onto the glacis;
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 24, 2015 16:45:11 GMT
That is Cobra King commanded by 1LT Charles Boggess, with Corporal Milton Dickerman, Privates James Murphy, Hubert Smith and Harald Hafner, Company C, 37th Tank Battalion.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 24, 2015 18:02:25 GMT
QC Outstanding! That is the type of post that creates new members and as well as serves existing members. Sharing knowledge with others is the goal of this board and I am proud to be a member! Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 24, 2015 19:55:13 GMT
It certainly is Chuck, well done sir! That tank has now been restored to be put on display. I wonder why a 1st Lieutenant commanded a tank, unless it was troop HQ vehicle, other types of tank found at HQ level were the M4 (105) which acted as a fire support tank, these took over from the M8 HMCs late in the war. Cobra King 2014;
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 24, 2015 20:46:43 GMT
Boggess was commanding Company C, 37th Tank. In the U S Army the company commander, executive officer, and the three platoon leaders are all tank commanders.
Where is Cobra King on display?
It may be interesting to know:
In many U S Army tank battalions, the names of the tanks all started with the same letter as the company designation. This practice was far from universal, but you see it many places in a great and varied number of units.
In the 4th Armored Division when they formed teams, one tank company and one Infantry company the tank company commander always commanded the team regardless of his actual rank. Thus it would not be uncommon for a 2LT to command the team while a captain commanded the Infantry Company in that team. We do it much different today, cross attaching platoons. The same practice was followed by the two battalions in the combat command. It was again not uncommon for a captain or major to command the tank battalion, while an LTC or major would command the Infantry battalion in the combat command. The CC commander usually a BG or COL, would content himself with planning the next operation and controlling the combat command's fire support and logistical assets. Don't know if this practice was followed in the other armored divisions. I have never read of it. The 4th AD was a strange animal when P. Wood had it, and those practices were left in place by Gaffey and subsequent commanders. Tanks never went anywhere without Infantry, and Infantry never went anywhere without tanks, and the guns were very far forward, sometimes as far up as with the maneuver teams themselves.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 25, 2015 10:04:18 GMT
I think that having the tank commander in overall command makes good sense, as any attack led by armour would require the infantry to keep any enemy infantry from getting too close to the tanks, so the infantry would basically follow the tanks, there would have to be some understanding though and I suppose that both commanders (tank & infantry) would be well trained in the manner that infantry/tanks work together. Chuck this is all I can find about Cobra King, and both sites give conflicting data about were the AFV is located. linklinkYan.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 26, 2015 21:32:35 GMT
I have developed some thoughts regarding the reasons the German's Wacht am Rhein operation failed and would appreciate others comments, ideas and suggestions. My source of information is No Silent Night, which is centered on the Battle of Bastogne, so I am extrapolating what I know of the center to the whole. Please be kind and patient . Hypothetical reasons for the German's failure:
1) The German's intricate plan was too complicated and reliant on all units
performing exactly as designed and on time with little margin of error. The overall plan of Wacht am Rhein was too detailed and impracticable just as Yamato's was at Midway.
2) The German's supply system was unable to secure the necessary fuel for the country's use let alone the armor units. The lack of tankers coupled with the failure to capture allied fuel supplies doomed the advance.
3) The armored vehicles were vulnerable because the Luftwaffe did not and could not control the sky and American fighter bombers and cargo planes continually operated unmolested.
4) The arrival of Patton's 3rd Army and Montgomery's command.
5) The flexibility of the Americans to adjust their plans and small unit commands without going through channels. Let me know if I am at least on the right track. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 27, 2015 10:48:16 GMT
Dave, All work, but, your#2 and time would be biggest in my opinion.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 27, 2015 14:02:30 GMT
Dave, the terrain was not suitable for another blitzkrieg type attack as it went against the grain of the land, I know they pulled off a striking victory there in 1940, but that was another ball game as the French and Belgians were no match for the German army at that point.
I always thought what Hitler would have done if the weather would have cleared up on the eve of the attack, as any German column would been shot up by the USAF and the RAF even before they broke through the American lines.
Having said that, the fuel situation did hamper the mobile units, and I guess the whole offensive was reliant on capturing American fuel dumps, and without that fuel armoured attacks would just stall. The capture of certain bridges too was important and once US engineers blew them up then this would simply bring to a halt any advance.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 1, 2016 20:48:50 GMT
1) An unstable leader insisting that his army go for broke, when he did not have the wherewithal to anty up for the first hand.
2) The lack of understanding of the combat potential of American engineer combat battalions.
3) Ian's terrain cross compartmentation comes in a solid third.
4) Not giving Brandenburg sufficient combat power to protect the southern flank. You will learn all about that in Barron's second book Dave.
5) Insisting that operational security trump the required reconnaissance necessary to pull it off. For instance the Germans had no idea the 2nd ID was immediately behind the 99th ID. That being the key to holding the northern shoulder.
The Germans staying on the defense would have prolonged the war another year. By coming out they blew it, and we gave them a big wet kiss on the lips.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 2, 2016 4:01:54 GMT
QC I am still reading "No Silent Night" but I do have a question regarding weapon readiness. If I understand correctly the winter of 1944-1945 was one of the coldest on record with temperatures as low as -4 degrees. A machine gun section of the 502 PIR on Christmas morning had discovered the cold had frozen the bolts of their weapons. My questions: 1) Were the American weapons tested for ability to operate in extreme weather conditions? How does a bolt freeze? Would part of the cause being a dirty weapon? 2) It is mentioned that men urinated on their weapons in an attempt to thaw the frozen bolts. It seems that this did not work so would that go back to a dirty weapon? 3) The Marines experienced even more severe temperatures and weather conditions at the Chosin Reservoir but were able to use their weapons. What was the difference? Cleaner weapons or improvements in weapon cleaning? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 2, 2016 5:15:35 GMT
You understand correctly.
Could be a number of things, but a combination of cold temperatures and high humidity is the most likely cause. Peeing on them usually works but not always. They could also have been dirty, that in combination with the first two in various degrees would also cause that type of malfunction. It seems unlikely that a combat hardened experienced unit like the Five O Deuce would not be completely anal about keeping weapons clean and functioning, so it may have just been a confluence of circumstance. Stupid crap rarely happens with experienced people and units.
I think the Marines had the same problem to some degree at Chosin. I know Task Force McLain/Faith did and they were right across the pond from the 1st MARDIV.
Cleaning material and lubricating oil of the right type might also add to or subtract from the problem. For that it is best to ask the resident weapons expert Steve Andrews, for it is much too early in the new year for this country boy to stick his foot that far down his mouth.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 2, 2016 13:24:53 GMT
Dave, I don’t think the allies or the Germans could do much about it, the Russians on the other hand knew the score and had cold weather lubricants that stayed fluid even at really low temperatures, plus a lot of the Russian small arms would still fire even when dirty, this was down to how they designed their weapons, they gave the moving parts more room to work and these clearances allowed them to keep working in extreme cold.
Yan.
|
|