World War II News Blog
News about World War II, including links to articles and web sites, brief
articles on different aspects of World War II history, plus notices of
new releases of books and other publications on World War II from the
Merriam Press. The World War II News Blog is managed by Ray Merriam, the
owner of Merriam Press.
| These links are to special pages on the Merriam Press web site.
|
| These links are to external web sites that have been checked and are recommended by Merriam Press.
|
|
United States vs. German Equipment
Price: From $4.99 to $12.95
Paperback $12.95 — PDF on DVD disk $4.99
United States vs. German Equipment
As Prepared for the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force
by Maj. Gen. Isaac D. White, Commanding General, 2nd Armored Division
A Merriam Press Original Reprint Publication
Military Monograph 240
- Publication Date: 10 December 2011
- 168 – 6 × 9 inch pages
- B&W Paperback (ISBN 9781468068153) — #MM240-PB — $12.95
- PDF file sent by mail on a DVD disk — #MM240-PDF — $4.99
-
63 photos
-
2 illustrations
-
1 table
This is a newly-produced reprint of a mimeographed report produced in March 1945 for General Eisenhower at his request after he had seen accounts attributed to armored forces GIs who considered American tanks very inferior in quality to those of the Germans.
As an aside he also requested comparisons in other types of equipment such as half-tracks, light tanks, trucks, guns, bazookas, and even clothing and rations.
The resulting report includes General White's own opinions, plus the opinions of over 150 officers and enlisted men.
There is also a report on the characteristics of the German Mark V tank.
The reading of this report will be a significant "eye-opener" for every World War II historian, wargamer, model builder, and buff. In reading this report, you'll wonder how we managed to win the war in Europe at all, with such a mediocre tank as the Sherman. This is one of the most fascinating reports you will ever read.
Review of this title by Senior Gaming Editor of ArmchairGeneral.com can be seen here.
Contents
-
Introduction
-
Digest of Opinions of Tank Officers and Crews of 66th and 67th Armored Regiments
-
Comparison of United States Equipment with Similar German Equipment
-
Personal Convictions of Individual Officers and Enlisted Men of the 2nd Armored Division as to Comparison of German versus American Armor and Equipment
-
Characteristics of the German Mark V Tank
Excerpt from the Book:
Supreme Headquarters
ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE
Office of the Supreme Commander
18 March 1945
Dear General White:
From time to time I find short stories where some reporter is purportedly quoting non-commissioned officers in our tank formations to the effect that our men, in general, consider our tanks very inferior in quality to those of the Germans. I realize that these sometimes spring from the human tendency to make startling statements in the hope that out of them will come a bit of publicity and self-notoriety. Possibly, also, certain reporters sometimes support their own views on such matters as those by quoting only those statements that uphold such views.
My own experience in talking to our junior officers and enlisted men in armored formations is about as follows:
Our men, in general, realize that the Sherman is not capable of standing up in a ding-dong, head-on fight with a Panther. Neither in gun power nor in armor is the present Sherman justified in undertaking such a contest. On the other hand, most of them realize that we have a job of shipping tanks overseas and therefore do not want unwieldy monsters; that our tank has great reliability, good mobility, and that the gun in it has been vastly improved. Most of them feel also that they have developed tactics that allow them to employ their superior numbers to defeat the Panther tank as long as they are not surprised and can discover the Panther before it has gotten in three or four good shots. I think that most of them know also that we have improved models coming out which even in head-on action are not helpless in front of the Panther and the Tiger.
The above, however, are mere impressions I have gained through casual conversations. I am writing you and General Rose of the 3rd Armored Division identical letters with the request that at your earliest convenience you write me an informal letter giving me: (a) Your own personal convictions about the quality of our tank equipment as compared to the German, and having in mind the necessity of our shipping our material over long distances to get it to the battle field; (b) Your opinion as to the ability of the new T-26 with the 90-mm gun, to meet the Panther on equal terms, and (c) A digest of the opinions of your tank commanders, drivers, gunners, and so on, on these general subjects.
Please do not take the time to make a general staff study out of this matter. If you could include a few quotes from experienced non-commissioned officers it might be helpful to my purpose as I want to tell the truth about these matters to the War Department rather than to allow any misconceptions to prevail.
Please mark the outside of your letter “Personal.”
With warm regards,
Sincerely,
[Dwight D. Eisenhower]
Brigadier General Isaac D. White,
Commanding General,
Second Armored Division
U.S. Army.
P.S. Comparisons in other types of equipment would be helpful; i.e., half-tracks, light tanks, trucks, guns, bazookas, even clothing.
A.P.O. 252
20 March 1945
Supreme Commander
Supreme Headquarters
Allied Expeditionary Force
My dear General Eisenhower:
In this letter I am setting forth my personal convictions as to the quality of our tanks and certain other items of equipment in comparison with the German, as you requested in your letter of 18 March 1945.
I have enclosed a separate document giving a digest of the opinions of officers and enlisted men who have had much experience and in whom I have great confidence. I have also included a large number of the actual statements made by them. Allowing for the traditional enthusiasm displayed by the American soldier when he is given (or takes!) the opportunity to express himself in regard to any possible shortcomings in his rations, clothing and equipment, I think they are sincere, reasonably factual, indicate considerable thought and knowledge of the subject, and above all, they are most refreshing. I have not edited them in any way and I believe they are a true cross-section of opinion of the command.
I feel that many criticisms made by tank crews would not appear had we been equipped with a larger proportion of M4A3E8 tanks for Operation “Grenade.” Only two or three tanks of this type actually saw combat. During this operation only twenty-nine percent of our medium tanks mounted 76-mm guns, and only four rounds of HVAP ammunition per 76-mm gun was available. Incidentally, rounds of this type expended in this operation have not been replaced. However, the 76-mm gun, even with HVAP ammunition, is not effective at the required ranges at which we must be able to effectively engage enemy armor.
The following are my personal convictions pertaining to the items listed:
Ordnance Equipment
The major items of ordnance equipment are sound in design from a mechanical standpoint, particularly with the changes in suspension of the M24 light tank and M4A3E8 and M26 medium tanks. Any increase in armor plate thickness would decrease speed and maneuverability and it is felt that these highly desirable characteristics should not be sacrificed. The main armament of our tanks, including sights, is not comparable to that of the Germans.
Tank, Light: The M5 light tank should be replaced with the M24 light tank as soon as possible. The latter is a highly satisfactory tank in every respect. Every effort should be made to improve the gun, sights and ammunition. The M5 light tank is obsolete in every respect as a fighting tank.
Tank, Medium: The M4A3E8 has comparable speed and maneuverability to any German tank. The 76-mm gun is reasonably satisfactory, provided sufficient HVAP ammunition were available. If it were possible to design and substitute a long barrel piece with muzzle brake and approximately 3400-3500 feet per second muzzle velocity, similar to the German 75-mm HV tank gun, this tank would be equal to anything our enemies have to offer.
The M26 medium tank has not as yet been issued to this division and consequently no comments can be made. Experience with the M36 tank destroyer with 90-mm gun indicates that this should be a highly effective tank when HVAP ammunition becomes available. Its issue to this division is eagerly awaited.
Tank Destroyer, M36: Has not lived up to expectations, but when HVAP ammunition becomes available it is hoped that it will be more effective. Fighting compartment precludes efficient service of the piece and available ammunition is not effective at required long range.
M4A3E8 Assault Tank with 105-mm Howitzer: An ideal weapon for purpose for which designed. Turret should have power traverse.
Armored Car, M8: Not as effective as the so-called “Staghound” manufactured in the United States for the British. A full track reconnais¬sance vehicle is desirable. However, on the battlefield, in meeting German armored cars of all types, the M8 has invariably come off the winner.
Car, Half-Track: This vehicle is far superior to any equipment of like type encountered. All designs except the M3 should be eliminated for simplicity’s sake, since this type is adaptable to all demands made for a half-track vehicle.
General Purpose Vehicles: All vehicles of this type are far superior to any type now in use by any army encountered in the field by this division. The 2½-ton 6×6 truck and the ¼-ton 4×4 truck are the outstanding vehicles of the war.
Mortars: Compare equally or better than the Germans. A larger mortar of approximately 120-mm could well be used in armored elements where the mortar is habitually fired from the vehicle and greater range is desirable and considerations of weight are not a factor. Consideration should be given to converting M5 light tank to a mortar carrier.
Small Arms: All U.S. types definitely superior from standpoint of accuracy and reliability, especially the submachine gun and the .50 caliber machine gun. The carbine is not generally liked by personnel who have ever used the submachine gun in combat.
Bazooka: The German bazooka is definitely superior, with greater penetrating effect and concussion. It is more accurate and has a greater effective range. The Panzerfaust is an effective and simple weapon to operate. It is highly effective against armor and also against personnel. We have equipped our infantry and reconnaissance units with captured German bazookas and they have great confidence in them. Since we habitually carry them on vehicles, their greater weight than the U.S. type is not a factor.
Quartermaster Equipment
Items of quartermaster clothing and equipment as now issued in the European Theater of Operations are satisfactory under ordinary conditions of weather and terrain. The specialized winter clothing is adequate, provided it reaches the using troops in time to be of benefit. Lack of uniformity is detrimental to appearance, but the reason for this condition is understood. The quality exceeds that of any Allied or enemy troops encountered.
The following changes in design, material and authorized substitution would be of benefit to armored troops:
Jacket, Combat, Winter: This is a highly satisfactory item, particularly for tank crews. The quality of material has suffered in mass production. The outer material should be the same as the jacket, field, M1943, with no change in the inner blanket lining. The knitted waistband should be eliminated and a buckle type waist band of the same material substituted. The cuffs should be modified to a straight faced cuff with a knitted cuff forming a windbreak inside the outer cuff.
Trousers, Combat, Winter: Very satisfactory. If material of jacket is changed, a like change should be made in this item.
Poncho, Lightweight (Nylon): This is very durable, satisfactory and of sound design. It should replace the raincoat, dismounted, which has proven unsatisfactory.
Boots, Service, Combat: This item would be more satisfactory if smooth surface of leather were outside.
Overcoat: This is an unsatisfactory garment for crews of armored vehicles, being too bulky and hard to stow. The mackinaw type coat is more practical.
Headgear: Some type of cap, hat or beret which can be worn inside the steel helmet and presents a satisfactory appearance should be issued for wear when the helmet is not required to be worn. None of the present type issued are satisfactory and it is difficult to prevent their being worn independently of the helmet.
Shelter Half: Not satisfactory. Leaks, changes color and tears readily.
Sleeping Bags: Highly satisfactory in every respect.
I sincerely feel that my personal convictions as stated above more nearly express the convictions of the officers and men of the division than their comments appear to indicate. If it were possible for me to talk with every officer and enlisted man and explain and reason things out, I doubt if there would be much divergence from my own convictions.
The most important point, and upon which there is universal agreement, is our lack of a tank gun and anti-tank gun with which we can effectively engage enemy armor at the required range. The correction of this deficiency has made progress, but the problem has not as yet been satisfactorily solved.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation for this opportunity to write you informally on these matters which are of such immediate concern and importance.
Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Isaac D. White
27 March 1945
Dear White:
I am grateful indeed for the trouble you took in answering my recent letter to you so promptly and so intelligently. I feel that your conclusions on the matter should go at once to the War Department, and I am sending them on to General Marshall without delay.
If by any chance you have an extra carbon copy of the report you sent to me, I should like to have it for my own files. On no account, however, are you to have the work redone as you have already been more than courteous in this matter.
Very sincerely,
[signed]
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Brigadier General Isaac D. White,
Commanding General
Second Armored Division
U.S. Army
Digest of Opinions of Tank Officers and Crews of 66th and 67th Armored Regiments
BRIGADIER GENERAL J. H. COLLIER
COMMANDING COMBAT COMMAND “A”
The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories:
• Superior flotation.
• Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome.
• The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no tell-tale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate.
• The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns.
• German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy.
• German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks
The M24 tank has not been available long, but has created a very favorable impression.
It is not possible to comment on the M26 tank, as we have had no experience with it.
The fact that our equipment must be shipped over long distances does not, in the opinion of our tankers, justify our inferiority. The M4 has proven inferior to the German Mark VI in Africa before the invasion of Sicily, 10 July 1943.
It is my opinion that press reports of statements by high ranking officers to the effect that we have the best equipment in the world do much to discourage the soldier who is using equipment that he knows to be inferior to that of the enemy.
Comparison of United States Equipment with Similar German Equipment
COLONEL S. R. HINDS
COMMANDING COMBAT COMMAND “B”
From my own observation I have the following comments regarding the comparison of our tanks with the German:
Mechanically our tanks are at least the equal of any German tank and on good, firm terrain or on roads are more mobile.
Our tanks’ armor does not withstand German direct fire weapons of 75-mm high velocity and larger with the result that in a head on one tank against one tank fight ours almost always comes out as a casualty.
In my opinion, the reason our armor has engaged the German tanks as successfully as it has is not due by any means to a superior tank but to our superior numbers of tanks on the battlefield and the willingness of our tankers to take their losses while maneuvering to a position from which a penetrating shot can be put through a weak spot of the enemy tank.
The few undamaged German tank sights I have seen are definitely superior to our sights in clearness and speed in laying.
Our tanks should: carry a gun that will penetrate any enemy tank at a minimum of 2,000 yards; carry sufficient armor to turn the German light anti-tank gun (smaller than 75-mm) at any range; sufficient mobility to outmaneuver the enemy on any terrain; have a lower silhouette than at present; have a better sight; and have an increased ammunition storage space.
The new tanks now being received are a far step in the proper direction but still do not possess the gun power necessary to penetrate the German tank for a crippling shot on the first hit.
In spite of the often quoted tactical rule that one should not fight a tank versus tank battle, I have found it necessary, almost invariably, in order to accomplish the mission.
While our half-track vehicle is far superior to any other similar vehicle, it falls short of the required cross country mobility. It should be the equal of a tank in this respect. I believe a full track vehicle with slightly more armor on the sides is necessary in order to have the complete support of the armored infantry when most needed.
COLONEL PAUL A. DISNEY
COMMANDING 67TH ARMORED REGIMENT
Armor: Insufficient to prevent penetration by high velocity ammunition used by German tanks and anti-tank weapons.
Armament: Both 75-mm and 76-mm guns with available types of ammunition are incapable of neutralizing enemy tanks at ranges at which the latter are capable of neutralizing our tanks. When engaged at closer ranges with HVAP [high velocity armor piercing], 76-mm guns have disabled German tanks but penetration of armor seems to be rare.
Flotation: Not sufficient on Sherman M-4. Very good on M4A3E8.
Maneuverability: Not known, except that statements of tank crewmen indicate that of German tanks equal if not superior to ours. This is due in part probably to better flotation of enemy tanks and consequent greater maneuverability over muddy ground.
I believe the necessity for equipping troops with tanks capable of engaging enemy tanks on an equal basis outweighs all other considerations. Being close to the using personnel I am acutely aware of the morale factor involved in equipping troops with present tank equipment.
My opinion as to ability of M26 with 90-mm gun to meet Panther and Tiger on equal terms is based only on knowledge that present tank destroyers equipped with 90-mm gun and ‘souped up’ ammunition have been able to knock out such tanks where 75-mm and 76-mm guns were unable to. It is therefore reasonable to believe that a more equal footing would be obtained by supplying the M26.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL R. W. JENNA
COMMANDING 41ST ARMORED INFANTRY REGIMENT
Half-Track Vehicles: The American half-track manufactured by Auto-Car, Diamond-T, White, and International Harvester Companies, are no doubt the best vehicles of their type in the world, but if several of the features found in the similar German vehicle were incorporated in our half-tracks they would be even better than they are. These features are as follows:
A well protected air scoop and radiator vent so that the panel in front of the radiator core could be completely and permanently sealed with armor plate. This would reduce radiator casualties by a great percentage. Armor plate on the sides and rear of the German vehicle are installed so as to give a “basket” or “bath tub” effect by coming out from the frame to the widest part of the vehicle at a sixty degree angle and then back toward the center of the vehicle at the same angle just far enough to give the occupants a little overhead cover. This feature does not in any way reduce the amount of space in the crew compartment and reduces the possibility of getting small arms and shrapnel penetrations on vertical surfaces.
Although the Germans use large staggered bogie wheels in their suspension system and a block type track it has been proven that their system does not better the performance of a vehicle of this type. The American suspension system gives much better riding quality and more silent operation.
The power plant and the power train of the American vehicle surpasses by far anything manufactured by the Germans to date. Most all German half-tracks have a “dead front axle” where we have a “driven axle.”
The U.S. half-track is more versatile than the comparable German model, being used for a large number of purposes. As personnel carrier, gun platform, anti-aircraft gun mount, weapons carrier, and artillery ammunition carrier the half-track serves to fill the needs of a number of vehicles employed by the Germans, who adopt different type tracks for different needs.
The advantage of the U.S. tracks in maintenance is much greater in that the engines, chassis, tracks and suspension systems are interchangeable. This is not possible with the many models of the Germans. The U.S. track has more speed and power, making it a better road vehicle, and more maneuverable in cross-country use.
Light Tanks: The M5 light tank has a better engine than the comparable German light tank. This gives the tank more speed on roads, and creates less maintenance trouble, thus allowing more combat use for the tank. The speed and power of the U.S. tank make it more maneuverable and the gun turret can be operated and the gun sighted more rapidly than on the German tank. However, in my opinion the fighting qualities of the German tank are superior due to the heavier armor and a heavier gun with a much greater muzzle velocity. In a tank to tank combat the German tank can better protect its crew and can more easily penetrate the lighter armor of the U.S. tank. On soft and marshy ground the suspension and greater flotation power of the German tank will allow it to cover places the U.S. tank cannot pass over.
The new M24 light tank has adopted some of the features of similar German vehicles of this type and these, together with our improved power plant and 75-mm gun, make it a much better fighting vehicle. By actual inspection it has been found that more planning and manufacturing has been done to make our light tank easier to handle, faster to accelerate, simpler to shift gears, and have a higher top speed than any similar German vehicle.
The Twin Cadillac V-8 engine and Hydromatic Drive Transmission in our light tanks make it an engineering masterpiece to be surpassed by none either now or in the near future. By actual German admissions they have lost as many tanks by mechanical failures as they have by enemy action.
Trucks: There is little to be said in comparison of the U.S. and German trucks. The U.S. trucks are superior in every respect. The lack of standard model in the German Army creates a maintenance problem with which the Germans are unable to cope. This condition causes many trucks to be abandoned that could be easily repaired if parts were interchangeable as in U.S. vehicles. The U.S. trucks have greater speed, power, load capacity and more cross country ability due to front wheel drive and low range gears.
German trucks are of a wide variety, but none are as good as our few standard models. The German model that corresponds to our 2½-ton 6×6 truck is an air-cooled six-cylinder vehicle with only four wheels, the rears being duals and the only driving wheels. The undercarriage and cargo body are of flimsy construction and probably shake apart after little rough service. The air-cooled engine is simple in construction, low in power and is adaptable for a charcoal generator in most cases. Our 2½-ton 6×6 truck was designed and constructed for long and continuous rough service and performs this service with a minimum of mechanical failures.
Some German trucks of the 2½-ton class are half-track trucks, but our 2½-ton truck with the new endless track type snow and mud device on the rear duals combined with front wheel drive will have just as much flotation and more power and speed under adverse driving conditions.
The German Volkswagen in no way comes up to the standards of our ¼-ton truck. The German vehicle has a four-cylinder air-cooled engine which is low in power and performance while our liquid-cooled four-cylinder engine gives more than ample power and speed through a power train offering a wide selection of gear ratios. The Volkswagen has only two wheel drive where our ¼-ton truck has four-wheel drive. The Volkswagen has a very low center of gravity, a feature which is not too important in a military vehicle and to obtain this feature the vehicle is made very low and is unable to travel over extremely rough or rocky terrain where our ¼-ton truck performs at its best.
The amphibian model of the Volkswagen is far surpassed by our full-track cargo carrier M29C. The M29C is a rugged amphibian vehicle that has no trouble getting up river and stream banks where the German vehicle of this type must have a gradual beach. The German vehicle cannot operate in marshy country because of inadequate flotation. Power in the German vehicle is limited by the four-cylinder, opposed, air-cooled engine while ample power and speed is supplied in the M29C by a liquid-cooled six-cylinder engine.
Guns: The comparisons on this subject are made from the Ordnance viewpoint. American guns and small arms of all types are superior to similar German guns and small arms in that they are of better construction and material. The possible exception might be the submachine gun M3. This gun is cheaply and crudely made, and does not compare with the Schmeisser Machine Pistol. One very good feature of German anti-tank and dual-purpose guns is that they are constructed so that if damaged they may be repaired by a few small parts or sub-assemblies rather than the large parts and major assemblies that are necessary to repair our similar guns. However, the guns of large caliber generally favor U.S. Ordnance, with the possible exception of the German 88-mm dual-purpose gun. The 88-mm gun is equal or superior to the U.S. 90-mm gun due to its extremely high muzzle velocity and great penetrating power. In comparing German and American rifles it is found that much more workmanship and better materials go into our rifles to make a highly finished weapon. The same comparison applies to all types of machine guns.
Bazookas: The comparison is first made from the tactical viewpoint: Anti-tank rockets (bazookas): The German bazooka is better than ours due to the fact it is bigger and packs a heavier punch. It is an 88-mm and ours is a 2.36 inch. It also carries a windshield which makes a face mask unnecessary. There have been instances where our bazooka struck an enemy tank and failed to stop it. The German Panzerfaust is a fine weapon. It is light to carry and has absolutely no flash back which will harm face or hands and will easily make a large hole in four inches of sloping armor. The Panzerfaust is simple to operate and seems to be very adaptable to inexpensive large-scale manufacture. Our anti-tank weapons are all fine quality but need to be much heavier and more destructive.
Comparison is now made from the Ordnance viewpoint: In comparing the American and German bazooka guns it is found that while the German model is larger and has more intricate firing device its effectiveness and efficiency does not surpass our similar weapon. Many improvements have been made on the American model but even before those improvements and modifications it was just as good as the German model. The German gun being larger is more cumbersome and difficult to handle as well as store in a vehicle. The new American gun is rugged in construction and very accurate. The sighting feature on the German model is flimsy in construction and often faulty.
Clothing: The U.S. clothing for combat, fatigue and dress is, in practically all cases, superior to the German issue. Superior quality, better design, and standard issues of like items make the U.S. soldier better dressed and better fitted for combat than his German adversary. There are a few exceptions in the German cold weather combat clothing. The German combat suit, and tankers’ one-piece suits, with either fleece or fur lining, are less bulky and much warmer than U.S. combat suits. Their light weight, water repellent qualities, and warmth make them equal to the U.S. flying equipment with much less bulk.
German boots and shoes have a better sole to top seal than our issue, making them more waterproof. This is an item that should be improved upon for our troops.
Powder: (This is an important added comparison.) By using smokeless powder the Germans have a definite advantage on us. One of our machine guns gives our position away when it fires, but except when the Germans use tracer their positions can not be located.
LT. COL. WHEELER G. MERRIAM
COMMANDING 82ND ARMORED RECON. BATTALION
The following comparison of German and American equipment is the result of informal inspection of captured German equipment and in some cases tests to compare them to like items of American equipment.
Half-tracks: Of the few German half-tracks examined and driven by members of this command, it was the consensus of opinion that there was no advantage or disadvantage noted between the two. It is felt that technical tests would be necessary to determine these points.
Light Tanks: No objective comparison has been made between German and American light tanks. It is, however, the unanimous opinion of experienced tank crews and commanders that the M24 has all the desirable features of any German light tank as well as many not incorporated in the German light models. These advantages include gyro-stabilizers, better visibility, easier maintenance, anti-aircraft gun.
Armored Car: The only German armored car ever operated by any member of this command was a four-wheeled armored car armed with a 20-mm gun which was captured in Holland. The American M8 armored car was superior to this in all details compared. An especial weakness of the German vehicle was the inaccessibility of the engine for maintenance and repair.
No comparison has been made with other models. However, on the field of battle in meeting German armored cars of all types, the M8 has invariably come off the winner.
Trucks: While no tests as such have been made with German trucks, they have been used as an expedient by this unit during combat. The American 2½-ton 6×6 is definitely superior to any German model encountered.
Guns: German guns have not been used or tested by this command.
Bazooka: The German bazooka was test fired with the American model. While no definite data was recorded, the German bazooka (88-mm model) had greater penetrating and destructive power than the American (old model). The shield of the German model was efficient but was generally felt added more bulk to the weapon than it was worth. Sights on the German model were very satisfactory.
Clothing: No close examination of clothing has been made. Without the advantage of technical tests, it is felt that item for item, American clothing is superior. However, it has been noted that in some cases, German soldiers were more adequately clothed than our own. This condition has not existed recently.
|
Product Options
| |
|
Identification of Foreign Armored Vehicles: German, Japanese, Russian, Italian, and French. Military Intelligence [Basic Field Manual FM 30-42]. Military Reference Library #L179. Acrobat PDF file sent by mail on DVD disc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Military Intelligence: Identification of United States Armored Vehicles [Basic Field Manual FM 30-40] available as a PDF file.
|
Seek, Strike and Destroy: U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II by Dr. Christopher R. Gabel. Available as a PDF file.
|
|
The 4th Armored Division in the Encirclement of Nancy
by Dr. Christopher R. Gabel
Available as a PDF file.
|
|
|
|
|
Price: From $9.99 to $16.95
Data on World War II Tank Engagements Involving the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions by David C. Hardison, a Merriam Press Original Reprint Publication, Military Monograph MM321, available in paperback and PDF editions.
|
Price: From $6.95 to $29.95
|
Price: From $6.95 to $29.95
|
Product Reviews
|
Shopping on this web site is secure.
FREE shipping in U.S.
5% discount on orders $50.00-$99.99
10% discount on orders over $100
We accept MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Discover credit cards and PayPal from all customers, and checks/money orders from U.S. customers.
| | |
| Sign Up To Receive Email Notifications About New Additions To The Merriam Press Site
| |
| | |
|
You do not need to create an account to shop on this web site.
|
|