I had an
epiphany the other day.
Now, for starters, let me state right out that my knowledge of World War II armor and tactics is decidedly limited. In fact, it’s pretty much limited to
German tanks were great
British tanks were OK (especially when they gave them to the boffins and let them tack on all manner of bizarre chain-flailers, stick bundles or flame-throwers), and
US tanks were pretty much the pits.
I mean, in tank vs. tank battles, it seems I was always reading how the German tanks could blow up the US tanks from incredible distances, and even after they got within range, the US shells just bounced off the German tanks.
And anything with ‘Tiger’ in the name was the baddest boy in the neighborhood, and was to be avoided at all costs.
After following Martin’s interesting thread on the
Sherman Firefly in Normandy, and doing a little on-line research on exactly what a Firefly was (it was a US Sherman that the Brits modified with a bigger gun) I thought “Well, Good Grief! Why couldn’t WE have done that??? And, after the Brits did it, why
didn’t WE do it???” It’s always been a personal conundrum for me……why, in tank vs. tank matchups, did US equipment always seem to be lacking?
This weekend, I found a plausible explanation. In
The Sherman Medium Tank (1942-1945) by Steven Zaloga, he describes in the ‘Design and Development’ chapter, how during the inter-war years, all design studies and new project specifications required the approval of the Army Ground Force (AGF), headed by Maj. Gen. Leslie McNair. He goes on to describe how the AGF was responsible for formulating Army tactical doctrine, which was greatly influenced by Gen. McNair, whose background was in the artillery. (By the way…. he also points out that General McNair had no combat experience.)
The doctrine as finally established, in a nutshell, said that American armor was to support infantry, and if enemy tanks showed up, they were to be handled by either the artillery or specially designed Tank-Destroyers (which were basically tracked artillery). The American tanks would then exploit the holes created and charge through like cavalry to wreak havoc in the enemy’s rear.
This doctrine then influenced all design specifications for American tanks manufactured prior to and during the early war years.
American tanks weren’t designed to match up to German tanks….they weren’t supposed to fight German tanks….they had no business going nose to nose with German armor. Too bad it didn’t work out that way.
My questions for discussion are:
A) What were the different armored doctrines utilized by the various combatant nations?
B) How long did it take for the Americans to change their doctrine?...or, did they?
Oh, and if this has been discussed 'ad nauseum', my apologies and a link to said discussion would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
-whatever
-Lou
Doctrine
