Prevent the "Tommy Cooker"

If by suspicion, you mean contempt, ridicule, loathing and disgust, you're right. "Sven Hassel" is a fake and a fraud. His books are fiction, nothing more.

Could anyone kindly tell me who this 'Sven Hassel' is? The guys at the armor forum criticized him on numerous posts.
 
Not to mention that if you admit to doing it at my University, you'll be tossed out on your ear faster than you can say 'Amernian Genocides!'
 
Aye, that's what makes it so sad. If he'd been honest and sold them as a fiction series, they'd be reasonably good novels of the war-grime genre. It's the attempt to suggest they're authentic that's stomach-churning.

Well, I don't mind too much, as I still like the dark humour, but I agree (and he does have some pretty obvious inaccuracies).
 

Markus

Banned
IIRC german tanks had the "brew-up" troubles with the dry stored ammo too, but there were far fewer german tanks in the first place and some of them were had to crack with a 75mm gun.

The 76mm gun -the one the M4 had, not the M10´s- was actually fine, but there was a shortage of APCR/HVAP ammo.
 
I think Hassel's first book "Legion of the Damned" was autobiographical and non-fiction, but the rest were novels, good novels, mind.

I still remember almost all the characters after 30 years, the Legionaire, Tiny, and the rest.
 
Easy, America makes a deal with the Soviets to produce the T-34. In exchange, the Soviets get to build the B-24 bomber. This deal should be made in early 1941.
 

burmafrd

Banned
I was up too late that night and should have remembered it was the Betty.

Oh well.

The Sherman was a good tank through 1942. After that it was obsolete.

Too high, not enough armor, weak gun. Even the 3" (the 76) was not that great without the special ammo which was a problem.

The Pershing COULD have been ready for Normandy if it had been made a top priority. It was not and that failure is squarely on the Pentagon.
Some enemies of Patton have even fabricated a story that he was responsible for not pushing the Pershing but that fell apart pretty fast upon carefull examination of the time frame in which the decision was made (Patton was exiled in the Middle East at the time).
 
The Sherman was a good tank through 1942. After that it was obsolete.

Too high, not enough armor, weak gun. Even the 3" (the 76) was not that great without the special ammo which was a problem.

What about the improvements? The E8 was praised for its driving capabilities, and the Jumbo was somewhat better in the armor department.

Couldn't they upgun the Sherman further?
 
The Israeli Defence Force used Shermam M50 and 51s with the French 75 and 105mm guns respectively. They successfully fought against the IS3, T34 and 54s.
 
Too high, not enough armor, weak gun.
I agree on the last two points, but not the first. The M4 Sherman wasn't substantially higher than a Panzer IV. It's profile, however, with an uncomfortable frontal armour slope, was its main problem in that regard.
 
Top