Steve Zaloga--Is He a Competent Author?

[Tom Houlihan]

Hey, it was a monster!!! If I were crewing a Sherman, I certainly wouldn't want to turn a corner and find one waiting for me! It was a beast, there's no two ways about it!

Okay, I'll shut up and sit back in my corner.

[Rich]

Returning to Zaloga, can anyone figure out this piece of obscuration on page 18 of the "M-24 Chaffee tank" Osprey booklet, speaking about Korea:

"Besides serving in the light tank companies in each of the three heavy tank battalions, M24 tanks also served in the reconnaissance companies of the 3rd Infantry (24th Division), 7th Infantry (25th Division), 16th Infantry (1st Cavalry Division), and in ten reconnaissance platoons, (502nd, 503rd, 10th BCT, 187th Airborne, 6th, 64th, 70th, 72nd, 73rd and 89th tank battalions)."

There are certain obvious errors to anyone remotely familiar with the U.S. Army in the Korean War. I'd love for someone to explain for me the unit designations: "3rd Infantry (24th Division), 7th Infantry (25th Division), 16th Infantry (1st Cavalry Division)". If you think this is a matter of quibbling, just think how you would feel if 1st, 2nd or 3rd S.S. were described as containing imaginary Infantry Regiments!

Bestens,
~D, the EviL

Frankly, it looks like the usual crap that is done to authors works by publishers "professional" editors. In this case they probably tried to be "helpful" by "clarifying" what Zaloga had written. The problem with that is that often such changes occur at the last minute or are not brought to the authors attention by the publisher until it is "too late" (at least according to the publishers schedule) to fix such things...believe me, I've had personal experience in this.

So, anyway, the table that Zaloga probably used is taken from the ORO (FEC) report Tank Combat in Korea, volume 1, Tables Ia and Ib on pages 19 and 20.

The units are:

24th ID
6th Medium Tank Bn (A-D Co, each with M46)
5th Regimental Tank Company (M4A3)
21st Regimental Tank Company (M4A3)
24th Reconnaissance Company (M24)

25th ID
89th Medium Tank Bn (A-D Co, one co with M26 and the others with M4A3)
A Co, 79th Heavy Tank Bn (temporary assignment, with M24 Light Tanks)
25th Reconnaissance Company (M24)

2nd ID
72nd Heavy Tank Bn (A-C Co, one co with M26 and the others with M4A3)
9th Regimental Tank Company (M4A3)
23rd regimental Tank Company (M4A3)
38th Regimental Tank Company (M4A3)
2nd Reconnaissance Company (M24)

1st Cav Div
70th Heavy Tank Bn (A-C Co, one co with M26 and the others with M4A3)
16th Reconnaissaince Company (M24)

Others:
503rd Reconnaissance Company (M24)
Tank Company, 187th RCT (M24)

The only really inexplicable error is "3rd Infantry (24th Division)"...except that I could actually visualize a publisher/editor combination transmogrifying a listing of three different Regimental Tank Companies into a "3rd Infantry" - I've seen crap just as bad occur.

Of course, even the Army admitted that the designations were just to the best of their knowledge as of 1 January 1951...

"Tables I and II show the armored units of the UN forces in action in Korea. While ths designation, equipment, and assignment of some units, particularly the tank battalions, has been changed from time to time, it is believed these tables are essentially correct as of 1 January 1951. It will be noted that the distribution of tank units to the divisions varies considerably. However, as of the first of the year, each US division was authorized a standard tank force of one tank battalion of three companies, three regimental tank companies,and one division reconnaissance company. With the exception of the reconnaissance companies and the tank unit of the 17th RCT Airborne, which are authorized M24's, all tank units except those with the Marines are supposed to be eventually equipped with M46s. The Marines will continue with M26 tanks."

Of course THAT never happened either...

[Vor]

Fred, I have to stand by my email.

For the rest of you, since you are all so smitten with Zaloga, it is much easier to praise than to criticize. SO, I want to hear it.

There are 2 Steve Zalogas. Zaloga who rewrites & polishes federal reports & manuals, & Zaloga the historian...DDAY, Eastern Front, etc. Who cares about the former. A trained secretary can do that.

Feel free to post the novel contributions Steve has made to advance the science, & show me the source documents he used. By novel, I'd prefer to see something where he did some digging, put 2 & 2 together, & drew a valid conclusion...something which future historians would footnote in their own works when they themselves carry on the topic at hand.

Feel free to post his personal emails to you with the voluminous materials. Right here. Right now.

[michael kenny]

By novel, I'd prefer to see something where he did some digging, put 2 & 2 together, & drew a valid conclusion....

He did a Sherman book where his conclusions (i.e the Sherman was a succesful design) seem to have hit a raw nerve.
Just because you do not like a conclusion don't make it invalid. By far the best technical book on the T-34 is Michulec's 'Mythical Weapon'. The performance conclusions in the book though are completely and unreasonably biased against the tank itself and seems to be a product of the Polish hatred for all things Soviet. You accept this and ignore it. I just wish it hadn't been used in the current 'Bloody Streets' as a source on the T-34 (page 91)

[Uncle Joe]

Michael, the hard truth is that Michulec is spot on as far as the T-34 is concerned. I think it speaks volumes for the deficiencies of the T-34 as PRODUCED when the general opinion of Finnish tankers was that the StuG III has better FIGHTING qualities as a TANK. In other words, the average T-34 was so poorly manufactured that the potentially good design factors were never materialized. The supposedly simple design was in fact very difficult to maintain, especially steering brakes and clutches needed frequent attention. Ergonomics were non-existent.

And as far as Zaloga and his Sherman conclusion is concerned, I have no problems against that conclusion itself. But what conlusions he (and his fellow travelers) makes from the first conclusion, that is another issue.

[lwd]

...This was said over on ML:

" it is easily obvious that the author does not even attempt to be objective and neutral. Just the fact that he describes the King Tiger as a "monster" speaks volumes................
...

Those were my comments on ML and I stand by them 100%! I think it is quite interesting that Zaloga uses vague descriptions like "monster" without adequate definition while e.g. Jentz´s claim of Tiger´s lower height (compared to the Sherman) is proved by an illustration on the same page...

To my mind monster is a very good term for describing the Tiger. It fits in both the postive and negative connotations. Saying the mere use of the word means there was no atempt to be objective or neutral seams quite a stretch.

[Uncle Joe]

Well, theoretically it is so but it is clear from the context that Zaloga had purely negatives in mind.

[michael kenny]

Strange that the Zaloga book is described as 'negative' but the T-34 book, which resorts to calling Guderian a liar (when he described the shock of meeting the T-34 in action)in a rant spread over over 4 pages, Is described as 'spot on'!
The commander of 4th Pz Division (Langermann) is also comprehensivelt rubbished (and also branded a liar) over the 5 pages following the Guderian rant because he agreed with Guderian on the T34'S superiority!
On a scale 1 to 100 on negativity I would rate the T34 book 99.999% negative.

[Frederick L Clemens]

Sounds interesting - that T-34 book. So, I take it that opinions are sharply divided on that one?

[Vor]

Michael, I am not even considering his recent book. I'm not trying to be a dick either. My point is that I am not about to post personal emails from other people who have a right to their privacy, as I am not going to post years of research & debates on technical subjects which you guys will have no interest in. OK, he's a competent author, I am glad he does what he does, which drives interest in these subjects. I do think he is prone to sloppiness, and is prone to make the data fit the conclusion & not vice versa, and yes, he is a prima donna. It's wonderful that some of you guys haven't encountered that yet. Also with my personal experiences, I would not give him the benefit of the doubt...and if he made some novel comments on a topic I was very fond of, I would follow it up myself.

several days ago there was an article on Yahoo news about a very Dutch opera singer. A reporter asked him what he thought of Adolf, and he replied that he was 'OK'. Stunned his wife quickly corrected him in front of the camera (Adolf was a monster, etc.), and then the singer turned to his wife and said, "yes dear, but he was nice to me"

[Uncle Joe]

Strange that the Zaloga book is described as 'negative' but the T-34 book, which resorts to calling Guderian a liar (when he described the shock of meeting the T-34 in action)in a rant spread over over 4 pages, Is described as 'spot on'!
The commander of 4th Pz Division (Langermann) is also comprehensivelt rubbished (and also branded a liar) over the 5 pages following the Guderian rant because he agreed with Guderian on the T34'S superiority!
On a scale 1 to 100 on negativity I would rate the T34 book 99.999% negative.

Michulec´s conclusions on T-34 combat worthiness are very much spot on. Since there is some time since I read the book I can´t be 100% sure but I do remember Michulec being quite clear on the fact that the T-34 AS DESIGNED was not the same vehicle as the T-34 AS MANUFACTURED, i.e. the great many deficincies that resulted from poor manufacturing quality were not corrected during the war. E.g. many sources hail how good the strategic mobility the T-34 has, yet its steering brakes and clutches need contant maintenance, crew comfort is non-existent, driving is a very tiring task due to heavy controls and crappy ergonomy. Even tactical mobility is limited by the somewhat low ground clearance. Track design is a disaster giving lousy traction and the method of retraining track pins is poor too, according to US analysis (published on www.battlefield.ru).

It is for this very reason why I would prefer to go battle in a Sherman over a T-34.

[michael kenny]

You can prefer any tank over any other model-that isn't the problem. In the T34 book the author goes out of his way to rubbish every aspect of the T34. He singles out dozens of other tanks that had individual points that were better than that aspect when applied to a T34 saying things like 'the French introduced sloped armour' ect. He does not stop there . He is very dismissive of Soviet tank aces, calls Germans who thought the T34 superior to the panzers 'liars', slates the design team, adds that the IS tank was as bad, ect ect ect. I short he has a very low opinion of (it seems) everything Soviet.
Every page is spoiled by the authors unremitting bias. It ruins the book.
His assertion that the quality of the T34 components 'falling to nothing short of disastrous' between 1941 and 1944 is not confirmed by the evaluation done by the British in 1943. Their School Of Tank Technology report is far more balanced. It makes the distinction between a rough finish on an article that only needs smothing for cosmetic puposes and the fine machining of critical components.

[Uncle Joe]

Well, Finnish experience, at least as far as related to by Lt.Col. Pekka Kantakoski, does differ from the British report a great deal. Very similar faults ruined many potentially good Soviet wartime aircraft designs. For example, the Pe-2 and SB bombers could not even deliver full performance in Finnish summer conditions due to poorly designed cooling system.

[GaryD]

His assertion that the quality of the T34 components 'falling to nothing short of disastrous' between 1941 and 1944 is not confirmed by the evaluation done by the British in 1943. Their School Of Tank Technology report is far more balanced. It makes the distinction between a rough finish on an article that only needs smothing for cosmetic puposes and the fine machining of critical components.

Is the British report available on-line?

[michael kenny]

Not free but as good as !

http://www.merriam-press.com/search.aspx?find=L72