Message forum of the Feldgrau.com research community
Moderator: John W. Howard
John Kilmartin wrote:I think part of the reason that Commonwealth armies in North West Europe were more deliberate is caused by two main factors.
The first being that most of the staff officers or at least those that instructed them were veterans of the first war and consequently of the mindset that set piece battles are the way to go. This being how they thought the war had been won. The Germans had come away with the idea that the meeting engagement is more important. Personally, and I'm sure someone will correct me the Americans hadn't spent all that much time fighting in WW I and therefore did not use it as a basis for doctrine for fighting WW II.
The second reason might have to do with the fact that by 1944 the Commonwealth armies had been at war with the Germans for 9 years cummulatively during both wars whereas the Americans had been fighting the Germans for less than 4 years over the same period. Canada for example had lost as many men in the first war as the US with only a tenth of the population.
Not exactly. It was actually designed as a "Medium Tank with Gun, 75mm, M3." There was no such term as "Main battle tank" at the time.Reb wrote:Actually Sherman was designed as a main battle tank.