Faith in Government: JUSTIFIED???

Forums: History, Ethics, Trust, Good Faith
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In the Second World War, American Sherman tanks were vastly inferior to the German Tiger Tanks,
with their 88mm artillery (had been designed as anti-aircraft artillery).
Those 88s opened up Shermen like thay were made of tin foil,
yet the government kept buying more of them for a long time.
Eventually came up with the 90mm cannon, which was a decent defense.

Roosevelt was simply (tacitly) willing to sacrifice American soldiers in this manner.
Roosevelt did not act in good faith; Roosevelt killed a lot more Americans than Nixon did, in the Watergate Scandal.

The soldiers in the Army, and the public in general, had CONFIDENCE in Roosevelt's government; was it justified ???

I don 't believe that it is a sufficient answer to point out that we won the war.
What about the men whose lives were lost in the hopelessly inferior equipment ??????

Trust is a bad thing to put into anyone, especially not government.

WHATAYATHINK of Roosevelt's passive, negligent betrayal of the trust of American soldiers in the Armor?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,596 • Replies: 44

No top replies

To MY mind, this negligence seems like a knife in the back
to the brave warriors who ventured forth against the nazis.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I think Rumsfield had a quote about that; something about fighting with the army you have, not the one you want. I'm sure you c0uld find similar examples in every war.

1 Reply

I think the blame rested with Army Ground Forces,
headed by General Lesley McNair.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

WHATAYATHINK of Roosevelt's passive, negligent betrayal of the trust of American soldiers in the Armor?

It is a chimera of your obsessive political hatred--it is a false charge based on your hysterical hatred of anyone who does not hold your political opinions. You also display an unsurprising ignorance of the issue involved.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I think Rumsfield had a quote about that;
something about fighting with the army you have, not the one you want.
I'm sure you c0uld find similar examples in every war.

Can Roosevelt get off the hook for his negligence by being glib?

When the Tigers arrived with their 88s,
causing a stark contrast with inferior American Sherman tanks,
it was Roosevelt's responsibility to cure this problem
when he heard about it. It was not a secret.

The SCANDAL was in continuing to buy more inferior Shermen
instead of matching the Tigers, or MINIMALLY, matching
or surpassing their 88s, as eventually thay DID, with 90mm cannon.

Roosevelt was a popular president,
and for that reason, there was NO SCANDAL in the press,
during the time (the LONG time) that this disparity continued and our guys were getting KILLED.

I saw a German gunner in a Tiger Tank interviewed on the Military Channel
who described destroying 5 Shermen within a few minutes. It was quick & e z.

Thay just kept building more n more Shermen
and sending them out, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE.
That was helpful to the nazis. That was the scandal. Roosevelt got away with it.

Did more courageous American soldiers die from this betrayal
or from Nixon's Watergate ????????

David

0 Replies

@George,

This is a good answer. The M4 Sherman came into service in 1942, at the same time that the "T-20" was being developed. That model eventurally became the M26 Pershing tank, which saw limited use in the ETO, and was effective. One author has blamed George Patton for the delay of the use of the Pershing tank, but the majority of military historians knowledgeable about this issue blame General McNair, an artilleryman whose view of the use of armor was limited, and delayed the service of the Pershing to attempt to make it a dedicated tank destroyer to be distributed among infantry units, as opposed to a main battle tank to be used in armored divisions.

The Ninth Armored Division, the so-called "Ghost Division" (it was so often reported destroyed by German propagandists that its members began to refer to their division as the Ghost Division), was the first armored formation to be equipped with the Pershing tank. During the Battle of the Bulge, the 9th was the onlycoherently organized armored division to oppose the German advance, and their delay of German armored units allowed the 101st Airborn to dig in and hold Bastogne. The 9th was withdrawn to refit, and it was at that time that they were equipped with the Pershing tanks. Their next mission was to cross the Roer River, and they went through the LXXXIVth Corps units of the German army like a hot knife through butter. One reconnaissance unit of the 9th (27th Armored Infantry?) pushed on through to the Rhine and captured the Ludendorf Bridge at Remagen.

George has this right--blame McNair.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

This is a good answer. The M4 Sherman came into service in 1942, at the same time that the "T-20" was being developed. That model eventurally became the M26 Pershing tank, which saw limited use in the ETO, and was effective. One author has blamed George Patton for the delay of the use of the Pershing tank, but the majority of military historians knowledgeable about this issue blame General McNair, an artilleryman whose view of the use of armor was limited, and delayed the service of the Pershing to attempt to make it a dedicated tank destroyer to be distributed among infantry units, as opposed to a main battle tank to be used in armored divisions.

The Ninth Armored Division, the so-called "Ghost Division" (it was so often reported destroyed by German propagandists that its members began to refer to their division as the Ghost Division), was the first armored formation to be equipped with the Pershing tank. During the Battle of the Bulge, the 9th was the onlycoherently organized armored division to oppose the German advance, and their delay of German armored units allowed the 101st Airborn to dig in and hold Bastogne. The 9th was withdrawn to refit, and it was at that time that they were equipped with the Pershing tanks. Their next mission was to cross the Roer River, and they went through the LXXXIVth Corps units of the German army like a hot knife through butter. One reconnaissance unit of the 9th (27th Armored Infantry?) pushed on through to the Rhine and captured the Ludendorf Bridge at Remagen.

George has this right--blame McNair.

I 'd settle for that
(regardless of Truman, qua where the buck stops)
IF Roosevelt actually did not know
that NEW inferior tanks were still being built
after the Tigers and their 88s arrived.

Do u think that he remained ignorant of that???

It was not a secret.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I am bemused. Do you think it is the job of a President to micromanage procurement decisions of the military? Do you think he should have spent his time on such matters? Do you think he should have dropped everything to focus on the inadequacies of the Sherman tank? You really lack perspective. We built on the order of 50,000 Sherman tanks. The Germans built a few thousand Tiger tanks. The Sherman was rugged and had a good range, and was easily maintained. The Tiger was a delicate flower of typical German over-engineering, and had to be carried to the area of operation on freight cars because it would destroy its own tracks in about 150 kilometers of service. Increasingly, the U.S. Army Air Force bombing missions made it difficult to maintain those tanks, and to build new ones. You seem all up in arms over the losses in tank crews. What about the 30,000 airmen lost by the U.S.A.A.F. over Europe? You don't care about them? Was that FDR's fault, too?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I am bemused. Do you think it is the job of a President to micromanage procurement decisions of the military?
Do you think he should have spent his time on such matters?

I am counter-bemused.
Absolutely YES. Lincoln woud have, without thinking 2ice about it.
As soon as he got notice of this problem,
Roosevelt shoud have called in George C. Marshall for a conference to cure it,
NOT to keep constructing more deathtraps for our guys. (Thay called them "Ronsons".)
Roosevelt's collectivist Democrat outlook moved him to little concern about the American INDIVIDUALs in those Shermen.
Roosevelt's passive negligence was de facto aid n comfort to the nazi enemy and a knife in the back
to the super-brave American soldiers who literally took their lives in their hands against those Tigers with 88s. Thay did it ANYWAY,
knowing that their chances of survival one-on-one were terrible.
(One German gunner told of blasting apart 5 Shermen in fewer than 5 minutes, with his 88mm.)
Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman woud have been ashamed to have his name applied
to those deathtraps for American citizens.

I do not impugn Roosevelt 's eager desire to defeat the nazis.
Unlike Democrats' post-war attitude qua resisting communist conquest
in the 3rd World War a/k/a "the Cold War", Roosevelt did have his heart
into winning the war against the nazis.
He simply was willing to accept a lot of unnecessary fatal casualties
among his own troops, as individuals, than was necessary to get the job done.

IF he had cared about it as much as a President SHOUD HAVE,
he 'd have gotten those 90mm cannon to our guys a lot sooner
than he did, and better armor ASAP.

Setanta wrote:

Do you think he should have dropped everything
to focus on the inadequacies of the Sherman tank?

Dropping "everything" was obviated by the numbers of assistants
that he had in the War Dept., but he shoud have gotten the ball rolling.
It was a matter of life n death; not much evidence that he cared.

Setanta wrote:

You really lack perspective.
We built on the order of 50,000 Sherman tanks.

TOO MANY; the point is that after the drastic inferiority of thin armor
and underpowered artillery that was near useless against the Tigers BECAME EVIDENT,
Roosevelt kept building more of those deathtraps anyway.
That was OK with him.
A responsible leader woud have (privately) acknowledged this as an emergency
for the troops in the field and treated it accordingly.
Time COUNTS for something.
Time counted for American lives; how many mothers got the bad news
because of his complacency????

Setanta wrote:

The Germans built a few thousand Tiger tanks. The Sherman was rugged [Is that a JOKE??]
and had a good range, and was easily maintained.

Our troops had little respect for those 75mm guns to whose rounds the Tigers were immune.
Unless thay were lucky enuf to disable a Tiger with a round in the tread,
or lucky enuf to hit the magazine, what was the point??

Setanta wrote:

The Tiger was a delicate flower of typical German over-engineering, and had to be carried to the area of operation on freight cars because it would destroy its own tracks in about 150 kilometers of service.

The Tigers may not have been PERFECT,
but thay made a pretty good impression on our guys on site.

Setanta wrote:

Increasingly, the U.S. Army Air Force bombing missions made it difficult to maintain those tanks, and to build new ones.
You seem all up in arms over the losses in tank crews.

YES.

Setanta wrote:

What about the 30,000 airmen lost by the U.S.A.A.F. over Europe? You don't care about them?

I am not aware of any better protection for them.
Their missions were indispensable to successful prosecution of the war.

Setanta wrote:

Was that FDR's fault, too?

So far as I am aware, Roosevelt was free of fault qua our bomers; no scandal,
unlike that of the Shermen after the Tigers arrived.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You're wrong there--one of the most embarrassing aspects of Lincoln's administration in the early days was the amount of theft in office. The most notorious case was Secretary of War Simon Cameron. Lincoln's long-time friend, Senator Fessenden of Maine, warned him about Secretary Cameron, to which Lincoln replied: "Surely you're not saying that Secretary Cameron would steal?" To which Fessenden replied (in public): "Well, he wouldn't steal a red-hot stove." Publicly confronted about that remark by Cameron, Fessenden loudly responded: "I'm sorry i said that you wouldn't steal a red-hot stove." Secretary Cameron resigned shortly thereafter. One of the commonest criticisms of Lincoln at that time, and ever since, is precisely that he attempted to micromanage the war.

Your whole problem here is that your view is warped by your political hatred. This is not about FDR's competence and whether he acted properly in the office of President, it's about your unreasoning hatred of the man because of your contempt for his political views.

Your remarks about military procurement display a profound ignorance. Of course, that sort of thing never interfers with political hysteria.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I don't understand Setanta. Why didn't FDR design a tank himself and get it into production in about a years time?
In this day an age we can design and build complex things like air refueling aircraft in about 10 years from first bidding to first production model. What the heck was wrong with FDR? Was he in a wheelchair or something?

0 Replies

The facts of the matter are these:
* there was a better-armored, better gunned tank (the Pershing) in works as early
as 1942
* the delay in production was due to Army internal conflicts
* the "doctrine" early on was that tanks were for infantry support, not fighting
other tanks
* the job of destroying tanks was that of th tank destroyer
* the Sherman out performed German tanks early in the war
* after the invasion, it was obvious that the allies needed the Pershing
* it was then pushed into production as fast as possible
* once in combat the Pershing acquitted itself admirably

For more information, search "Sherman tank", "Pershing tank" and
"tank destroyer doctrine". It's very interesting.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You're wrong there--one of the most embarrassing aspects of Lincoln's administration in the early days was the amount of theft in office. The most notorious case was Secretary of War Simon Cameron. Lincoln's long-time friend, Senator Fessenden of Maine, warned him about Secretary Cameron, to which Lincoln replied: "Surely you're not saying that Secretary Cameron would steal?" To which Fessenden replied (in public): "Well, he wouldn't steal a red-hot stove." Publicly confronted about that remark by Cameron, Fessenden loudly responded: "I'm sorry i said that you wouldn't steal a red-hot stove." Secretary Cameron resigned shortly thereafter.

The inclination to larceny is ubiquitously pervasive in humen, friend n foe alike.
Until I had an anti-larceny epiphany at age 13, my own morality was uncertain.
I 'm disinclined to hold Lincoln vicariously responsible for the embezzlements of his staff,
but even if Lincoln had personally stolen a lot of money,
that 'd have been preferable to the loss of brave
American soldiers' lives because of such passive negligence
as that of Roosevelt, under discussion.

Theft of cash is a better, nicer betrayal than that of Roosevelt.
I 'm confident that if something similar in principle had come
to the notice of Abe Lincoln, he 'd have been very quick,
admirably quick, to have the War Dept. swiftly attend to it.

In this thread, I seek to impugn the wisdom of trusting government
(generally) and in this matter, in particular.
These soldiers presented themselves in patriotic fervor, in good faith,
in recognition of Congress' War Power, ready to risk life n limb,
implicitly trusting that back home government 'd take proper care
of them, e.g., by giving them decent equipment.

Setanta wrote:

One of the commonest criticisms of Lincoln at that time, and ever since,
is precisely that he attempted to micromanage the war.

He DID; he was the commanding general in at least one battle.
That is not as bad as Roosevelt's negligence.
Lincoln did not betray his troops.

Setanta wrote:

Your whole problem here is that your view is warped by your political hatred. This is not about FDR's competence and whether he acted properly in the office of President, it's about your unreasoning hatred of the man because of your contempt for his political views.

Your remarks about military procurement display a profound ignorance. Of course, that sort of thing never interfers with political hysteria.

I dislike arguing upon the basis of tit-for-tat,
but your post puts me into that position.
I perceive your defense of Roosevelt as purely ad hominem,
on an ideological basis, purely a question of whose ox is gored.

American soldiers were yelling in fear n pain qua those 88s
on those Tigers, relative to their underpowered artillery
on the Shermen. It took too long, unconscionably too long,
to ship them the 90s. Instead, Roosevelt just kept on making
more n more of the same mistake REGARDLESS of the articulated pain
coming from the front in Europe.

That is a disgrace.

Roosevelt was never held to account for it
and for all the unnecessary American loss of life that resulted therefrom.
Roosevelt was never held to account for all of the grievous,
disfiguring, personal injuries of survivors of the Shermen disasters.
He got away with it.

For how long did we have the Watergate Scandal crammed
into our ears? How many lives were lost in THAT scandal???

Which scandal was more important??
Which scandal cost more American pain?????

Will u tell us THAT, Mr. Setanta ?

U allege "hysteria"; its too late for that -- not even the same century-- but its not too late
for taking historical cognizance n for sorrow.

Roosevelt deserves the blame of history for this scandal.
That is little enuf vengeance for his victims.
He got away with it.

David

0 Replies

You allege a scandal where none existed. This is just your typical hyperbolic political rant. There's not point in attempting to converse with someone who is so full of warped political hatred, and so embarrassingly uninformed on the subjects necessary to understand what took place--whether it was Lincoln's administration or FDR's. Have fun in your sand box all by yourself--maybe Water Boy will join you.

Anyone who alleges that Lincoln commanded any troops in the field is so deluded as not to be worthy of serious debate.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You allege a scandal where none existed.

That ez for U to say.
The guys who had to put up with those 88s,
with their tinfoil-like "armor" might not agree with u.
The scandal was in the fact that Roosevelt kept on getting MORE
of the inferior tanks built & sold to the Army,
as if no problem existed and the soldiers in Armor
had no reason to complain.

U defend him on a purely ad hominem basis.
I wonder what u 'd say, if a conservative President
had committed the same passive treachery.

Setanta wrote:

This is just your typical hyperbolic political rant.
There's not point in attempting to converse with someone who is so full
of warped political hatred, and so embarrassingly uninformed
on the subjects necessary to understand what took place

U have offered no factual exculpation, justifying the delay
in getting the troops those beloved 90s.
Mr. Parados' opinions to the contrary notwithstanding,
making 90mm tubes is not like figuring out how to split the atom.

Setanta wrote:

--whether it was Lincoln's administration or FDR's.
Have fun in your sand box all by yourself--maybe Water Boy will join you.

Anyone who alleges that Lincoln commanded any troops
in the field is so deluded as not to be worthy of serious debate.

I did not expect to be challenged on that.
I had not prepared proof thereof.
My efforts at finding proof thru Google proved fruitless.
I believed that this was sufficiently well known
as not to be in controversy, but I have not found the details
and I don 't remember them. I received this information
from a very reliable source, good old Capt. Diorio,
a Professor of Military Science who addressed our Military Science
class with it, during our study of the history of the Civil War.
I remember him telling the class, sua sponte that Lincoln was both
the Commander-in-Chief and the commanding general
in the Battle of Whateveritwas, on whichever date.
I don 't believe that the Captain woud have beguiled the class with deception.
This was well over 50 years ago, and alas, my memory fails qua the details.
I expect that I probably WILL find it, but it does not look too good for today.

I posted this thread out of shock
qua this scandal, as hereinabove described,
because of the misfortune that Roosevelt passively inflicted upon them,
betraying their trust, not merely out of my rejection of Roosevelt's ideology.

Bad guys can do BAD things, actively or thru passive neglect.

0 Replies

pphhhfffttt:: Lincoln couldn't bring himself to fire McClellan.

As for Nixon and Watergate and war dead: Just calculate the numbers killed between May 1972 and August 9th 1974. If RMN had resigned the moment he heard what his idiotic staff had been up to, maybe the war could have been ended much much sooner.

Joe(Of course, god knows what Spiro would have done.)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

pphhhfffttt:: Lincoln couldn't bring himself to fire McClellan.

As for Nixon and Watergate and war dead: Just calculate the numbers killed between May 1972 and August 9th 1974.
If RMN had resigned the moment he heard what his idiotic staff had been up to, maybe [??] the war could
have been ended much much sooner.

Joe(Of course, god knows what Spiro would have done.)Nation

0 Replies

By continuing to buy KNOWN inferior Sherman tanks
and continuing having more of them made (instead of GOOD tanks with GOOD armor and GOOD artillery),
Roosevelt was, in effect, adopting a "human wave" philsosphy of warfare,
for which the Red Chinese were known a few years later. In other words, as an anti-Individualist,
Roosevelt was willing to sacrifice Individual American soldiers
who were patriotic enuf and brave enuf to ride in those flimsy tanks,
because as a collectivist, Roosevelt cared very little about INDIVIDUAL American citizens.
He coud have fought the tank v. tank war on a capital intensive basis.
He preferred to fight it on a labor intensive basis (that individual American citizens were expendable).

Roosevelt was willing to put American troops into David and Goliath positions, against the Tigers.

Roosevelt's choice to send Americans in Shermen
against those well-armored Tiger tanks, with their 88s,
was not much better than sending them on bicycles with sling shots.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I'm not so sure that is a reliable analysis Dave.
True, the sherman was a much lighter tank than the panzer or the heavier tiger. However the Germans weren't able to field the tiger in great enough numbers, the panzer was also much slower to replace.
The sherman had the advantage of being cheap and easy to produce, along with the advantage of superior mobility.
The American philosophy was one of speed, combined with airpower to destroy Germany's capacity to replace those tigers and panzers.
At the time, there was much concern that we could not allow Germany the time to reorganize their war machine, that the cost of lives in a protracted war against an entrenched Germany would be great.
The allies experience with a war of attrition in WW1 was enough to cause us to decide on a course designed to prevent that happening again.

The shermans suffered the heaviest losses early on, after the tankers learned how to use the combined advantages of speed and numbers, the situation changed dramatically.

1 Reply

Faith in Government: JUSTIFIED???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know