Why is this book so hated?

lewd!

This.

Belton Y. Cooper?

More like
Beltin' my pooper

Attached: Mizuki Exercise.png (1205x981, 327K)

It's an important reminder that veteran =/= expert. Veterans writing about their own experiences have formed their own personal conclusions and may have gotten some things wrong due to misunderstanding/misremembering. It's not specific to Cooper's book, there are other works out there where the author gives their opinions and where they also make some factual mistakes.
The problem with Cooper's book, and how it was received, was that it pushes conspiracy theories that the M4 was designed poorly and that certain Army officers personally stopped the M26 from being deployed. Thus depriving the American soldier in Europe a valuable asset, or so the book claims.

Even the title of his book reflects poorly on the M4 and the reasons he gave for labeling them "death traps" are flawed when thinking about any other tank of the era. He only considers the tanks he saw knocked out, concluding his experiences must have been the norm and if he rarely saw functioning M4s then they were rare in general. Furthermore, he acts like the M26 would have been some amazing tank and that not issuing them immediately is comparable to the Army sabotaging the war effort and killing Americans. The Army Ordnance Dept. looked at the M26 and found its design underperming at the time (This is reiterated when they were later deployed in Korea and had issues, being replaced with older M4 tanks). The M26 in WW2 was still a prototype and the Ordnance Dept. took the hard stance that they would not be rushing weapons to deployment and using the European Theater as a testing ground. The Army could have been given M26 tanks prior to D-Day (Or even M4 tanks armed with 90mm guns- pic related), there likely would not have been any advantage to operations as a whole.

Attached: T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg (800x488, 273K)

Yeah Cooper made up a bunch of shit and invented a sensational title to sell books. Nobody would have bought a book that was titled "The M4 was a completely reasonable tank" and contained 500 pages of someone saying "It was pretty OK"

Oops. One small typo.
>The Army Ordnance Dept. looked at the M26 and found its design underperforming* at the time

That's true. It's sensationalism to attract more attention. At least the title, but it doesn't seem like it was (entirely) Cooper trying to bring attention to himself and his book. He genuinely believed the claims he made and many people who read his book believed those claims.
I've never really heard of such harsh criticisms of the M4 prior to Death Traps being written and becoming so widely spread. The book did a large amount of damage to the reputation of the M4 tank and in some ways to the US Army as a whole. By making people think they really didn't care about the lives of the men being put into those tanks. Which is an absurd claim.

>when all the Russian crewman died in such numbers that they couldn't write T-34, the rolling gulag

Attached: 1527007683924.png (549x280, 186K)

>Pic
Why didn't they do this? Too heavy? Too hard to ship?

I've heard one of the reasons it took so long for the M26 to see service in Europe was due to a lack of cranes that could load it onto a ship.

Some increase in weight, not nearly as much as changing the M4 out for an entire M26.
Biggest reason was there no major need for making the 90mm gun standard. Tanks would carry less ammunition, a loader's performance would be reduced when using heavier ammo, and the gunner would have a harder time following up shots due to recoil and dust kicked up. The Army concluded that 76mm gun would be fine for most things and with the HVAP round even heavier German armor could be penetrated.
The thinking of the soldiers in the Pacific was a bit different, they still preferred the 75mm gun because it had a better HE performance than the 76mm

That's part of it. The M26 was a heavy tank, you couldn't fit as many onto a ship and they were restricted in where they could be offloaded.

It was just a medium tank. Why do people think that it was supposed to be invincible? If your opponents have parity with you which the Germans had then both sides will take losses.

>Hurr Durr Shermans were deathtraps.

Yeah not really. If the tank randomly caught fire or lost its brakes then yeah. But getting blown up in an assault, no. Also, Shermans had to be on the attack. You need a minimum of 3:1 force ratio to attack ab enemy with parity.

By the way, this whole argument bypasses the point that Hitler was right.

Hitler pushed for the idiotic heavy tank programs Germany kept trying to develop, he was not right.
The only good thing Hitler did in WW2 was kill Hitler.

It's obvious that there are going to be dead people in those things, it's a battlefield. It was a waste of paper to tell us this.

I’d imagine that tankers in the Pacific were generally more concerned with bunkers and such, also.

>posts about a book called "death traps" on Jow Forums
>no goth trannies
I don't even know what this place is anymore.

Someone should remind whatever is left of that crew that they did not take advantage of the statistical high availability rate of their tank.

Attached: 1481854213002.jpg (537x521, 106K)

>Stats and figures hold less weight than anecdotes

Attached: 1538337258411.png (1440x1557, 738K)

>Being in an M4 in WW2 was objectively the safest place to be.

You could say the same for the American infantryman in 1944-1945.

Since the war was fought on the Eastern Front, and there were almost no German armored or serious combat units on the Western front, Allied tanks and infantry enjoyed a theatre of operations that was more similar to peace time.

The only US services who proved their worth in a war of extermination with the Japs were the USMC and the handful of Army units in the Pacific.

Attached: SHzHiKD.jpg (1000x750, 240K)

The sample size and methodology was flawed and did not show the shortcomings of the tank.

The American tankers were saved by the fact the German tank formations were fighting the Russians and they encountered almost no armor in 1944.

>T-34, the rolling gulag
I don't know why I laughed so hard at this

Fighting in conjunction with infantry through hedgerows concealing tons of Pak 38s and 40s, Panzerfausts, and Stugs is a much more dangerous area for a tank to operate than wide-open eastern European steppes where your superiority numbers can just encircle and destroy the enemy.

>b-but the Tigers broke down sometimes!

Attached: 1490835447753.png (635x643, 866K)

>his first hand experience isn't important at all

>You could say the same for the American infantryman in 1944-1945.
HAHAHA
Want me to list all the units that suffered over 100% casualties?

This is a really good post. Posts like this are why I still hang around Jow Forums.

Attached: anime_girl_brunette_knife_spirit_20364_3840x2400.jpg (3840x2400, 913K)

That was the main reason why. Japanese didn't have all that much armor and were fighting more from emplacements. In general, the 75mm gun worked fine for a lot of armor even in Europe, it was only the heavier stuff that made some of the commanders and Ordnance guys start worrying and looking for more penetration.

>He only considers the tanks he saw knocked out, concluding his experiences must have been the norm
I think Abraham Wald's example for selection bias hits harder, but since this one is the exact opposite selection problem, I'll keep it in mind.

>Handful of army units in the pacific
>22 divisions
>USMC had 6

Army did the majority of the fighting in the pacific. The marines just had some of the worst battles.

>Daily reminder no Marines fought in Europe

Almost like the person who patches tanks is only ever going to run into tanks that need patching and never hear about all the other thanks that didn't need a patching?

>Daily reminder no Marines fought in Europe
Are you trolling?
Have you never heard of Peter J. Ortiz?

Because it was bullshit

>Peter J. Ortiz
Oh wow so you know of one marine or a few literal handfuls of marines in Europe. I seem to recall Guadalcanal couldn't be taken without the Army's help.

>makes universal negation statement
>presented with counter example
>Shifts the subject to an unrelated topic.
You need to be 18 to post on Jow Forums.

This is 4channel.

I think the problem wasn't a shitty Sherman tank, but an obsolete design.
You join a war without having veteran tank units.
Your main tank is a medium tank that is best for supporting infantry against infantry.
The crews suddenly face veteran crews in heavy tanks and tank destroyers.
>They get blasted to shit
What a surprise.

Okay, you are right kiddo

It was harder to fap to than expected, but not impossible thus wasting a lot of our collective time.

Underrated post

Don't forget that your opponent is fighting a defensive war against your tanks almost the entire time, making your job all the harder.

About the Jews, user

His experience is only relevant to tank recovery yet he claimed to be an expert in design and combat. He saw loads of knocked out tanks in his job, which would've literally been the case in any other country, and was convinced that the vehicle was terrible even though he only looked at a very small part of a much bigger picture. He had never actually been in combat with the enemy, but was convinced their tanks were better even though the Pz IV that made up much of the enemies armor was roughly equal to the Sherman. Having dealt with so many burned out M4s he assumed that they were just highly flammable, even though it was general practice for the Germans to fire on them until they burned to make recovery nearly impossible. He in fact discredits his own experience by trying to make it relevant in areas that it isn't, virtually every claim is an assumption on his part.

Yeah, I'm sure some chart compiled off a statistically flawed method is a better representation of the merits of the vehicle rather than someone who had to scoop up intestines from perforated wrecks.

>Oh boy! It's *this* kind of thread again

Attached: BaltoSmile.gif (245x152, 653K)

I take the train into work everyday. Sure as shit doesn't make me a quotable expert on traffic planning.

>his first hand experience isn't important at all
He was never actually in combat.

Considering he didn't even know how the vehicles were typically destroyed, yes the statistics are far more useful. He literally saw burned wrecks and immediately assumed they were burned under regular combat conditions, not that the enemy was deliberately making an effort to burn as many vehicles as they could after they were initially knocked out. That and he completely destroys any credibility he might've had by just making stuff up.

The sherman wasn't even obsolete. The Grant entered the war before the Sherman had finished testing, unless your implication is that the Sherman was already obsolete

The first T26s to be sent over to Europe weren't built until like January/February 1945. Ordnance wanted to be damn sure the tank was actually worth it, and actually rejected sending T26s over for combat trials a few times since "the battleground is not a laboratory".

Yeah, but it gives you a better idea of the handling and ride quality than some pie chart.

Attached: 1523621170239.jpg (300x225, 8K)

Cooper never even crewed or fought in a Sherman in actual combat. All he did was tow them around. Going by your standard, Cooper is still full of shit.

How about all those tankers who actively REFUSED to upgrade their 75mm Shermans to 76mm? They must have thought their Shermans were such piles of shit, right?

> I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about but will shit all over the thread like the big dumb retard I am: Retardation 2: The Retardening

Just like I don't give a shit what a medic thinks of a sniper section, I don't give a shit what a tow specialist thinks of a tank platoon.

>T-34, the rolling gulag
can't stop loling

Attached: 1528336820924.gif (245x245, 643K)

Uh, yes? Hard data trumps some pog who wasn't even a tanker. Any evidence for flawed methodology?

Attached: Master Shake Reaction.png (540x405, 283K)

I did three combat tours in Afghanistan. That doesn't make me an expert on COIN.

>dude kill the poor farmer/craftsmen Jews and let all the rich nation destroying Jews go lmao
No Hitler was wrong on the Jews too and also arguably a Zionist

>ITT: retards who don't understand that the Sherman was better than literally every tank made in WW2.
The M4 had a good gun, great logistics, good speed, amazing crew survivability, great reliability, the literal only tank of WW2 with universal parts, good armor, great crew space, etc. etc. If you think the krauts had a better design go ahead and post it the only tank I can see that would rival the M4 would be the Pz.III line of tanks or the T-34 line of tanks

So this is the power of vatnik delusion...

And you're a nigger.

Not if that pie chart was made by transit engineers.

>T-34, the rolling gulag

POST OF THE YEAR

Attached: 1541119478559.gif (255x186, 2.14M)

>For years in the aftermath of WW2 the M4 was received poorly, partly due to hyperbole and memes. But these memes were based on the real-life experience of, and were circulated by, soldiers.
>Decades later the people who actually been there done that are dead and skinny nerds "ACKTUHALY" all over real life testimony.
Has it right. The M4 has its advantages and was a tank made to win a war, not to save soldier's lives. And it fucking won the war so good on the Sherman. But all the statistics on drivetrain failures and metallurgical numbers in the world won't keep your intestines in your body when you get a pak40 up the ass.

The amount of nerdy fucking nonsense about these tanks is kind of irrelevant in the real world and to the people who used them. Typically with weapons, any statistical advantage may be visible on the strategic scale and I suppose the strategic scale decides who wins the war, but like the saying goes; If you give one guy an AK and one guy an AR who wins? The better soldier.

>40113456
so far you suffer irrecoverable losses to statistics and data.
But you are welcome to try harder Dima.

Attached: 1541547701614m.jpg (1024x745, 84K)

Ah, the infamous Sherman. Often referred to as the 'Tommy Cooker' by the Germans. The nickname referred to when the Germans starving from lack of rations, would scavenge destroyed Sherman tanks for the precious cooked meat inside. In fact, the designers of the Sherman designed it to light every time, so that cooking of the crews was guaranteed. Of course, the Germans would often eat the allied tank crews whether they were cooked or not, regardless. My grandpappy told me this in great detail when I was a young boy. Truly the horrors of war.

>his first hand experience isn't important at all

This is very, very bad logic.

His first hand experience does not make him right. You have to look at his specific type of experience and reflect his claims on that.

For example, as a mechanical engineer I've taken part in plenty of industrial plant design projects. but I've never designed bridges - other mech.engineers design bridges though.

No matter how many times I say "my first hand experience on mechanical engineering means I'm right", the fact still is that I'd design bridges that would collapse because I'd have no idea what the fuck I am doing! And that applies to this writer too.

Attached: 1536503803569.gif (200x150, 582K)

Remember that the most important use of tanks during ww2 was in fact infantry support, so who gives a fuck if it wasn't quite up to par against german tanks, there where enough of them to support infantry movements.

>T-34, the rolling gulag

Oh fuck my sides

sauce?

>Guy is police diver, has to diveand recover bodies
>sees fuckton of drowned people during his time in service,
>obviously any water is lethal deathtrap, i have seen hundredds of drowned people, and let me tell you that anything deeper than ankle deep puddle is fucking death sentence! Dont question my experience, i have seen hundreds of drowned people, and you know what they have in common? they were all in the water, therefore water is deathtrap, dont question my years of personal experience.

or

>guy is a car mechanic in mercedes service
>all broken cars he sees are mercedes
>hurr, well obviously mercedes cars are terribly unreliable, im fixing them everyday one after another. I have never seen broken peugeot, let me tell you that, but i see broken mercs everyday.

ITs a fucking war, tanks do get destroyed all the time, and if you are POG mechanic that only ever sees the destroyed ones, your image of situation will be distorted. Its not really some rocket science.
Its like ER surgeon in chicago saying that majority americans die from gunshots, because thats what he sees all the time.

Attached: diver.jpg (225x224, 13K)

Your argument is totally valid.

However, your example makes me cringe.

Based on your third paragraph, I doubt you're what you claim to be.

>>>guy is a car mechanic in mercedes service
>>>all broken cars he sees are mercedes
>>>hurr, well obviously mercedes cars are terribly unreliable, im fixing them everyday one after another. I have never seen broken peugeot, let me tell you that, but i see broken mercs everyday.

Thank you for being one of the like 3 people in this thread who get it.

It’s basically like the cops or detectives who investigate the most horridly disgusting crime scenes and deal with the most vile animals dredged up from the underbelly of society. They become jaded and develop a mindset that people are evil in general. Of course they’re going to think that, they’re stuck in that small portion of reality most of their waking hours. It could happen to anyone really. Evolution has designed people to notice trends and use them as information to make later decisions on.... however sometimes we see trends and misinterpret them.

Of course, if your job is to scrape brains and guts out of the inside of tank (really the only widely used tank your country deploys) for 12 hours a day, you’re going to think that a tank, especially that kind of tank, is the last place you want to be... because 90% of the time you see one (by design) there is a dead comrade in it.

Criminally underrated

Stereotypes. Stereotypes galore.

>That same month the Army again briefly considered mounting the Pershing's 90mm gun turret on the Sherman, but since the M26 was anticipated to enter mass production in the months it would have taken to build up a useful number of 90mm Shermans, it was instead decided to concentrate on the new tank.
from afvdatabase.com/history.html

Holy fuck my sides, someone screencap this

>Has it right. The M4 has its advantages and was a tank made to win a war, not to save soldier's lives
it was definitely good at saving peoples lives though
both US and soviet statistics agree the dry storage sherman was safer than the T-34
and US tank branch was the safest branch of the entire army

people have pretty bad experiences in one, but going into battle at all is unlikely to be a pleasant experience
and casualties, gruesome ones, will inevitably happen
but that's gonna happen to every tank, not just the sherman
and when your tank is penetrated, you are gonna want to be in a wet storage sherman and live to tell people how terrifying the experience was rather than in a panzer IV, and tell no one about how you caught fire and died

Because its written by a guy who has zero clue what he's talking about but pretend he's an expert on the subject. He's a POG who towed dead tanks masquerading as an expert on AFV design and doctrine because he was around the things.

>Being a tank janitor with a humans point of view is more credible than after battle studies and statistics gathering by the IS army.

Please see a doctor, just press the little X in the top right of your screen.