Tactics is a mixture of what works, in general, and what works with the equipment you have in the field with you.
WWII armor is another hobby of mine, and in general, the comments are correct, but I would make a couple of points...
General Patton himself was involved in the decision not to field a heavier tank than the Sherman. It wasn't a matter of that we couldn't make one, or ship it, it was that we could ship 2 (almost 3) Shermans for the same effort. (no, its not straight math, shipping a 60 ton tank is more work than shipping two 30 ton tanks.) And this decision was made well before we got into ground combat in Europe.
Later, when it became obvious, even to a General that a heavier tank would be needed, we did produce the Pershing, although we only managed to get a handful into combat at the end of the war in Europe.
We "could" have built the T-34, except for the fact that hell would freeze over before the Soviets gave US anything but grief, while taking everything we offered, and denying it helped.
Kosh, I have seen the movie, I was making a joke. And the fighter has the wrong markings for that time & place. And there is a difference between the M3 Lee /Grant and the M4 Sherman.
I was going to recommend Belton Cooper's book, it is a real eye opener. He was featured in a History Channel show several years back.
WWII revealed a LOT of flaws in US pre-war doctrine, in armor, in small arms training, aircraft, a lot of things. We made do, and as better equipment appeared, adapted our tactics to make best use of it.
One classic example is small arms training. What was taught to recruits in the States was classic pre-war doctrine until fairly late in the war. Essentially it was 'a soldier was expected to shoot only when he had a target" (enemy soldier) and suppressive fire was the job of the machine guns.
The first thing combat vets taught new recruits about shooting was, "if you see a bush that might have a Jap in it, shoot it". (or something similar).
I thought that the show "The Pacific" was very well done, having read the books its based on I was impressed. Not sure the sexual adventures of the characters was needed for the story, nor as graphically as portrayed, but that's just me.
WWII armor is another hobby of mine, and in general, the comments are correct, but I would make a couple of points...
General Patton himself was involved in the decision not to field a heavier tank than the Sherman. It wasn't a matter of that we couldn't make one, or ship it, it was that we could ship 2 (almost 3) Shermans for the same effort. (no, its not straight math, shipping a 60 ton tank is more work than shipping two 30 ton tanks.) And this decision was made well before we got into ground combat in Europe.
Later, when it became obvious, even to a General that a heavier tank would be needed, we did produce the Pershing, although we only managed to get a handful into combat at the end of the war in Europe.
We "could" have built the T-34, except for the fact that hell would freeze over before the Soviets gave US anything but grief, while taking everything we offered, and denying it helped.
Kosh, I have seen the movie, I was making a joke. And the fighter has the wrong markings for that time & place. And there is a difference between the M3 Lee /Grant and the M4 Sherman.
I was going to recommend Belton Cooper's book, it is a real eye opener. He was featured in a History Channel show several years back.
WWII revealed a LOT of flaws in US pre-war doctrine, in armor, in small arms training, aircraft, a lot of things. We made do, and as better equipment appeared, adapted our tactics to make best use of it.
One classic example is small arms training. What was taught to recruits in the States was classic pre-war doctrine until fairly late in the war. Essentially it was 'a soldier was expected to shoot only when he had a target" (enemy soldier) and suppressive fire was the job of the machine guns.
The first thing combat vets taught new recruits about shooting was, "if you see a bush that might have a Jap in it, shoot it". (or something similar).
I thought that the show "The Pacific" was very well done, having read the books its based on I was impressed. Not sure the sexual adventures of the characters was needed for the story, nor as graphically as portrayed, but that's just me.