"On the morning of April 14th, 1943, a German engineer named Wanner stood at the edge of a concrete apron at Kummersdorf Proving Ground, 20 mi south of Berlin, staring at something that should not have existed. It was an American tank, an M4A1 Sherman, serial number USA 3067641. Cast hull, 75-mm gun, olive drab paint still showing the desert dust of North Africa.
"Someone had chalked armor thickness measurements on every surface, front, sides, turret, mantlet, each number followed by the angle of the plate. The Germans had been thorough. They always were. But, the numbers were not what stopped him. He climbed up onto the hull. The metal was cold under his palms. He lowered himself through the commander’s hatch, feet finding the turret basket floor.
"And for a moment, he just stood there in the fighting compartment, looking around. And that is when something changed. Not in the tank, in him. What this engineer saw inside that turret, what he touched, what he tested, what he wrote in his report, would quietly unravel everything the German armored corps believed about the enemy they were fighting.
"Not about American courage, not about American numbers, about something far more dangerous than either. This is that story. If the story of what Americans built and what it took to win matters to you, hit subscribe and the like button. It helps this channel reach the people who care. The Sherman sitting on the concrete at Kummersdorf had a name." . . .
Millionaire Yachting There are numerous historical problems here, ranging from outright errors to invented details.
1. The date at Kummersdorf is wrong or at least unsupported.
The post claims 14 April 1943 and gives a precise serial number, but there is no well-documented evidence that an M4A1 with that serial was being examined at Kummersdorf on that specific day. German testing of captured Shermans certainly occurred in 1943, but the exact date and circumstances appear to be invented.
2. The engineer "Wanner".
I am not aware of any documented German engineer at Kummersdorf named Wanner who wrote a famous report about a Sherman changing his view of Allied tank design. This reads like historical fiction.
3. "War Daddy the Second".
This is almost certainly fabricated.
"War Daddy" is famous because of the 2014 film Fury, whose Sherman carried that name.
There is no evidence that a Sherman of the 1st Armored Division in Tunisia was named "War Daddy the Second." It looks like the author borrowed a famous fictional name to make the story more engaging.
4. Unit designation.
It should be 3rd Battalion, 1st Armored Regiment, 1st Armored Division, not "Third Battalion, First Armored Regiment, First Armored Division of United States Army." That's not how the U.S. Army designated units.
5. Sidi Bou Zid date is wrong. This is the biggest factual error.
The Battle of Sidi Bou Zid began on 14 February 1943, but:
The German attack began before dawn on 14 February.
The major American armoured counterattacks involving Shermans occurred 15 February, not the morning of the 14th.
The post compresses several days into one.
6. "51 Shermans rolled out by midday." I have never seen a primary source supporting exactly 51 Shermans in that counterattack. It looks like a made-up precision figure.
7. "Most had never heard a tank gun fired in anger." This is dramatic rather than historical. Many soldiers had never been in combat, but that's true of almost every army entering battle for the first time.
8. "Quietly unravel everything the German armored corps believed." This is pure clickbait. German reports on the Sherman were generally favourable regarding:
reliability,
crew ergonomics,
visibility,
radio equipment.
But they did not conclude that it revolutionised their understanding of tank warfare." . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment