"While DeJohn was serving in Bosnia, he started getting anti-war e-mails, called “teach-ins” from Professor Richard Immerman, chairman of Temple’s history department. DeJohn responded with a request that the e-mails be stopped.

When he returned from active duty and tried to re-enroll in Temple as a graduate student, he was told he had been expelled because he had not asked permission to leave the university.

DeJohn produced copies of his written request, with copies of his orders to deploy. Temple officials then attributed the situation to “computer error.”

However, two professors whose classes he took, Gregory Urwin’s “Comparative History of Modern Warfare” and Immerman’s “American Diplomatic History,” included diatribes against the military and the Iraq war, he said.

During the course of those lectures, DeJohn expressed conservative opinions.

The primary reader of his thesis, Dr. Jay Lockenour, was ready to sign off on it but when DeJohn needed a secondary reader, Urwin refused to approve it.

Lockenour advised him to register to graduate in May 2005, but it didn’t happen.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2008/08/73072/#yeTxJTmYXeBXG1Ui.99

So is this thread about the Sherman book or your beef with Temple.....
Why are you repeatedly posting about your disagreement with Temple. It may have been written in your time there but what relevance does that have to the content of the book.

He is hoping people will conflate 2 issues. He sued Temple over a 'Free Speech' issue and won. When he submitted his work it was rejected as rubbish. He claims the reason for his failure was Temple getting revenge for his suing them. He can not accept the fact his work was sub-standard. He is now playing the full-time victim and when refused a post at Carlisle he sued them (but lost) saying they were conspiring with Temple and further that Carlisle were 'anti-miltary'!
The work rejected as 'juvenile' is his Sherman fantasy.

We are scale modelers. I would like the thoughts on this topic from former WW2 American tankers. I would also like to see further figures on German tank kill ratios as well as American tank kill ratios too.
I pose this question to all. Would you rather be in a Panther or Tiger during WW2 or a Sherman?

Considering the war was over 71 years ago putting the age of any surviving WWII tankers in the 90's, I doubt we'll hear much from them. Also considering what time does to memories, such as those of B. Cooper, I'm not sure we'd get anything that would be as accurate as AAR's and any other documents that were written right after the action happened. And these documents have been used to write numerous books already so there is nothing new to be brought to the table. Just different takes and distortion of facts by history revisionists.

Some interesting comments here. I did not look at all the comments so I don't know if this was brought up.

One point that is often overlooked is the fact that the M4 series was intended to fight a war on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and that created limitations on the design.

On a personal note, if only McNair had agreed to arm the M4's with the 17 pounder, in a properly designed turret.

Quoted Text

---

Some interesting comments here. I did not look at all the comments so I don't know if this was brought up.

One point that is often overlooked is the fact that the M4 series was intended to fight a war on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and that created limitations on the design.

On a personal note, if only McNair had agreed to arm the M4's with the 17 pounder, in a properly designed turret.

---

You make a very valid point and it was covered. Shipping Shermans was a lot easier and the old chestnut of getting pershings earlier would have caused immense shipping problems 2-1 Shermans vs Pershing but more importantly building up the vast logistic tail of spares etc. Add to that the changes required to bridging equipment which proved a real game changer in NWE and other transporter issues you can easily see that it would have delayed D-Day by at least a year or more (Just in time to meet the USSR in Normandy)

On a personal note, if only McNair had agreed to arm the M4's with the 17 pounder, in a properly designed turret.

Quoted Text

---

On a personal note, if only McNair had agreed to arm the M4's with the 17 pounder, in a properly designed turret.

---

Guess you missed the remarks about how the US Ordnance dept didn't think that highly of the 17lb and it wasn't a significant improvement over a 76mm with proper ammo.

Also consider this:

The T-34/85 had sloped/angled armor that was effectively 90mm thick on its front hull.

The Tiger I had 100mm of nearly vertical armor on its front hull

If anything the T-34/85 might be better protected since it had sloped armor vs vertical armor on the Tiger.

When Allied Forces ran into the T-34 in Korea, I don't recall any reports of the M4A3(76) with proper AP shells having issues taking them out.

I might also have said, if only McNair had put that 90mm gun in a properly designed Sherman turret!

Quoted Text

---

I might also have said, if only McNair had put that 90mm gun in a properly designed Sherman turret!

---

Given what the doctrine was of the US Armor Forces and Tank Destroyer Force...well it would have never happened.

Esp when you had some thing like this already:



which is a M36 turret in a M4A3 hull.

From the book's Forward by COL David Johnson, AUS (Ret.):

"This is an angry book, and rightly so, based on the evidence author DeJohn has uncovered in his exhaustive research."

"DeJohn brings the voice of the American enlisted soldier into the discussion about the failure of one of the key US fighting vehicles of WWII- the M4 Sherman tank."

"DeJohn brings the pragmatic views of the Cavalry Sergeant to the Sherman tank controversy."

"As DeJohn eloquently points out, Allied tankers paid a heavy price of the US Army's prewar institutional failures."