The Parrish Principle

[Murray B]

Originally Posted by HairyEyeball

Canadians weren't the only ones attacking Tigers with Shermans - we did, because it was all we had. If you can find photos of WW II Shermans, you'll see them loaded with timber, sandbags, and old road wheels as 'field expedient armor', for just that purpose.

This is an example of what I call the Parrish principle that came from Colonel Gary L. Parrish, who said, “When confronted with the reality of defeat, a nation will modify systems in their inventory to meet the challenges of their adversaries.” From page 62 of the July/August 2006 edition of "World War II" magazine.

Originally Posted by JohnP

The primary way to defeat "Tigers" in the open was to swarm them. Fill the field with so many targets that eventually you'll get within range and blast them from the rear and sides. (The Tiger was so well armored in the front that, even in close range, the 75 was ineffectual.)

The only swarming that I have read about was on the Eastern Front and that is based on historical gobbeldygook that your government actually paid Russian contractors for. The stuff is so bad that they declare that the original KV-85 had a Stalin turret and that was then fit onto a T-34 hull. This claim persists even though T-34s obviously do not have the giant Stalin turret that was developed to accommodate the huge 4.8” gun.

Do you know of any veteran approved sources of your WWII history so I can learn more about how they used tanks? I’m not that interested in stuff from civilian historians because most of it is wrong. The dead deserve the truth or, at least, a version of history consistent with the facts.

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by Murray B

The only swarming that I have read about was on the Eastern Front...

Swarm tactics is not an official military term. I used it only as an easily identifiable term for those not skilled in tactical use. The tactical term I should have use is “massed attack with local superiority in numbers.” Most recently, this has been the tactic of the former Soviet Union when deploying tanks on line.

Originally Posted by Murray B

Do you know of any veteran approved sources of your WWII history so I can learn more about how they used tanks?

For good armor reading about WWII:

Panzer Tactics: German Small-Unit Armor Tactics in World War II - Wolfgang Schneider

Wolfgang Schneider has written the definitive account of German small-unit armor tactics. Using period training manuals, after-action reports, countless interviews with Panzer veterans, and his own experiences as an armor commander in the modern Germany Army, Schneider describes World War II Panzer tactics, coupling his narrative with scores of illustrations that highlight armor concepts. Schneider covers the major types of small-unit operational art -- offensive and defensive -- and also discusses road marches, reconnaissance, command and control, working with other arms of service, life in a tank, armor training, gunnery, and the future of armor. The book provides useful insight into armor tactics for both the layman and the armor enthusiast.

The Lorraine Campaign – Hugh M. Cole

The Battle of Arracourt was a World War II clash of U.S. and German armored forces near the town of Arracourt, Lorraine, France, during September 18–29, 1944.
The German Fifth Panzer Army had as its objective the recapture of Lunéville and the collapse of the U.S. XII Corps bridgehead over the Moselle River at Dieulouard. Having a local superiority in troops and tanks, the German tankers expected to deliver a sharp defeat to the defending 4th Armored Division. Flaunting German expectations, the 4th Armored Division proved by far to have superior training and command of armored tactics, thoroughly defeating two Panzer brigades and elements of two Panzer divisions.

The 4th Armored: From the Beach to Bastogne -

"The 4th Armored: From the Beach to Bastogne" is a small booklet covering the history of the 4th Armored Division. This booklet is one of the series of G.I. Stories published by the Stars & Stripes in Paris in 1944-1945.

Notice that recent books about the tactical use of armor on the WW II battlefield are becoming more anecdotal than ever with the loss of so many veteran's of that era. (1500 per day)

Originally Posted by Murray B

I’m not that interested in stuff from civilian historians because most of it is wrong. The dead deserve the truth or, at least, a version of history consistent with the facts.

"Truth, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder." - Michael W. Reynolds

[Murray B]

Originally Posted by JohnP

The tactical term I should have use is “massed attack with local superiority in numbers.”

So, are you saying that U.S. forces used “massed attack with local superiority in numbers” with M4s (called Shermans in British service) when attacking German armour?

Originally Posted by JohnP

For good armor reading about WWII:

Panzer Tactics: German Small-Unit Armor Tactics in World War II - Wolfgang Schneider
The Lorraine Campaign – Hugh M. Cole
The 4th Armored: From the Beach to Bastogne -

Thanks for the pointers and I will take a look at these books.

The Germans have always emphasized tactics but never seemed to give proper consideration to logistics. They were constantly running out of fuel on the Eastern front and when logistical nightmares like the Panther and Tiger went into service the problem became acute.

The U.S. during the same period does seem to think about logistics. The 4th Armored reminds me of a surprising story about the logistically beautiful Buick Hellcats that were called M18s in U.S. service. [I had a ’69 Wildcat with the 430 V-8 and it was the best car I ever owned so I have a great fondness for Buicks to begin with.] The 40,000 pound Hellcats of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion attached to 4th Armored destroyed 100,000 pound Panthers by the kiloton at a 5:1 ratio. It is really these Gun Motor Carriages that were meant for tank fighting and not the general-purpose Shermans. The M4s were just too slow, too tall, and too thin on the sides, to be good at fighting tanks that had been specifically made for fighting other tanks. Nonetheless the M4s were what was most available in the west and so that it what they used.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Notice that recent books about the tactical use of armor on the WW II battlefield are becoming more anecdotal than ever with the loss of so many veteran's of that era. (1500 per day)

This is sad but I guess it is how things have always been. Those veterans are a source of accurate history and we need that more than ever. Even now there are young people that believe that U.S. and Nazi forces fought together against the Axis Communists in WWII and won. My father-in-law, a former Lancaster tail-gunner that was shot down over Germany and captured, tells a different story. How long, I wonder, will it take for the historians to completely fictionalize the period after the all the veterans are gone?

Originally Posted by JohnP

"Truth, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder." - Michael W. Reynolds

Well, I’m not a big fan of moral relativism so,
I’ll see you with Aldous Huxley’s, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
and raise you Abraham Lincoln’s, “...calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.”

[03_SHOOTER]

Originally Posted by Murray B

Well, I’m not a big fan of moral relativism so,
I’ll see you with Aldous Huxley’s, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
and raise you Abraham Lincoln’s, “...calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.”

Having, like JohnP, been a student of Mike's, I feel it necessary to clarify the statement. The statement, "Truth, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder", was not meant as a moral relativism, but a statement of fact. For example, if 10 people were standing on the 4 corners of an intersection, and they all witnessed a traffic accident, you would get 10 varyingly different stories on what happened. It's not that anyone is being "morally relative", it's simply that people naturally see things from their own perspective, and depending on where you are in relation to the incidents unfolding around you, your 'truth' may be quite different from someone else who witnessed the exact same thing.

Where moral relativism comes into play is when people begin attempting to make a judgment about those unfolding events based on their own personal belief system rather than simply sticking to facts and evidence. For instance, if an anarchist witnessed the accident, he may say that it was the governments fault because they had no right to attempt to restrict peoples movement by installing the lights in the first place. Socialists would claim that it was Conservatives fault by not raising taxes enough to be able to pay for more Police in order to have had one actually in the intersection in the first place. Of course the average rational citizen would say that it was the fault of the ditsy chick who was talking on her cell phone and doing her hair and makeup in the rear view mirror and steering with her knee when she ran the red light and t-boned the vehicle that was crossing the intersection on the "green".

Of course the raving, mouth breathing, gutless, cheese-eating, barking moonbat, surrender monkey, Libtard, Rosie O'Fatass's would claim that it was George Bush's fault because he lied about WMD's and sent troops into Iraq without a declaration of War.

[Murray B]

Originally Posted by 03_SHOOTER

Having, like JohnP, been a student of Mike's, I feel it necessary to clarify the statement. The statement, "Truth, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder", was not meant as a moral relativism, but a statement of fact.

Many years ago I read a similar quote that is now posted at http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/127.html and it goes, "Competence, like truth, beauty and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder.
Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle (1969), chapter 1, US educator & writer (1919 - 1988)"

This is probably not the original, however , because if we look at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

there are the same concepts like:

"Nietzsche's 1880's notebooks also repeatedly state that “there are no facts, only interpretations.”"

and

"Some scholars regard Nietzsche's 1873 unpublished essay, “On Truth and Lies in an Nonmoral Sense” (“Über Wahrheit und Lüge im außermoralischen Sinn”) as a keystone in his thought. In this essay, Nietzsche rejects the idea of universal constants, and claims that what we call “truth” is only “a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms.” His view at this time is that arbitrariness prevails within human experience: concepts originate via the transformation of nerve stimuli into images, and “truth” is nothing more than the invention of fixed conventions for practical purposes, especially those of repose, security and consistency."

Nietzche died at the beginning of the 20th century and it is said that he was insane at the end. From the look of it he was insane long before that. He was against democracy, communism and religion and other similar things. His work was later used by the Nazis to justify [or point out that there was no need to justify] their murderous actions. He was, I think, a moral relativist and his ideas were just plain stupid. Too bad his work has not been forgotten.