No, no, abu ghraib is much more important then this.
Don't you know

Any war is a terrible thing, but, we in the West need to either fight to win, or start bowing towards Mecca now. There are no half way measures. If this means taking on some of the atributes of the enemy, so be it. VDH hit's it out of the ball park again!

It was probably Israel's fault...
No?
The Jews fault. Yes, that's it. The Jews.

That concept of "the side that wins makes the fewest mistakes" is totally lost on the LLL.

And the war might have been over a month earlier had not Patton been set down for slapping a coward.

And don't get me started about MacArthur - his incompetence almost got me killed several times.

Brillant mind at work here. BRAVO BRAVO I think I will contribute to his liq fund over at TCP.

I just posted the following comment a similar piece in the OP-ED section on TCP that was not so eloquent as Mr. Hanson's analysis of why Saddam mattered.

Please excuse the typos I was typing on the fly and wanted to get this up quickly as there is some important info here but not has succint as Mr. Hanson's:

Ron

***

I’ve been following up posts like yours encouraging others to read this very important piece on our site which is sig for both the left and the right. Our country is faced with a clear and present danger by the spread of radical Islamic extremism. The sooner we realize the and unite the better off we wll be able to counter this threat. There are many reasons way we have to take this fight to them. Iraq was only a part and yes we did make mistakes. The signal most thing was taking Dr. A. Q. Kahn out of play in the nuclear black market who effectively destroyed the monitoring processes of nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Not that they were not destined to fail in the future but he sure hurried the process.

He was instramental in facilitating North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and Libya to develop nuclear capabilities far beyond the capacity believed to be the case by the IAEA.

Taking action to counter this threat was crucial.

Take and moment and read this post. This is a message that every American needs to read or at least be aware of the nuclear conspiracies that were afoot. This conspiracy that was brought to light by John Loftus needs to be run to ground to confirm if any of this is true. The media apparently has had no interest in doing so and is camplacently reporting the barbs and torts of the presidential compaign. Sometimes I get the feeling they are purposely doing this to make this a close race only to keep their ratings and circulations up. Go figure.

Here’s the links go read it for yourself and form your own opinions. Please feel free to browse the other info on our forums site:

www.hspig.org

[Link: hspig.org...]

[Link: hspig.org...]

NO WHINNING ON THIS POST until you’ve read these posts and can constructively respond and/or refute John Loftus’ theory.

Ron Wright
[Link: www.hspig.org...]

Posted by: Ron Wrght

Absolutely Brilliant. But what else to expect from VDH?

I am glad that VDH mentioned the horrible Sherman tank and Geroge C. Marshall. In todays media frenzy of anti military pack journalism, Marshall and Eisenhower would be skewered on 60 Minutes and by know nothing Senators.

#4 mbruce:

That concept of "the side that wins makes the fewest mistakes" is totally lost on the LLL.

I'm afraid it's worse than what you're making out; the concept of "win" it totally lost on the LLL.

This history post reminded me of yesterday, heard some 19 year old LLL twit screaching some noamskull choadsky $hit on the Hannity show 'bout the Iraqi civillians killed in the war as being murdered by us... Wonder if the idiot knew how many Euros were caught in the crossfire of WWII. Sorry kids, when war comes, innocent people will die no matter what we do to minimize the casualties and there's no other way to get rid of despots if they refuse to knuckle under. Idiots!

This is all a load of crap, since everone knows that any conflict begun in the fall should be neatly wrapped up by May sweeps week.

Lefty noise: "haliburtonkabalfeithwolfowitzabughraibguantanamo bayfreemumiazionaziracistimperialisthegemonytotall y"

#8 Joel:

In todays media frenzy of anti military pack journalism, Marshall and Eisenhower would be skewered on 60 Minutes and by know nothing Senators.

The idea of outnumbering with cheap stuff came, in part, from watching the Soviets pushing back the Wehrmacht. Unfortuantely, they didn't notice the resulting casualty ratios.

After WWII, the US military swung around to the opposite philosophy leaving the Soviets in the dust. Marshall and Eisenhower (as President) were significant movers in this new direction.

OT - Philippine Troops Start Leaving Iraq

The Philippines began pulling troops out of Iraq Friday to save the life of a Filipino hostage, ignoring calls from the United States and other allies not to bow to kidnappers' demands.

I'm going to laugh my ass off if the terrorists end up killing the guy anyways after the troops are gone.

When did Saddam try to killing a sitting US president? I thought he tried to kill Bush in 1993?

He's a delight to read. No matter what crap has gone on during the week, I always feel better after I read his stuff.

OT: MEMRI posts info about Islamic terrorists Internet dependancy and ISP information.

The freakin mess known as "palestine"

Does VDH speak as well as he writes?

OT Conservatives in UK gunning for "Red" Ken Livingstone. The piece also touches on Ken's disgusting spending spree on minority commitees and the jaw dropping fact that he promised to distribute F911 for the London area if it could find no backers.

Leading London Conservatives have thrown down the gauntlet to Ken Livingstone after the Mayor unveiled extravagant spending plans akin to the notorious binges of the old GLC era.

Please, please do a good job on this Islam-apologizing Marxist!

[Link: www.conservatives.com...]

#18 Bob with one O 

VDH is an eloquent man who speaks reservedly and seriously.

#18 Bob:

I heard Mr. Hanson speak about a 10 years ago when he published his book on CA agriculture, "Field of Broken Dreams." Ocassionally I hear him on Hugh Hewitt, it think. He is an excellent low key speaker. Doesn't shreek or howl. Loves farming.

OT

Whoopi Goldberg quoted:

"America's heart and soul is freedom of expression without fear of reprisal."

I see, as long as you are a LLL, you can say whatever you want and everyone must keep their mouth shut--there are no consequences.

But there is hell to pay for what Rush and OReilly say! Let's haul their asses into prison!

#22 doug:

And one form of expression is to dissociate/distance yourself from rude, vulgar people.

In 1944 the Press was solidly on our side, knowing evil when they saw it. In 2004 the Press is solidly on the other side, not even seeing one of their own (Daniel Pearl) butchered can penetrate the Groupthink.

I've already come to the conclusion that history will be laughing its ass off at some of the charachters involved in this time's drama. Can you imagine someone proudly saying: "Yeah, John F. Kerry is one of my ancestors"

...me either.

In fact, at some point I have to imagine he will be one of the few fools whose name is remembered...the rest of the idiot-crowd's names will be long forgotten.

OT: Children Selected to Stump for Kerry.

My wife told me that six children have been selected to stump for Kerry - attend interviews, give press conferences, etc. Apparently the son of some LLL neighbours of ours was selected. He is 10 years old.

I told her that I thought this was child exploitation and child abuse. Simply disgusting!

OT - Not sure if this has been posted here yet, but it is such a good article that clearly points to how to achieve peace in the middle east, I am sure it would be banned in Canada.

A better framework for peace (1)

A better framework for peace (2)

I'm not counting on 'our' media to win the WoT. Are you? I'm counting on the media doing what they always do - sensationalize anything they feel like pumping while they watches the numbers tick.

The Schulzbergers, Grahams and Turners of this world are not interested in defeating anything other than eachother. Iran will continue to be the major state sponsor of terror in the world and the media wants that. They need a dictator destablizing a region like an H addict needs a needle.

OT

I knew there was something I liked about the new Iraqi PM Allawi. Via a Drudge link, Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers will run a story saying that Allawi personally and spontaneously capped 7 wahabbi foreign fighters at an Iraqi jail. Ruthless!

Link Here

#29 Solomon:

OK - there are two witnesses, each independent, neither of whom can say what date the killings occured.

Great journalism!

It's called rationalization. But a better comparison of conflicts is Vietnam and Iraq because the so-called Iraq War was over in a few weeks and the "Mission (was) Accomplished." Everything else has been a postscript about our lack of foresight.

#5 Walter

My Sisters Father-in-Law, a Bataan death march survivor, hated MacArthur.
My wifes uncle, who served on Pattons staff, has nothing but good things to say about the man.

OT: Military Briefing on Absentee Voting Procedures

Long story short, it looks like the military is taking steps to make sure Democrat lawyers don't disqualify the military vote like they did in 2000.

For examples, Gore's lawyers disqualified hundreds of military ballots because they weren't "cancelled," which military mail typically isn't.

We knew, as a result of those reviews, that we needed to cancel the balloting material, even though it's postage and fees paid and doesn't actually require a cancellation. That was one way that local precincts told us that they judged at what point was the ballot cast, so they knew that. So we now have cancellation materials on every ship and in every military postal unit. And the instructions are that they will cancel balloting materials whether it needs it or not.

I just read the list of ISPs that provide services to terrorists.
It appears to me the people who are paid to monitor the activity of the websites they publish on the internet are not doing their job. It should be brought to isps such as EV1 they are promoting terrorism, and ask them why they don't know what is on their servers.
There is no excuse for this behaviour.

Twenty years from now, if something wonderful has happened in Iraq, the moonbats (most of whom will be well into their dotage) will insist that George W. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with it.

And no one will care what they say. Especially not the Iraqis.

Canadian cable companies say thanks, but no thanks to Al Jazeera. Understandably, the cable industry has no desire to be the Jizz's watchdog and expurgate inappropriately hateful content. Who would want such a thankless, labour intensive task?

Abu maven (#15),

You are correct, sir. The attempt on Bush 41's life was in April 1993; I have written to VDH to notify him, and offered (vainly, once again, I suspect) to be his proofreader.

#31 Joeg

You haven't read my post at #6. Yes, there was a failure in anticipating the problems after we won the war, but we need to stay engaged for must larger reasons then you can imagine.

Please read the link in my post as I suggested.

Thx

Ron

Since the 60's the Baby Boomers and subsequently, their YUPPIE children, have made a science of doing everything PERFECTLY! They had to have the newest, latest, bestest, from trainers to the cars they drive and the 'perfection ethic' carried over into what was expected of others.

Thus we have come to a place where in war, the sentiment that the 'winning side is the one that made the fewest mistakes' is no longer enough. They must make NO mistakes.

Perfection is an ideal but can never be attained, especially in war. Yet these indoctrinated Boomers, aiming for the 'perfect win' are prepared to punish anyone who doesn't do it their way. It is not enough to win; the winner (which MUST be America) must make NO mistakes otherwise the win is discredited and those who attained the win must be publicly scourged and chastised for making ANY mistakes.

How childish! The generals and their bosses in World War II had more sense. They knew the old adage 'you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs' and with the exception of Paton's famous slapping of the young soldier, who he wrongly felt was malingering, this kind of petty punitive action was unknown.

When a society's expectations become unrealistic and the punishment for failure to meet them is the cruel destruction of reputations and character, then maybe that society deserves to fail until they develop a 'winning mentality' which REWARDS EFFORT, rather than PUNISHES FAILURE!

If Roosevelt had been treated the way Bush is by the opposition and the media, there would have been hell to pay for the bombers missing the machine gun nests on Omaha Beach. The vast majority of casulaties from landing on D Day were mowed down like paper targets from nests that we knew were there. And we tried to blow them up: and MISSED.

A similar tactical error in the Iraq War would be all Bush's fault.

2500 casualties a day. Think about that. Cry about that.

36 scaramouche:

At least the for profit sector has brains, even in canada.

#18 Bob with one O

VDH looks and sounds like this:

VDH on CSPAN

(Needs RealPlayer)

Yet General George Marshall had deliberately chosen lighter, cheaper designs — the idea being that thousands of mass-produced, easily maintained 32-ton Shermans could run over enemy infantry before encountering a rarer, superior 43-ton Panther or 56-ton Tiger. Should he have been removed for such naiveté, which led to thousands of American dead? Whom to blame
Per Iraq:
No plan at all! It's a disaster!
/leftie with no historical clue

Dan Dare,

Thanks for the link. I will tip one to you this evening!

#39 Foreign Devil - with all due respect, I was born in 1945 (sort of on the cusp of being a baby boomer, I suppose). As a collegiate graduate, I enlisted in the Army and did my bit in Vietnam. Errors were ANTICIPATED, not unavoidable.
We don't deserve to be punished for mistakes made in war; we deserve to to CONGRATULATED for overcoming those mistakes. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans perished, many as a result of what history now tells us were "mistakes".
Make no mistake about this, my friend, we are going to win. Period. It may take some horrible activities and indeed some unprecendent actions, but we will win. Baby Boomers or their children matter not; we will win.

Indeed, on September 11, 2001, American military forces were being fired on and firing back at the forces of just one nation in the world: Baathist Iraq.

And those AA shots were against the treaty as well. If we took out Saddam on that basis alone, we could have called it a re-initiation of hostilities, ceasefire null and void.

The difference between America circa 1944 and the present is that we now have a tendency to "micro-mange" our lives. Our bosses at work to do it, our city councils and homeowner associations do it, we do it to each other... Hence, every proposal, every action, every consequence must be analyzed and re-analyzed an infinitum until we're lost in the minutia and bogged down (dare I say it: quagmire?) in the details.

If the WOT is micro-manged, we'll be largely paralyzed to act and one step behind our enemies. Rather, the "Big Picture" approach allows us to act proactively within a strategic framework while taking into account the tactical errors that are bound to occur during the course of *any* human endeavor. I believe this the basis for the "Bush Doctrine".

However, the Big Picture approach results in some stubbed toes and hurt feelings along the way so the LLL's will not go along. Thank God it wasn't this way in '44...

Once again VDH hacks away at some of the conventional wisdom and comes up with some good observations. Maybe history will vindicate the liberation of Iraq as being the start of a transformation of the Middle East. Maybe the long view of history will be that sure mistakes were made but look at what a great thing we did. I certainly hope so. It's certainly too soon to tell one way or another.

But count me a skeptic overall about this piece. To say that because WWII generals also made mistakes that means we should somehow ignore or discount the mistakes that are being made now is just ridiculous. It seems that what VDH wants is for us to just look past the staggering incompetence, the mind-boggling arrogance and the willful disregard for soldiers (and others') lives that has characterized the Administration's conduct of the Iraq war. VDH's historical comparisons are all about military tactics - about how generals blundered in wars past. The difference is that in Iraq all the evidence is that the generals knew what they wanted and were shot down by their civilian superiors. The generals' view has been vindicated by events.

Furthermore, the analogy with WWII is also bogus in another way. Commentators like VDH lament the fact that there is a lot of skepticism about the war in Iraq but they refuse to place any blame for that on the piss-poor communication style of Bush. In WWII, "making the case" was easy - Germans and Japanese were shooting at us. The Iraq war was not so simple. A pre-emptive war needed more effective salesmanship But the inability to make the case; the sticking to discredited story lines; the reluctance to proactively "sell" the war to allies in an effective way; the overly optimistic statements - all this is the reason why there is so much controversy. It's not, as VDH and others would have it, because people don't appreciate that wars are a bloody business and they expect it to be neat and short. It's because Bush told them to expect it to be short. He told them it was about WMD. He told them Saddam and Iraq were threats.

It also doesn't matter that Bush may have been misled by the CIA. The American people are starting to doubt the war because the stated reasons for it have turned out not to be true, whatever the reasons. So while VDH is no doubt correct that 900 dead is a drop in the bucket compared to the carnage of WWII, that is utterly irrelevant. The American people gripe over their casualties because the case for war has been discredited. They think, quite reasonably in my view, that these deaths didn't need to happen. No national benefit will come from them.

The American people were pretty united during the Afghan War. They could draw a straight line from the 9/11 attacks to the campaign against the Taliban. I sense that if that war had turned into a quagmire, the American people would have remained united. But the Iraq war was not a straight line - it was a curve. It needed a relentless, effective sales campaign as well as a proper perspective that a long-tem view was needed. All we got was argument by assertion and distorted evidence.

#43 Bleeding Heart Conservative:

The decision to push production of the M4 medium tank rather than the M6 heavy tank, ostensibly because you could ship two M4s for evy M6 you could ship sounds shortsighted, but actually probably was not. From a battlefield usability point of view, the M4 was very good -- it was fast, easily maintained and, for a tank, reliable. Yes, it's armor was too thin to stand up to the Panther and Tiger (or the 88mm anti-tank gun), but it was certainly useful as an infantry tank and for general use.

The vaunted M6 was a dog of a tank. It was a design that had more in common with prewar tanks, like the French Char B and the British Churchills than with tanks designed after the apearance of the T-34, such as the Panther and later Tigers.

It was much bigger and heavier, with more armor, than the thin-skinned M4, but the armor wasn't thick enough to stop an 88 (on the Tiger and as an antitank gun), and the shape/design was out of date, the tank was even higher than the M4, and the tank's armament was not significantly better than the M4. Most damningly, it was slow and had much less room for development as a design than the M4. In addition, it was made only of cast armor, not welded, which meant that production was much slower than for the M4, which was designed with cast armor, but adapted to production with mostly welded armor.

#14

It would still be rather hard to be amused if that poor guy gets his head chopped off.

What the Phillipines SHOULD do:

If they do indeed get their citizen back in one piece, they should immediately resend in a force of troops/aid workers at least double the size of what they had before.

That would be awesome (though not especially likely)...

#45 realwest:

That's the spirit. And I'd add: "Shoot first and win; then talk about mistakes after the war's won!"

Also, to be absolutely fair to the Boomers, the media is driving a lot of this "Blame Game". Someone above pointed this out and this is absolutely true.

Can you imagine Edward R. Murrow dissecting and parsing each action, the way some of the anchors do. Blitzer is one of the worst for destroying the joy of an accomplishment with one of his "But don't you think..." or "But people are saying..." Who the hell cares what they are saying. They're not out there as targets.

I agree that we should, if not reward the effort, at least not be punishing Generals, not now. Punish if you must, after the war is won.

If the CIC thinks he needs to move a General (as MacArthur was removed) do it, but in the middle of this conflict is not the time to verbalize it. Do what must be done and GET ON WITH IT!

BTW I was born in '40 so I outrank you (in age).

#38, Ron?

Read some of your article. Of course, we dare not leave now with Iraq having become a magnet and base for every disenchanted terrorist or extremist group in the region including Al Qaeda. However, the old WMD line is now all but abandonned even by the administration. Are we safer? Doubtful. In fact, Bush's sword rattling has only made North Korea and Iran more determined to develop more nuclear weapons to protect themselves against this loose cannon. It has also alienated the UN and the EU and the rest of the Arab world. But who knows what the Neocons will propose next?

#13 Dean Douthat

I think that the Panther was the best tank of World War II. Others say that the T34 was. It was almost criminal that our guys who were assembling in Englad were told that we were going into battel with the best equipment in the world which was not so. The Sherman was called the Ronson since it lit up the first time it was hit.

#52

But who knows what the Neocons will propose next?

Which neo-cons are you refering to?

joeg

So North Korea and Iran are really peace loving nations trying to protect themselves from Bush?

In fact, Bush's sword rattling has only made North Korea and Iran more determined to develop more nuclear weapons to protect themselves against this loose cannon. It has also alienated the UN and the EU and the rest of the Arab world. But who knows what the Neocons will propose next?

You mean to tell me in all seriousness that NK and Iran weren't serious about getting nukes before Bush took office? Everything that NK did between 1994 and 2000 doesn't count in the seriousness department?

That NK got close to getting nukes, all while supposedly under an agreement not to further their nuke program shows your detachment from the facts. NK was working on getting nukes before Bush took office.

Ditto for Iran. That both appear to be speeding up their timetables suggests that they're hopeful that having those nukes would deter the US from regime changing their asses next.

#48 BPP

staggering incompetence, the mind-boggling arrogance and the willful disregard for soldiers (and others') lives that has characterized the Administration's conduct of the Iraq war.

Busg does not come near to FDR in any of those ways.

Germans and Japanese were shooting at us.

Really? I never knew the Germans attacked us.

Just can stand any defense of Bush can you? you really should get that BDS treated or you might just explode when Bush gets 60%+ of the vote.

Also, the U.S. strategic bombers bombed the crap out of Allied troops -- TWICE in one operation.

Friendly fire in the U.S. military isn't. Adjectives may be flabby writing.

Missiles locked on to your aircraft... Missiles locked on to your armo(u)red vehicles... Huge iron bombs raining down on you...

Your life is never the same, if it continues.

I heart Google: The Problem of Amicide in Modern Warfare (ed -- .mil)

The St. Lô breakthrough of 24-25 July 1944, code-named Operation COBRA, has been characterized as "a well-planned and successfully executed attack by combined air and ground forces," as indeed it was when viewed in general perspective. COBRA was the most massive close air support effort ever attempted and was properly exploited by ground forces that subsequently destroyed German resistance, caused their withdrawal behind the Seine, and paved the way for the rapid advance of Allied forces to the German border.38 COBRA also resulted in the most devastating incident of amicicide ever to occur.

After D-Day: Operation COBRA and the Normandy Breakout -- James Jay Carafano

Good summary: D-Day was just the beginning. As much as Allied leadership tried to avoid it, the Normandy breakout turned into a two-month, bloody battle of attrition. This is the first in-depth study of operation Cobra. In Opereation Cobra, six U.S. divisions during 6 dramatic days in Normandy ended the stalemate on the Western Front, breaking through German defenses after 7 weeks of grueling attrition warfare. After D-Day examines the experiences of the U.S. soldiers in the July 25-30, 1944, Normandy compaign: their mistakes, hardships, and fears, as well as their leadership, courage, and determination.

Somwhere COBRA veterans shudder on those days, I bet.

#52 joeg

Have you heard of a little place called Libya? Their nuclear weapons program has been moved to Oak Ridge, TN, IIRC.

Howzabout a Paki by the name of Khan? Ran a little nuclear black market ring that's out of business these days?

How about Saudi Arabia? Have you noticed a distinct change in their attitude these days?

BTW, is there something wrong with the terrorists going to where our troops can shoot them? Seems to me that, as Martha Stewart would say: It's a good thing.

Ba ze wa, m'est un stupid Amurikan wiz nozzing of ze histoire d' republique islamique frogique.

Somewhere there is a frog loose in my keyboard. Ohthereitisbythespacebaragain.

#48 BPP

The difference is that in Iraq all the evidence is that the generals knew what they wanted and were shot down by their civilian superiors. The generals' view has been vindicated by events.

Where is the basis for this? I don't recall seeing anything about US Generals asking for permission to open fire on the looters in the days after the fall of Baghdad? Or Generals requesting persmission to drive troops and AFV's into Fallujah as opposed to the tactics that were used? The only Generals I heard of asking for more troops were those Generals out of power and supporting the Democrats - and even they weren't calling for these troops to be used in major attacks or sealing the borders.

To say that because WWII generals also made mistakes that means we should somehow ignore or discount the mistakes that are being made now is just ridiculous. It seems that what VDH wants is for us to just look past the staggering incompetence, the mind-boggling arrogance and the willful disregard for soldiers (and others') lives that has characterized the Administration's conduct of the Iraq war. VDH's historical comparisons are all about military tactics - about how generals blundered in wars past. The difference is that in Iraq all the evidence is that the generals knew what they wanted and were shot down by their civilian superiors. The generals' view has been vindicated by events.

You miss the point of VDH. No plan, regardless of how well thought out, ever, ever, survives contact with the enemy intact. What you classify as stagering incompetence, mind boggling arrogance, etc of the Iraq War were no more or less staggering or mind boggling as the mistakes made in WW2's ETO on the ground - and in terms of casualties, Iraq was significantly less so. You just want to look at Iraq through a different lens - and that is the point that VDH hits at the end of his piece - the moral / intellectual bankruptcy of that pov.

In WWII, "making the case" was easy - Germans and Japanese were shooting at us. The Iraq war was not so simple. A pre-emptive war needed more effective salesmanship But the inability to make the case; the sticking to discredited story lines; the reluctance to proactively "sell" the war to allies in an effective way; the overly optimistic statements - all this is the reason why there is so much controversy. It's not, as VDH and others would have it, because people don't appreciate that wars are a bloody business and they expect it to be neat and short. It's because Bush told them to expect it to be short. He told them it was about WMD. He told them Saddam and Iraq were threats.

Iraq was also shooting at us. The had violated the 1991 armistace, and were daily engaging Coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones. This shooting was much more substantial than the U-Boats of Hitler attacking US merchant ships carrying material to Britain or putting a torpedo into the USS Ruben James.

President Bush sufficiently "sold" the case to war to not only a majority of people (based on the polls) - but also to a clear majority of Congress. The words of Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and other leading Democrats in 2002 agreed that not only there was a cassus belli from the violations of UN resolutions, breaking the armistace, firing on US aircraft, failure to disclose WMD and terminate WMD, but that he represented a real threat - a threat that post 9/11 couldn't be allowed to get the first shot in.

In fact, courtesy of a 1998 law signed by President Clinton - regime change in Iraq was National Policy.

#49 Rob

You also forget the estabished Armor Warfare Doctrine of that time - the purpose of the Medium Tank was to punch holes in defensive positions and assist / lead the infantry through those positions.

Taking on other AFV was not the main job of the M4 - and when enemy AFV were spotted - the equipment that was supposed to engage them were the Tank Destroyers, Artillery, and Close Air Support.

The TD's - the M10, M18, and M36 were not entirely successful or insufficient numbers to really be effective. Also, too many infantry commanders used them as tanks when the M4 wasn't around.

Some variants of the M4 - the E8 US version with a high velocity 76mm gun, and the British Firefly version, with a high velocity 17 pdr (76mm) did put the Sherman in better footing fighting German Panzers. But doctrine was to distribute these to M4 platoons - 1 to each - and the Germans soon learned to ID and kill these first.

VDH is right on todays politics...but too loose with WWII history for my taste. I could threadjack his piece forever.

Just one point: Marshall and Co wanted to attack Germany in 1943 not 1944. Had that happened, the Sherman would have been top dog and a rout would have been inevitable. Because Stalin would not level with the Western Allies about his counter stroke, and general strength, the USA was brow beaten by the British into delay after delay.
The histories published up to this time are still seriously off the mark. They do not reflect the totallity of the strategic decisions. It is still hard to get acceptance of massive Allied codebreaking, Soviet spying...
Much more is still to be revealed with documents under seal. Some critical UK documents won't be available until 2020!

Kerry has an admirer in China.
Investigation of the prisoner abuse situation

I posted this on another site. Two people responded to it. One, an American, said, "the ends do not justify the means"...I don't know what that means, so I let it go.

The second, a British man, said France, Britian and the rest of Europe could have won WW2 alone. He also stated, "And war only breeds more hate" He also said during D-Day the American airplanes did not hit one target. (Guess we Americans only got in the way of the French, who would have won back their own country...alone no doubt, with only a pocket knife and shortwave radio) ..I would like to refute that..can anyone point me in the right direction to a site that provides a breakdown of targets the American hit during D-Day? I hate this guy.