Never had heard of this little engagement before.



This Felton guy does some interesting videos.

The overwhelming numerical and air superiority of the US and U.K. on the Western front more than made up for the woefully inadequate Sherman! The Firefly and Easy Eight variants fared much better though going toe to toe against German armor.

Well... when you surrender a couple of augmented tank companies to two Panthers and a guy with a pistol...


edit: Oh and another one I had never heard of:




This Felton guy is a goldmine of obscure cool WWII info.

He does do some really cool stuff. There is one he does on Goerings capture that is really interesting.

The Sherman wasn't terrible, its just that tank designs that had a similarly excellent degree of automotive performance yet had enough guns and armor to overmatch the heavier German tanks, didn't exist until at least 10 years after the war.

The Sherman was WWII's best tank.

If we are talking about super mass produced tanks that had a huge impact on the outcome of the war then the T-34 is absolutely on equal terms to the Sherman.

The Firefly's QF17pdr gun had better range and penetration than the much vaunted 88/36 on the Tiger I especially using the APDS round which were available during the Normandy campaign.

Though the 88/43 on the Tiger II was more powerful than the QF17, the bore on the 88/43 was the same size as the earlier 88/36, the cartridge was around 284mm longer.

A bit of WW2 propaganda film "A Date With a Tank" about the 17pdr on this link: https://film.iwmcollections.org.uk/record/2372

In terms of numbers yes, in terms of reliability and crew comfort/ergonomics it doesn't quite compare to the Sherman.

It's much vaunted "sloped armor" (which wasn't a T34 innovation as much as the History Channel would claim) was not much, if any, more effective than contemporaries, it's only real asset beyond its numbers was the 85mm gun on later variants.

If I were equipping a WWII army with only one tank I'd choose the Sherman.

17Pdr was accurate with APCBC, but lacks consistency with APDS due to the early state of sabot design and inconsistent separation issues. It also had a poor HE shell compared to 76mm, and particularly to 75mm or 105mm shermans

Thus while it had excellent penetration out to extended ranges it couldn't make as much advantage of that because of the limitation of accuracy.
The 17pdr was also a bit much for the Sherman, compromising the ergonomics a fair bit after cramming the gun and larger ammunition in.

The triad of 75mm, 76mm and 105mm used by the US forces was a better mix (especially since almost all use was against light armour or in infantry support).

Let's not forget, no matter how 'good' a tank is supposed to be, there is also the matter of it's crew, and how proficient they are coupled with morale...

Oddball disagrees "All the tanks we come up against are bigger & better then ours"

FTs, H35/H39s, PzII, PzIII, PzIVH? None of those are bigger and better than the Sherman.

Sure the few Panthers, Tigers and Tiger B are bigger, some of the PzJg are tough to penetrate from the front... but they are not common - Panther is seen fairly often, but there are almost no Tigers and they are concentrated into a few points, so you either meet lots or none at all. And it is certainly a stretch to call a JgPz38 or a StuGIII 'better' than a Sherman.

Relatively few US tanks fought enemy tanks, and infrequently, especially against larger concentrations. Most were used for infantry support and against light armour used in penny packets.

Lieste knows his stuff. He's not one of those who watched "Fury" and thought it was an accurate depiction of WW 2 armored combat.

FT ? Do you mean B1 ?

I mean, there is 25 years between the Renault FT and the M4 Sherman, so thankfully Sherman is better.

Ask Michael Wittmann if the Sherman was any good

Especially the Firefly variant. Touche'!

To be fair though, he was greatly outnumbered.

Despite it's reputation and being derisively dubbed 'Ronson' or 'Tommy Cooker' the Sherman had the highest ration of crew survivability I believe, due to sprung large hatches. Unlike the Churchill which had tiny egress points especially for a man of the size of my wife's father! Luckily he didn't have the need to get out of one in a hurry.
Fortunately the Hun big Cats as mentioned were few and far between, and unservicable more often than not!
I gather the 'Firefly' Crews would camouflage the tell-tale length of the 17pdr as it would be a primary target.

Ton of interesting World War II videos on that Mark Felton YT channel. Thank you Nixer.

And while popular culture always talks about the Panthers and Tigers, the historical fact is that the Panzer IVJ was much more numerous and was an extremely effective tank against the best the Allies could muster even in 1945.

The Sherman was also one of the very few tanks to fight in every theater of war. It was in Western Europe, Russia, North Africa, Italy, and all over the Pacific.It was able to handle all sorts of climates and ground conditions. Really, for the Allies, it was kind of the perfect tank. One vehicle that could be mass produced and exported all over the world... and work with few, if any, maintenance issues when it got there.

You are welcome. I watched about 20 yesterday.

So, German Tanks vs Shermans.

Yes, the Firefly was a MkIV, Panther and Tiger killer. I believe that the Brits only had like one per troop?

Even ignoring Wittman's vicious romp at Villiers Bocage, in the big armored battles around Caen the Sherman losses were horrifying.

The Allies "aluminum overcast" was far more a danger to German armor than hordes of allied shermans.

Another topical Felton video:

Allied aircraft did little vs tanks and other armour. They were effective vs softskins and very light armour though.

Allied artillery and operational attrition were far more significant. (OA is breakdowns and terrain casualties or lack or parts or fuel to recover all vehicles because of unavailability or loss of and on softskins).

So was the overwhelming Allied naval shore bombardment during the early phases of Normandy.

"The Sherman was also one of the very few tanks to fight in every theater of war. "

Transportability was one the biggest assets of the M4 series. The U.S had to build tanks that could be loaded aboard ships and carried to the battlefield. The Germans didn't have to worry about that. For the U.S. Army's needs, the Sherman was really just about the perfect tank.
As far as the Tiger is concerned, American tank units didn't come up against them very much. The British Army, unfortunately, did. The section of Normandy in which the U.S. was advancing was not good country for Tigers. The British sector, farther north, was, however. Flatter, wide open fields with no hedgerows. That's where that German Tigers had a field day against British tank units.
It isn't fair, really, to match the Sherman up against the Tiger and say that the Sherman was an inferior vehicle. Read up on the tank battles the occurred in the Lorraine region of France in September of 1944. Shermans against Panthers, and the Panthers got their asses thoroughly kicked.

I have been playing Panzer General and you can play as German, Italian, American, British, Canadian, Poles, Czech, even Ethiopia and what was then Yugoslavia and the more you advance in the war from 1939 on, the more prestige you earn and it opens up access to newer better tank.

One of the British tank that I was able to get later was the Crocodile. I didn't know it was a flamethrower until the first time I used it against a Tiger II and it had no effect.

Now here's Felton again, this time showing how after Normandy and the continuing meat grinder of the eastern front, the attrition of Germany's experienced tankers was really coming into play.

Arracourt in September 1944:

A nice bit of British Patriotism and talk of the effectiveness of the Crocodile


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpIoqyjWvzI

and a tale of ATGs in the dessert


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPJRd_XiDGg

Felton is great, another good one is The History Guy https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4sEmXUuWIFlxRIFBRV6VXQ

The History Guy is good,I just find he speaks too fast or not clearly enough at times.

This I fully agree with. The other aspect affecting US tank design was the recognition that as force that was to be attacking, in strategic terms, there was an assumption that the Germans would always blow bridges over water-obstacles. This severely limited the overall weight, as it was a given that US tanks would have to use pontoon or Bailey Bridges. The Germans were under no such limitation from '42 onwards, allowing them to make heavier vehicles with better armour protection, larger size and turret-rings, and therefore heavier weapons.

In other words, the Sherman was optimised for transport to distant theatres, and for repair without returning it to the USA; and also to be able to continue advances despite the destruction of permament bridges.
As such, it was an excellent design.

It also used a regular gasoline engine making logistics way easier. It was also very survivable with only around a 2% KIA and usually only 1 dead crew member when a tank was destroyed. That was actually pretty good and I think only the Churchill was more survivable than the Sherman.
That said, it was very easy for German armor and ATs to knock them out and I'm glad I don't have to fight in one.

A radial engine is not your 'regular' gasoline type engine... lol!

Radial petrol engines were only one type used, they also had options for diesel engines and a double bank of truck engines.

I can be all day watching those WW2 YouTube videos. Better than anything on TV.

Youtube has been better than TV for a long time now. It's like it doesn't know how to die despite being beaten to a bloody mashed up pulp by so many other platforms. If you do insist on being bored sh/tless though, all the major news channel have a YT channel as well. One of the best things is that nearly all of the good shows that were on TV back in the day are also stashed away on YT if you want s nostalgia trip.

As for guys like Felton, Drachnifel and tons of others that cover from the caveman era to current, they have really upped the game regards historical based content. I've been on a cold war kick for a bit now regards content and YT has been a dream for finding specific stuff like certain planes, vehicles, tactics, strategies, weapons, beliefs, politics and everything in between.

With so much content you can really nail down a great picture by using so many different sources instead of the old back in day History Channel stuff like - ' Tiger tank, big gun, much scare, kills all'

Lindybeige is awesome, love his content.

LOL

And one point nobody has really mentioned is that the Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank and was never intended to fight other tanks.

The US doctrine at the time was to use the M4 to support the infantry and the tank destroyers to fight enemy tanks.

There was even some pushback to the notion of equipping the M4 with the 76mm gun because it was felt US crews would go looking for enemy tanks which was not what they were supposed to be doing.

Thank you for your informed and well thought out reply.

There's a case to be made that that wasn't quite the case.
Start at about 8:35 here:
https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY?t=515

The only really serious flaw the Sherman had IMO, was its almost cartoonishly tall and chubby profile.

At least the Sherman was much roomier and comfortable for the crew compared to the T-34!

While you are correct I also suspect that in the overwhelming majority (75%+) of tactical situations the Sherman would be at no disadvantage to the only slightly lower T-34 pictured.

A smaller silhouette made a big difference in AT gun hit probability at the time.

Yeah, the T-34 is not vastly smaller, but you're still going to have shells missing or grazing it that would have struck a Sherman squarely.

Its not for nothing that the Soviets, with all their armored warfare experience, made a low profile such a high priority through their next 3 generations of tank designs.

All of which (T-54, T-62, T-72) were, IMO, inferior to taller western tanks (M48/M60, M1, Centurion, Chieftain)

The Sherman was a bit tall and slabsided. But what surprised me when I was at Aberdeen Maryland, was the size of the Panther. I expected the Tiger, but the size of the Panther surprised me.

ANYONE who has trained/lived to fight a tank knows that hull down is king.

Sherman vs anything hull down...

Yeah, dig a deeper hole, but in combat, in the maneuver battle, it's a 30% bigger target. Just a fact.

I am really skeptical/wondering about the stories of Sherman crews surviving catastrophic hits. Gasoline blows up REAL Good.

30% bigger would be very significant, but it's just not so:

More evidence:

It seems that the Sherman appears to be so much higher because it's narrower.

Making its overall silhouette smaller than if it both were taller and wider. It's also a bit shorter in length. In terms of square feet of area viewed from the front or side I suspect, but have not done the math to confirm, that the Sherman is less than 10% larger than the T-34.

NATO tanks didn't really become qualitatively superior until the '80s.



Every little bit helps, especially height wise, when you're dealing with low powered WW2 tank optics with crude range finding capabilities and AP ammo that has very poor external ballistics by modern standards.

Wherever the opposing sides respective sides tanks met in the 50's, 60's and 70's whether in the middle east or elsewhere the western tanks came out on top. Of course crew quality plays a big role but still the results were telling IMO.

bolded, that is the rub, and tactics. Soviet tanks also had a problem with depression of the gun barrel which hurt then in hull down position.

Mostly because Arabs, although India seemed to do well with its T-55s against Pakistani M48s in their 1971 war.



And the North Vietnamese ultimately did OK with their T-55s.



Regardless, none of these conflicts involved anyone with the resources and armored warfare experience of the Soviets.

sorry for the thread ressurection but I just rewatched this-


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrEtdMkFA00 (if link don't work)

another little known channel that does some really well researched stuff

Thanks bolox.

Looks like a good tanker channel.

Because T-55 tanks were rocket powered.



The Soviet Union's Rocket Tank Was an Explosively Bad Idea

Another videos at Felton production, you gotta wonder what the US and its allies did with all those recovered gold, platinum, silver, jewelry, precious stones they found that were hidden by Japan and Germany.

Today there are still ton of treasures hidden by Japan and Germany waiting to be found. Is it finders keepers?

Learn something new

I know it's a Mark Felton thread but I'll trot these out for show too:

BV 141 - The Most Asymmetrical Airplane of WW2


It was the Army's Only Air to Air Kill Since WW2


Footage of an Airplane Flying into a Rogue Wave

How does that BV141 even fly?

Nahhh...Not a Mark Felton thread.

It 's a Two Panthers take on 21 Shermans thread. SimHQ style.

It had an engine, a wing and a pilot.

LMAO. Well played KK.

I enjoy watching Mark Felton, Sgt Vittie, Acedestroyer, Drachinifel and the Dark Series (Dark Docs, Dark Footage, Dark 5, etc...) youtube channels.

It would be nice if an Admin could do a sticky of links to their sites and add to it with other youtube channels with similar content.

Indy Neidell's WWI and WWII series too.

agreed, would be nice.
there is however a sticky thread here
https://SimHQ.com/forum/ubbthreads....mentaries-youtube-video-thread-add-to-it
I've added some other channels that might be of interest

Learn something new again. US and Russia jet fighters over Czechslovakia. Those MIG15 look funny!



This is incredible! Stick it to the Russians!

Do have to admit them German engineers for Nazi Germany did invent a few things that are still utilized today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrzburg_radar

The thing to remember about WWII equipment is that we Americans were crazy good at resupply in both parts and the stuff that keeps the machines running, along with the repair and maintenance chains to keep it humming along.

NOBODY did it as well as we did. Nobody. The Soviets came close, but only after we did a huge lend-lease of Deuce and a Halfs, along with the oil and gas to run them.

Whether it was a Sherman tank, a Jeep, a rifle, or a uniform, with rare exception, once we got the ball rolling it was stupid to the point of being unfair (which is the point). Repair depots to turn around damaged equipment and a seemingly endless stream of new stuff all the time meant that unless the Germans went asymmetrical they were doomed.

Add in that the USA was going the route of both quality and quantity is scary to an opposing force. We sure did have a lot of Joes on the ground, but we didn't just throw people at the enemy waiting for them to wear out or run out of ammunition; we leveraged technology at every turn.

The Panther may have been the best tank in a technical sense, but they couldn't be mass produced or the ones fielded supported effectively.

Very good read about the initial fielding of the Panther. Not a stellar opening act.

https://mikesresearch.com/2019/10/27/panthers-at-kursk-1943/

Yeah, the D model had some problems for sure.

Of course, Kursk was a huge problem all in itself, as has been discussed before here I think.

Mark's story of the Ranger Assault in Grenada.

One of the key weaknesses of the Panther tank was it's final drive. Untypical of the usual German over-engineering it used straight cut spur gears rather than much stronger, and more difficult/expensive to make, herringbone gears.

Indeed both the Panther and the Elefant left much to be desired during the battle. The technical problems with the Panther were soon resolved after the battle but the Elefant was a complete disaster. The Germans went back to the tried and true StuG for their tank destroyer needs for the most part. The heavy ones like the Jadgpanther and Jagdtiger were solid designs but too few in number to make any difference.

Those tank destroyers would have been more efficient if they had a turret instead of a fixed gun and you had to point the entire thing in the direction of what you were shooting at. It was good idea to put a bigger gun on armored body but wouldn't it be a better idea to put that bigger gun on a turret that goes 360 degrees? WIKI says only 91 Elefant and about 88 Jagdtiger were made. Not Good!

The advantage of the Stug was it's low profile, difficult to detect before getting into lethal range, lost in the later behemoths you mention.
Designers of US tank destroyers seem to have the better idea!



Indeed, it was astounding how quickly the US industry adapted to war production with massive output, builing 'Liberty ships' faster than the Kriegsmarien could sink them! Output of your 'soft and decadent nation' fatally understimated by the Axis. Without it, even previously to the US entering the war, Britain would not have endured, so there would be no 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' or stepping off point for invasion to deal with 'Festungs Europa'.
Luckily for us too, the policy 'Germany First'.

Japan and Germany couldn't compete with USA industrial might, even if USA and the allies didn't bomb any of their cities and industries and factories.


A B-24 every 55 minutes and that is just one of the 1000s of things big and small of all sizes the USA made for the WW2 war effort.

Learn new thing again

Didn't know this

Interesting comparison of the emergency egress process on various WW2 tanks.

more learning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sky_Shield

Anthony Gray wrote a book in the 1960s called The Penetrators which was loosely based on those Vulcan bomber exercises, been a very long time since I read it, and they did employ different tactics in the book compared with what was said in the above video. Still it was an enjoyable read

That Vulcan like a spaceship from outer space

Yep...





Turn it up...I dare ya!

My wife's father served in Churchill Crocodiles towards the end of the conflict and Comets post war.
He was 6ft 3ins, how he got into them, let alone out of them in an emergency baffles me, slender as he was.

Learn something again.

Yes, saw that a couple of days ago.

Heck, if I was a German trooper, I am fairly sure being blown to pieces/gunned down was preferable to internment as a POW of Russia.

91000 Germans taken prisoners at Stalingrad and only 5000 lived to return to Germany. The Germans and Russians really hated each other.

The USSR lost 20 million people from 1941-1945. I can understand the hate.

I can't say that the hatred the Russians had of the Germans wasn't justified. By late 1943 it was well known what the Germans were doing in the Ukraine and western Russia. It wasn't a suppression effort, it was an extermination effort.

The fact that any Germans troops made it back is more of a surprise than anything else. Compared to what happened to Soviet prisoners captured in 1941 and early 1942 the Soviets were actually much more restrained. If Germany won that war I seriously doubt any of the 4 million plus Soviet prisoners would have ever made it back home.

The only thing that I truly believe the Soviets did that was truly despicable was how they treated those Soviet troops that were captured and returned. Most of these troops had no control over whether they surrendered or fought on. While what the Soviets did to Germans captured during the war was not really right, it was somewhat understandable. What they did to their own troops, that often fought honorably and surrendered only when the situation was hopeless, was truly unforgivable.

The Soviet system was every bit as evil and corrupt as the Nazi system, The Soviets just happened to be on our side. Well, they were "on our side" for that short period between dividing Poland with Hitler in 1939 then enslaving everyone they "liberated" in 1945.

Being on the winning side made all the difference of course when you consider that throughout human history it has been shown that it doesn't really matter which side was "just" in war but which side won. You are absolutely right about the Stalin regime being every bit as evil and corrupt as the Third Reich and as we all know from what happened during the De-Stalinization period of Soviet history, even the Soviet leadership themselves acknowledged Stalin's excesses.

Here's a little-known aspect of WWII that has always fascinated me due mostly to the incredible irony that one of the very last units to defend the Reich Chancellery in Berlin wasn't even German but French.

The Nazis killed them all? How many were there?

You love Wiki so much go ahead and look it up! All I will say is that at minimum it is estimated that 3 million Soviet soldiers died in German prison camps and concentration camps.

I was busy, didn't have time to Wiki. Quicker to write a question. But now I have time to Wiki it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_mistreatment_of_Soviet_prisoners_of_war

and Wiki again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_the_Soviet_Union

If he did escape Berlin, he can't be alive. His birth year is 1900.

I know this. Market Garden fail = Nazis took it out on the Holland population that help the Allies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_famine_of_1944%E2%80%9345

Here is an interesting tidbit about the Third Reich which I doubt you will ever see Hollywood make a movie or mini-series about,






It is estimated that about 30,000 blacks lived in Germany from 1933-1945 and while they were ostracized and didn't have the same rights as white Germans, they were not shipped off to the concentration camps like other groups that were considered "enemies of the state".

The Russian dogs were not first in space

In Operation Market Garden the armoured division set out from the town next to where I live, Leopoldsburg, there is a monument to the operation there. The terrain featured in the film A Bridge Too Far is reasonably correct, it is flat-ish heather and peat with plantations of fir trees for the coal mines in the area, most of the older roads here have trees along them, Oak mainly, they were planted to cover the movement of troops and equipment in the area.
Historically (1800s) our township donated a large chunk of it's area to the military for garrisons and training areas, part of that area became the town of Leopolsburg. We have artillery and tank training ranges along with small arms ranges and a couple of ranges for aircraft to fire ordnance on. We drive through the local army base a lot as we have to go through it to get to Leopoldsburg

One thing I don't understand about Market Garden is why didn't XXX Corps keep advancing after the British 1st Airborne division in Arnhem was wiped out?

Three left behind and no attempted rescue mission.

This is still in service !! Amazing !!

4800 JU52 made and only 5 left stiil flyable

Here is another tidbit of WW 2 history that many don't know about,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_Kitty


According to multiple witnesses, the Waffen SS general Sepp Dietrich was a frequent customer of the high-end brothel and on one occasion he had an orgy with about 15-20 of the prostitutes there.

Some were not loyal happy go lucky Nazis

Stuff like this happens when you are desperate for manpower to fight a war in which the tide has turned against you and where you are fighting the majority of the world. The Waffen SS greatly relaxed its standards for recruitment starting in 1943 and the overall quality and loyalty of the late war divisions was nowhere near the same as those divisions that were created earlier in the war or had mostly German personnel.

There was 23 Waffen SS units formed from recruits from other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS_foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts

Among those, the 5th SS "Wiking" armored division had by far the most impressive combat record. In fact, many historians agree that it had a more impressive combat record than some of the German-only Waffen SS divisions.

According to that Mark Felton video, the members of that SS unit were Muslims.

Pure Aryan race!

As we've seen so often from human history, adherence to political orthodoxy often takes a backseat to the pressing pragmatic needs of the moment.

Alien infiltrators attempt to influence humans using the secret word trunalimunumaprzure!

Supposedly, just hearing the word makes certain human sub species believe almost anything.

BTW, I started this thread about a historical report indicating how disadvantaged the allied tankers were against competent Germans in Panthers. I certainly was not advocating or cheer leading the panzertruppen.

Just lamenting how out gunned our guys were. I am still flabbergasted as to why it took the US so long to adopt a bigger gun, ala the Firefly...seriously.

So let's make a Tank Destroyer with light armor and no overhead arnor from artillery...seriously???

Same guns would have fit on a up armored, up powered Sherman.

It was the doctrine at the time Nixer. Tanks for infantry support and other FV for taking on enemy tanks. Half-tracks are an example of other FV.

Wiki has a good write up on the Sherman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

Agreed on the doctrine, luckily common sense broke out and the M4A's with the 76mm started appearing right after D-Day.

The tank destroyer doctrine might have been more successful if there had been more opportunity to use them defensively, as whatever their shortcomings, they still had some advantages over the towed AT guns that everyone else was using.

Also, the M26 Pershing was originally intended to be produced on a 1:5 basis to the Sherman, but of course numerous delays meant that hardly more of them were produced before the war ended than the Tigers, and only a handful actually saw action.

Learn new thing again

I didn’t know about the British monitor, HMS Roberts.

Today is 1st time I heard of a monitor. In was said in the video it has 15 inch guns. Big guns for a small ship. Aren't those guns for battleships? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)

I seem to recall that Churchill had a thing for monitors.

You do know there was a Monitor during the ACW.

Just now had a chance to check out this latest gem from Mark.

Band beach...

That UK monitor was one fugly ship!

You are right. Forgot.

https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=USS-Onondaga-river-monitor-1864


https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/monitors-2.htm

USS Florida (BM-9)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Florida_(BM-9)

Those ships in that multi ship image don't look they have much of a beam and keel depth. I would think heavy seas and high winds and rough waves will overwhelm them.

The USS Monadnock crossing the Pacific Ocean during the Spanish–American War

They were brave!

Not heard of this name

This is just awesome stuff I personally had no idea about...

Kinda like WWII's Gulf of Tonkin...almost.



I love the comment "until Hitler STUPIDLY declared war on the U.S.".

Unless this is all crap (doubtful), this guy Felton is the most awesome amateur historian I have ever come across.

Sadly, it would take a thousand more of him to counteract the mountains of garbage on Social Media.

Hitler did stupidly declare war on the USA.

After Pearl Harbor and the USA declared war on Japan, the USA still did not declare war on Nazi Germany..

Will the USA had later? Maybe. Maybe not. But at the time the USA main preoccupation was to stop Japan while continuing to supply England without getting directly involved in a war with Germany.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

^ ^ ^

That many???? How many Americans were in uniform during World War 2?

Pretty big leap there from Eddie Slovak to FDR grand strategy.

Follow my lead and smoke another one whilst "LISTENING" instead of assuming...oh and...after three years of college, I am becoming a grammar nazi.

We are coming for you.

You'll never see a Hollywood movie about this for multiple reasons:

Allied invasion of Iran