Tank Panel Set for Armor Conference

The intent of the EAB is noteworthy. Test the skills of tankers and scouts. It is aright and good thing. But the creation of a qualification or a combat recognition badge is completely unnecessary.

CPT, Armor O Troop/3-16 Cav

“World’s Champion Tanker” Didn’t Want an Armor Badge

Dear Sir: As seems to happen every time we get anew Chief of Staff, certain parties have recently begun clamoring for an “Armor Badge” similar to the “Combat Infantryman’s Badge.” It is useful to know how General Creighton Abrams felt about the issue, one he had good credentials for addressing. Abrams led the 37th Tank Battalion across Europe during the battles of World War II, earning a reputation as one of the Army’stop young leaders. Said General George S. Patton: “I’m supposed to be the best tank commander in the Army, but I have one peer — Abe Abrams. He’s the world’s champion.” Later, serving as Vice Chief of Staff of the Army during one of the periodic efforts on someone’s part to get a badge for non-infantrymen, Abrams wrote that “we have not only kept the infantry badge pure but have thwarted every attempt at another badge for other people so that the significance of the infantry badge would continue undiluted.” He was not going to change that policy, Abrams said, a stance he continued during his later service as Chief of Staff. That position was entirely congruent with the original objective of General George C. Marshall in approving a CIB for the infantryman. “I want his role made clear and exalted,” said Marshall. That is still a good policy, one that tankers and other soldiers of all arms should support.

Editor’s Note: Lewis Sorley spent twenty years as an officer in tank and armored cavalry units, and is the author of “Thunderbolt: General Creighton Abrams and the Army of His Times.”

Comments on Uniform Items Past and Present

Dear Sir: My ARMOR Magazine is very instrumental in keeping me abreast of the mind-boggling technical advances we are making in my former combat field. It also makes me feel as if I am still “with the program.” Although I retired in 1980 after 25 years, I am very active as a 1SG in the South Carolina State Guard... I enjoyed reading the letters regarding the controversy over an Expert Armor Badge and the latest demoralizing decision on berets, and also “Modern German Tank Development” by Rolf Hilmes. If anyone is counting, chalk up a big yes in favor of the Badge. Since the infantry guys have been sporting their award for years, it’s about time that tankers, who draw more fire than those guys in the grass, are authorized to wear something equal in rank and honor. As for the beret... bummer of a decision! It was bad enough to shed the venerable and super sharp ODs, where one could ID a tanker from the gold (earlier green) cap braid, and the fact that we wore our overseas cap on the left. Now we all wear the same generic “bus driver’s” AG44 uniform, where no branch esprit is allowed. Now the COS is knocking morale in the head once more by degrading the value of the beret. In regards to the article on German armor development, I was quite taken back by the way Mr. Hilmes put down the M-47. He makes it sound as if that tank was a poor performer. In my many years working with M-46s, 47s, and 48s, I would have to say that the M-47 was an outstanding tank in regards to maneuverability and dependability. He hit on two major deficiencies in the poor rangefinder system and the high silhouette. The stereo RF was not very good, but the only thing we had at the time. And at 11 ft. high, it did pose a good target. The most devastating deficiency, however, which he did not mention, was the totally absurd, idiotic ammo stowage. There were 11 ready rack rounds and 60 under the turret basket which, in a combat situation, were almost unavailable. A later development did away with the basket and totally revised the ammo system, but the M-47 was then on the way out. Outside of these deficiencies, the M-47 was an extremely maneuverable and dependable tank. The Israelis greatly modified it with the M-60’s 105 and fire control, diesel engine, and modified ammo stowage. It was known as the M-47RKM and did exceptionally well against modern Soviet tanks at that time. Mr. Hilmes really built up the M-48, but failed to compare the original early M-48 with later models. The A2 was still a big, fat awkward boat, but handled like a different tank. The Israelis threw away the M1 TC cupola and installed their Urdan cupola, which I wish we had done. In Vietnam, many M-1 cupolas had a cal.50 pintle welded on so the TC could have a functional machine gun. I disagree with his writing that the 48 surpassed the 47 in dependability and mobility. The 48A1s in Germany had to have racks installed behind the back deck to carry four 55-gal. fuel drums, copied from the Soviets, like the M-48 design was copied from the Soviet JS-3. I doubt that Mr. Hilmes is very familiar with either the M-47 or 48. Reading historical figures and books is not the same as being out there in the mud, ice, and dust, working with the artifact in question. Thanks for an outstanding publication.

via email (Editor’s Note: Author Hilmes personal experience as a German tanker goes back to the M-48 days.)

The Fight for Information Persisted Through the Ages

Dear Sir: I wish to comment on the Commander’s Hatch article, “Is Information Superiority All It’s Cracked Up to Be?” (March-April 2001 ARMOR – Ed.) Thinking of information superiority as though it is some new 21st century warfighting concept reveals a very shallow understanding of the history of warfare. Of course, information is important. Sun Tzu spelled it out 2,500 years ago. About 1,200 B. C., Odysseus disguised himself in order to enter and collect intel on Troy. The Bible tells us about Moses sending spies into the Promised Land in advance of the main body.

ARMOR — 47 Tank Panel Set for Armor Conference As part of this year’s Armor Conference, there will be an International Tank Panel at Haszard Auditorium, Gaffey Hall, beginning at 1230 on May 22. Experts will make a brief presentation on each of five major main battle tanks, including the Abrams, the British Challenger II, German Leopard 2A5, French LeClerc, and the Russian T-90. Following the presentations, there will be an audience discussion period that will cover future tank requirements in the areas of lethality, survivability, mobility, command and control, and sustainability. The panel and discussion will be unclassified. The subject matter experts will include LTC Ulf Bartels of Germany, LTC Shaun Wilson of the UK, LTC Martin Klotz speaking on the French LeClerc, COL James H. Nunn on the Abrams, and U. S. LTC John Paulson, who will do the presentation on the Russian T-90. Sponsoring the event is TSM Abrams, Fort Knox.