Well I don’t know about you but I thought that this was Uber Cool in my book! (Yeah I have always wanted a log cabin to live in but I kind of doubt it is going to happen) Grumpy
Category: Real men
If anyone were asked who they thought the most flamboyant American general of the Second World War was, I would bet, dollars-to-donuts, that most would answer, “George Patton.”
Well, General George S. Patton, who carried his trademark revolvers on his hips during the war, was probably the most easily recognizable general.
Those handguns of his, by the way, had stories to tell. He initially carried twin Colt single-action Army .45 revolvers, but after he gave one of them to a Hollywood star he admired, because of the star’s courage to entertain front-line troops in combat zones, he replaced it with a 3 ½ inch Smith and Wesson .357 magnum. Part his this flamboyance was those ivory-handled revolvers.
The general, however, knew the importance of inspiring his troops, and his flamboyance certainly achieved that goal.
As to the question of why he carried two revolvers, rather than just one, it is well known that as a young man he was part of General Pershing’s “Punitive Expedition” into Mexico to hunt down the infamous Pancho Villa. And, on 14 May, 1914, during one of those expeditionary forays, he came under fire while leading a caravan of three vehicles to obtain food for his troops. The band of “Villistas” attempted to flee on horseback.
Patton was armed with his own Colt SAA .45 revolver. Back then he carried it with the hammer down on an empty chamber, hence only five rounds.
During the firefight he emptied the weapon, some believe three times. In a subsequent letter to his father, Patton wrote, “I fired five times with my new pistol and one of them ducked back into the house. I found out later that this was Cardenes and that I had hit both he and his horse.” Captain Julio Cardenes was a member of the Pancho Villa gang of thugs, and was second in command, when he was shot by then Lieutenant George S. Patton. Patton then carved a notch in his revolver’s handgrips, and removed Cardenes’ spurs as souvenirs.
Those spurs, by the way, are now in the Museum of WWII in Natick, Massachusetts.
The firefight took place at close range, approximately fifty or sixty feet, but a second gang member came much closer, about ten feet, and Patton shot at the horse. The horse and the gangster hit the ground, and when the latter attempted to stand, he was cut down by the American troops.
Like everyone involved in close-in firefights, the very first ones changes one’s outlook, and henceforth Patton would carry a second, or back-up, handgun.
General Joyce would later confirm that it was the experience with the Mexican gangsters that convinced Patton he should carry at least two handguns. Some newspapers at the time described the revolvers as having pearl handles, but when asked about those handles by a reporter in WWII, Patton angrily responded that they were in fact ivory, and that, “only a New Orleans pimp would carry a pearl-handled gun!”
As a young man, Patton competed in pentathlon events, which included pistol shooting, and he would practice for hours on end on his trigger pull techniques with his strong hand and off-hand positions. Patton’s obvious preference was for revolvers, but during WWII he did also carry a Colt Pocket Model hammerless, as well as a Remington Model 51 .380.
It was with the Remington that he shot at a Luftwaffe airplane, as it was attempting to strafe his encampment. He was also known to carry a Colt Detective Special .38 revolver.
All of his handguns, with the possible exception of the Remington, had the ivory grips, and some were inlaid with the initials “GSP” and had the stars of a U.S. Army general. Many American soldiers and officers, including General Omar Bradley, carried the Colt M1911 semi-automatic pistol, But General Patton only carried the 1911 on rare occasions.
During the North African campaigns, Major General Walter Bedell Smith, a close colleague of Patton, carried a Colt Model 03 in a shoulder holster. But Patton was never known to have carried the 03.
In the final analysis, whatever one’s opinions may be of the general, whether one viewed him as being flamboyant or otherwise, some things are certain, he inspired his troops to the point of fanaticism, and he did so by fearlessly leading the way. His persona, that of a hugely colorful, and larger-than-life military genius, exemplified by those ivory handgrips, made him an unforgettable and heroic American.
Categories
A Victory! COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom Good News for a change! Hard Nosed Folks Both Good & Bad I am so grateful!! Interesting stuff Leadership of the highest kind Manly Stuff One Hell of a Good Fight Our Great Kids Real men Soldiering Stand & Deliver This great Nation & Its People War
Smedley Butler: The Marine Who Earned Two Medals of Honor by Will Dabbs
Major General Smedley Butler collected two Medals of Honor, fought across the globe, battled corruption at home, and later claimed powerful businessmen wanted him at the center of an American coup.
Before Smedley Butler, Let’s Talk About Names
My name is Willis. I might have preferred William, but I didn’t pick it. Mine is a family name. As such things go, it certainly could be worse.
Many famous individuals, particularly actors, often choose a new name if their original names seem insufficiently photogenic. John Wayne entered the world as Marion Robert Morrison. Cary Grant was born Archibald Leach. Michael Caine was Maurice Joseph Micklewhite. Charlie Sheen was Carlos Irwin Estevez. Comedian Jonah Hill was originally Jonah Feldstein. Vin Diesel began life as Mark Sinclair. Diesel changed his name at age seventeen when he became a professional bouncer at a fashionable New York nightclub.
There are countless examples. Famed British actress Helen Mirren was originally Ilyena Lydia Vasilievna Mironov. Olivia Wilde was Olivia Jane Cockburn before she became enamored with the playwright Oscar Wilde. Natalie Portman was Natalie Hershlag, but changed her name in a failed effort at protecting her privacy.
Caryn Elaine Johnson had such a problem with passing gas that her coworkers called her “Whoopi Cushion.” When her show business career began to take off, she adopted Whoopi Goldberg because somebody told her that folks with Jewish-sounding names did better in Hollywood. Apparently, it worked. She’s worth $60 million today.
The point is simply that some names can make surviving Second Grade pretty tough. Despite having been saddled with an objectively awkward moniker, Smedley Darlington Butler went on to do some pretty amazing things.
Butler was one of only two Marines in American history to have been awarded the Medal of Honor twice for two different combat engagements. In 1933, he was also tagged to lead a military coup to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. That effort kind of fizzled, but Smedley Butler was nonetheless a simply fascinating guy.
Smedley Butler Before the Legend: A Quaker Goes to War
Smedley Butler was born on 30 July 1881, in West Chester, Pennsylvania. He was the oldest of three sons born to Quaker parents. Butler was an accomplished athlete in High School, serving as captain of his baseball team and quarterback on the gridiron.
He quit school 38 days before his 17th birthday to enlist in the US Marine Corps. His dad was livid, but the young man was terrified he might miss the Spanish-American War. The administrators at his High School had mercy on him and granted him a diploma anyway.
Smedley’s dad served in the US House of Representatives for 31 years. He was chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee under Presidents Harding and Coolidge. Having your dad managing the Marine Corps budget likely didn’t hurt the young Jarhead’s career prospects.
The younger Butler lied about his age and was granted a direct commission as a Marine officer. He arrived in Cuba just after the war ended. Butler piddled about the Marine Corps for another year but then mustered out. However, with the Philippine-American War now heating up, the young officer turned around and donned his uniform yet again, this time as a First Lieutenant.
From the Philippines to the Boxer Rebellion
Like many true warriors, Smedley Butler did not handle boredom well. When not in action, he drank excessively. He once got drunk and was relieved of command.
However, in October of 1899, Butler led 300 Marines to seize the town of Noveleta in the Philippines. Though he briefly panicked when his First Sergeant was hit, Butler regained his composure and led his Marines to rout the enemy. Once the carnage abated in the Philippines, Butler headed to China to put down the Boxer Rebellion.
During the Battle of Tientsin in the summer of 1900, Lieutenant Butler was shot through the thigh while rescuing a wounded Marine. Despite the grievous nature of his injury, Butler went on to help evacuate several of his troops under fire.
Four enlisted Marines earned the Medal of Honor in this engagement, but Marine officers were, at that time, not eligible for the award. However, Butler was granted the Marine Corps Brevet Medal, which also included a promotion to Captain. He was one of only twenty Marines in the history of the Corps to be so recognized.
Old Gimlet Eye and the Bloody Banana Wars
Having now tasted proper combat, Captain Butler just couldn’t get enough. He fought across Central America and the Caribbean in what has since come to be called the Banana Wars.
Even though Butler and his Marines were protecting American business interests, they still no doubt faced some profoundly fierce combat. Losing Marines in support of the United Fruit Company and similar corporate concerns made a deep and lasting impression.
In 1903, Butler took a detachment of Marines into Trujillo, Honduras, looking for trouble. Their primary mission was to secure the American consulate there. In a subsequent letter home, he said that he and his Marines were “Prepared to land and shoot everybody and everything that was breaking the peace.”
They landed amidst a 55-hour ongoing firefight between rebels and government forces. They found the American consul hiding in the rafters of the consulate, wrapped in an American flag. Once they got clear of the town with the American diplomat in tow, the opposing forces resumed killing each other.
At some point in all this traipsing about the jungle, Smedley Butler contracted a variety of bizarre tropical diseases. While rescuing the American consul, Butler was feverish with something or other and had sunken red eyes.
His men began calling him “Old Gimlet Eye.” A gimlet is either a cocktail made with gin and lime or a small tool designed to bore holes in wood. This was one of several respectful, though unsettling monikers bestowed upon him by his troops.
Vera Cruz and Smedley Butler’s First Medal of Honor
Butler subsequently fought all over South and Central America. He once led his battalion to relieve a besieged city on the island of Grenada while running a 104-degree fever.
In April of 1914, he led his troops in an assault on Vera Cruz, Mexico. The fight roiled across the city and ultimately cost American forces 17 dead and 63 wounded. Along the way, Smedley Butler earned the Medal of Honor.
His citation reads in part, “For distinguished conduct in battle, engagement of Vera Cruz, 22 April 1914. Major Butler was eminent and conspicuous in command of his battalion. He exhibited courage and skill in leading his men through the action of the 22d and in the final occupation of the city.” The rules had obviously been changed by then to allow officers to earn the rarefied decoration.
Haiti and Smedley Butler’s Second Medal of Honor
Six months later, Smedley Butler invaded Haiti. He first arrived in the lawless area around Fort Dipitie with 44 Marines. They were ambushed by a force of 400 indigenous Cacos and, surrounded, fought them off all night long. The following morning, Butler organized an infantry charge that repelled the enemy forces in disarray.
On 17 November 1915, Butler led an ad hoc battalion of Marines and sailors in an infiltration of Fort Rivière. The subsequent combat was hand-to-hand and pitiless. When they took the fort, 50 Haitians were dead, and Smedley Butler had earned his second Medal of Honor.
Here’s the citation: “For extraordinary heroism in action as Commanding Officer of detachments from the 5th, 13th, 23d Companies and the Marine and sailor detachment from the U.S.S. Connecticut, Major Butler led the attack on Fort Rivière, Haiti, 17 November 1915. Following a concentrated drive, several different detachments of Marines gradually closed in on the old French bastion fort to cut off all avenues of retreat for the Cacos. Reaching the fort on the southern side where there was a small opening in the wall, Major Butler gave the signal to attack, and Marines from the 15th Company poured through the breach, engaged the Cacos, took the bastion, and crushed the Cacos resistance.”
World War I Passed Him By, but Smedley Butler Kept Fighting
Butler was not granted a combat command during World War 1. There were several reasons for this, some political and others practical. Along the way, he had developed a reputation for erratic behavior. Butler subsequently came home to command the Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia.
From Marine General to Philadelphia’s Crime Fighter
This was a different time. In 1924, W. Freeland Kendrick had been elected mayor of Philadelphia and faced a city awash in Prohibition-driven corruption.
President Calvin Coolidge therefore released General Butler to serve as the city’s Director of Public Safety in charge of both fire and police forces. Butler reassigned his police officers to unfamiliar precincts to upset the inevitable protection rackets he knew to be active.
In his first two days on the job, Butler’s cops raided 900 illegal liquor clubs. He was quoted as having told his officers, “I don’t believe there is a single bandit notch on a policeman’s gun in this city; go out and get some.” I wonder how that might go over today….
The Business Plot: Smedley Butler’s Strangest Battle
Butler eventually retired and became an outspoken critic of war profiteering. In November of 1934, Butler claimed that there was a plot afoot led by prominent American businessmen to field a 500,000-man army of military veterans and march on Washington, depose FDR, and install MG Butler as dictator.
Along the way, Butler named names. The alleged conspirators dismissed the claims as bluff and bluster, but subsequent evidence came to light that lent credence to the plot. Regardless, Butler’s testimony before a House committee drove those behind it back into the shadows. Historians now call this sordid episode the Business Plot.
The Fighting Quaker’s Final Years and Legacy
Major General Butler finally retired to Newton Township, Pennsylvania, with his wife. In 1940, he fell ill and was found to be suffering from what was likely stomach cancer. He had a drinking history, and videos I tracked down in preparing this article sounded like he was a smoker as well.
“The Fighting Quaker,” also known as “Old Gimlet Eye,” succumbed to his disease in June of 1940. He was 58 years old. A real “Break Glass in Case of War” Marine, Smedley Butler was indeed a Leatherneck’s Leatherneck.
Since World War II, arguments have raged over the abilities of German tanks compared to those of the Western Allies. AFV enthusiasts and armchair generals have debated the merits of the thick armor protection and big gun armament of German armored vehicles versus the less protected and under-gunned, but mechanically reliable and numerically superior British and American tanks — particularly the Sherman. Sometimes, these arguments can make you wonder how the Allies ever won the war in Europe.
There are many who deride the Sherman tank, both then and now. Many believe they have good reasons for their negative views of the M4 Medium Tank. Large numbers of Sherman tanks were lost in Western Europe, and casualties among their American, British, and French crews were frighteningly high.
Often overlooked in these debates is the fact that the M4 Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank, with little attention paid at first to tank-fighting. During the fighting in North Africa, the Sherman was the equal of most German tanks.
In Italy, a disparity in tank armor and armament became apparent due to the appearance of the German MK V Panther, believed by American intelligence to be a heavy tank, and expected to be seen only in small numbers. In truth, the Panther was a medium tank, and large amounts of these dangerous vehicles were waiting in France.
Even as late as April 1944, the U.S. Army’s New Weapons Board reached this rather naive conclusion about advancing the Sherman tank’s armament:
“Although it is quite unlikely that tank units will be assigned specific missions of combating enemy tanks and anti-tank guns, tank-vs.-tank and tank-vs.-anti tank combat is often brought about by enemy counterattacks and defense installations.
Owing to this fact and the fact that an increasing number of armored pillboxes and fortifications are being encountered, more powerful tank armament is indicated.”
With D-Day just two months away, the process of up-gunning the Sherman was well behind schedule. Even so, a little more than 100 of the 76mm gun armed M4A1(76) tanks were available by the start of Operation Cobra, the breakout from Normandy in late July 1944. The up-gunned Sherman performed well in some ways, but not as well as expected in others.
A Deadly Foe?
One of the American 76mm gun’s primary hobgoblins was the Panther’s front hull armor, 80mm thick and sharply angled at 55 degrees. The Panther’s frontal protection proved difficult for American anti-tank weapons (less than 90mm) to handle at reasonable combat ranges.
And by mid-1944, the Panther was showing up in ever-increasing numbers. While Sherman crews were discouraged about their tank-fighting abilities, several U.S. combat leaders were increasingly worried.
General Eisenhower was furious when he got the news about the new 76mm gun, and Ike raged:
“You mean our 76 won’t knock these Panthers out? Why, I thought it was going to be the wonder gun of the war. Why is it that I’m the last to hear about this stuff? Ordnance told me this 76 would take care of anything the Germans had. Now I find you can’t knock out a damn thing with it.”
The “76mm Gun, M1” wasn’t useless, but it certainly wasn’t as useful American tankers needed it to be. Meanwhile, the Sherman tanks really were providing infantry support much more frequently than they were fighting German tanks — but when they did face enemy tanks, they believed they were under-protected as well as out-gunned.
More powerful ammunition was part of the anti-tank solution, and when the 76 mm T4 (M93) High-Velocity, Armor-Piercing Tracer (HVAP-T) rounds became available, some hope was restored.
But there were never enough T4 rounds to meet the need, and despite the HVAP ammo’s tremendous muzzle velocity (3,400 fps) it still couldn’t penetrate the Panther’s frontal armor at 900 yards.
Ultimately, the answer came in a brutal equation of sacrificing men and machines. American troops and their M4 tanks were on the offensive. The armored numbers game required overwhelming the Panzers with an abundance of very good (but never truly great) Sherman tanks.
American tankers faced this significant challenge and literally fought their way through German panzer divisions with the tools they had at hand, coupled with tremendous courage and incredible skill.
There were no easy answers in the armored war of 1944-45, but American tankers maintained their momentum and aggressiveness, and the highly reliable, mass-produced Sherman tanks proved good enough to roll on to victory.
In Their Words
I spent some time researching the wartime comments of American Sherman commanders and crews about their vehicles and the German armor they faced.
One of the first things to come up was the infamous German 88mm gun. A tank commander from the 745th Tank Battalion provided this advice in the December 1944 edition of “Battle Experiences”:
88 Fever: “Replacements should be taught the advantages of our tanks over those of the enemy, instead of constantly being told of the effect of the German 88mm gun.
Although our tank guns will not always penetrate the frontal armor of enemy medium tanks, our Sherman tank is faster, more maneuverable and has faster turret action than any tank the Germans have. Their slower turret makes it difficult for them to track our tanks.”
A U.S. intelligence report from April 1945 features comments from American armored commanders about their vehicles and their ability to compete with German tanks. It certainly doesn’t sugarcoat anything, but it does not take an “all-is-lost” attitude either. The report was originally classified as “Secret”.
To: CG, Com Z
Thru: G-4
From: AFV&W Section
Date: 9 April, 1945
- The statement, “It is said that it takes three of our Shermans to knock out a “Tiger”, is an unfortunate generalization that cannot be proved or disproved by facts.
- There are instances of infantrymen destroying a “Tiger” by small arms fire, or a light tank destroying one at point blank range.
- There are instances of a “Tiger” tank accounting for three or four Sherman tanks.
- There are no figures available on the total number of Sherman tanks destroyed by “Tiger” tanks, and the total of “Tiger” tanks destroyed by Shermans.
- From D-Day to 20 March 1945, Ordnance records indicate the following total losses in combat vehicles have been sustained by Sixth and Twelfth US Army Groups:
Medium tanks: 3,757
Light tanks: 1,205
Tank Destroyers (SP): 739
TOTAL: 5,701
There is no accurate compilation of German tanks and self-propelled guns destroyed by US forces available at this time. The Enemy Logistics Section, G-2, SHAEF, estimates that the Germans have sustained the following losses on the Sixth and Twelfth Army Group fronts from D-Day to 1 April 1945, as a result of ground action:
Tanks: 2,200
Self-propelled guns: 2,500
TOTAL: 4,700
(This section is initiating a study on German combat vehicle losses from records compiled by the respective Army Artillery and Armored Officers.)
- A majority of American tank losses have been caused by German infantry hollow charge weapons, emplaced anti-tank guns, and self-propelled anti-tank guns. It is estimated that less than 200 “Tiger II” tanks (the original Tiger tank is obsolete), and less than 1,500 Panther tanks have been encountered by US forces.
- In breaching a defensive line it is necessary to place tanks well forward to give the infantry the close support desired. In a breakthrough operation, tanks spearheading the advance are bound to encounter concealed tanks and anti-tank guns overlooked by the cavalry screen. Therefore, tank losses are relatively high for any offensive army.
- In a frontal encounter with a “Panther” or “Tiger” versus a Sherman, the American tank is at a distinct disadvantage because of the superior armor protection and the superior armor penetration performance of the principal armament of the German tanks.
- The American tank, if armed with a 76mm gun, can risk a lucky hit on the front plate of a “Panther” with special high velocity ammunition (“HVAP”); otherwise the tank has to maneuver to the flank of the German tank where he can destroy it by attack against thinner armor plate. (Approximately 40% of Shermans in the hands of our troops are equipped with the 76mm gun — as opposed to the 75mm gun.)
- American tanks are equipped with a turret power traverse mechanism superior to the one installed in German tanks. This permits the Sherman to get in the all-important “first shot” in most instances.
- It should be remembered that it was not intended tactically that American tanks would have to “slug it out toe-to-toe with other tanks”, and they were not designed to meet this requirement. It is believed that the Heavy Tank T26E3, now being received in increasing quantities (April — 200) provides a tank better able to withstand enemy attack, and to destroy German armor with a minimum of US tank losses.
- There is attached as Incl No. 4, extracts from correspondence from combat commanders received by the undersigned, relative to the merits of our tanks.
J.A. Holly
Brig Gen, USA,
Chief, AFV&W Section.
In “Extracts from correspondence from combat commanders as to the relative merits of American and German tanks”
- Major General Edward H. Brooks, CG, VI Corps, (then CO, 2nd Armored Division), 23 June 1944:
I quote a statement by a British Armored Division Commander:
“The outstanding point about the tanks is that the German TIGER and PANTHER is an infinitely superior tank to the CROMWELL or SHERMAN. That is a fact and a disturbing fact, as again we have fallen a long way behind the German in tank design.”
“I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. I feel that we can take the Germans with the stuff we have, in the country we are fighting now, but a few weeks hence when the county opens up the great value of armor will be lost unless we have a gun that can shoot it out on more even terms with the German PANTHER and TIGER tanks.”
- Colonel Peter O. Hains, III, Armored Officer, First U. S. Army, (Formerly CO 1st Armored Regiment, 1st Armored Division):
- 28 July 1944:
“In our recent operation we have met and defeated a large number of PANTHERS. I have some officers making a survey to determine how they were knocked out.
A preliminary survey indicates that proper technical employment i.e. flanking fire, guns in depth, guns mutually supporting, obtained our successes. There can be no question about the effectiveness of the 75 mm or 3-inch gun when employed in this manner. Unfortunately, sometimes they have to meet head on and as you know, we are on the wrong end of the stick when that happens.’
- 21 January 1945:
“As a result of our recent operations it is more apparent than ever that the 75mm gun M4 Tank is obsolete. That is, it cannot be employed successfully where German armor is present in any quantity.
I recently visited several of our armored units, particularly the 2nd Armored Division, and they are very specific and firm in their feeling that the 75mm gun in the medium tank is unsuited for their operations.
They state that the crews have suffered from German gunfire at 3000 yards to such an extent that they have lost confidence in these tanks because they feel that they are unable to fight back and can only stand for the kill or run away.
They have confidence in the 76mm gun tank because they have at least a sporting chance of fighting back. This condition has become critical and I feel that we must increase our efforts to obtain the 76mm and speed up the delivery of the 90mm.
Unless you have seen the Royal Tiger, you can have no conception of the terrific size and power of this tank. When Panthers and Tigers are present on the battlefield, as they have been lately, it is a serious strain on the morale of our units to fight them with 75mm gun tanks.
- Colonel W.P. Withers, CO, 17th Armored Group, 20 February 1945, (relative to superiority of U.S. turret power traverse mechanism):
“The number of seconds it takes to turn those Kraut turrets is a matter of win or lose in a battle sometimes. We have definitely had instances where for some reason, the Tiger or Panther did not swing their guns on our tanks, thus allowing us to destroy them at 900 yards.”
- Colonel H.A. Sears, Commanding CCA, 4th Armored Division, (then CO, 17th Armored Group), 18 December 1944:
“One of our gunners complained the other day that it was a bit discouraging to bounce eleven shots off a German tank and have it keep on going. He was shooting a 75. 75s bounce off the new “Royal” job. On the other hand it is interesting to note that the German PW’s have complained that it takes three minutes for them to traverse 360 degrees while our power traverse whips around in nothing flat, so I guess we all have good features on our vehicles but you just hear more about the gripes.”
Conclusion
Brigadier General Holly makes several interesting points in his notes. He reminds that the Sherman was never conceived or designed to be a tank-fighting vehicle.
He also notes that any attacking army is likely to take higher casualties to achieve their objectives. Given the date that this report was written, with victory within sight, the time to rethink American tank development and doctrine had long passed.
The incredible bravery and ingenuity of American tank crews, coupled with the adaptability and overall quality of their vehicles, had ultimately beaten the best the Germans had to offer.