Any statement that was considered to be contrary to policy orĭoctrine was forbidden, and any such statements that could be traced back to a given individual would result The same applied to any conversations that a serving military officer or enlisted man might have with eitherĬivilian or military members of the Press. Would be transferred back to the Z.o.I., and would lose any brevet or spot promotions he had gained in either If he continued to write letters in a similar vein, he would, if anĮnlisted man, be given a summary court martial, and either demoted, fined, or both.
With instructions not to repeat his actions. The entire letter was contrary to good military order, that letter was destroyed, and the author was reprimanded, If the reviewing officer felt that the tone of Must remember, EVERY single letter written by an officer or enlisted man serving overseas was reviewed byĪ superior officer, and any offending passage was censored out. The lack of contemporary descriptions of the M4 Sherman as a ' Zippo ' or a ' Ronson ' are thus not strange. In other words, officers and enlisted men were to keep their mouths shut, under pain of demotion or court Or could in any way be construed as interfering with the prosecution of the war of the war effort as a whole. Opinions or make any statements that could be considered either contrary to good military discipline and order, Officers and enlisted men were under discipline, that is to say, they had to obey orders, and not express any The historical situation that existed in the United States Armed Forces during WW2. These are two very telling quotes, as they seem, at least to me, to display a certain lack of understanding of In the New York Times in December 1944 and January 1945
#Ronson lighter sherman series#
As part of that search I also looked for derogatory references and itĪll - repeat, all - appears to stem from the series of articles written by Hanson Baldwin Instead, it is a simple declaration that while there were very good features in the Medium Tank M4, it was inferior in too many ways for the good to outweigh the bad.and invariably it seemed to come down to gun power, not flammability. However, no such derogatory term appears. It is obvious that the opinion of the tankers shifted from the high expectations of June 1944 to the low exemplified by the attitude of the 2d AD after the battles on the Roer plain in November that were expressed by I.D. I did a pretty extensive newspaper search just for references to the "name" controversy regarding American tanks and SP.was it "General" Stuart, Sherman, Grant, Lee, and et cetera? Where did the names come from? Were they authorized? Were they commonly used other than by newspapers?Īs part of that search I also looked for derogatory references and it all - repeat, all - appears to stem from the series of articles written by Hanson Baldwin in the New York Times in December 1944 and January 1945 and a few other anonymous editorial articles in the same time frame. But the "Ronson light first time" seems to have been concocted post war and seemed into the memories of veterans.ĭoes anyone have any contemporary references? That would be fine if there were contemporary wartime references to the term in contemporary letters, diaries or newspaper reports. If they do a remake of Kelly's Heroes perhaps it would be more realistic to use a Panther instead of the Tiger? Slits make defense against close attacks impossible Fuel-lines of porous material thatĪllow gasoline fumes to escape into the tankĬausing a grave fire Hazard. Out the front final drives, made of low-grade Very front-heavy and therefore quickly wears Gun barrel and width of tank reduce maneuverability To advantage, the PzKpfw V provedīecause of its maneuverability and height was Īs opposed to the 'World's Greatest self-igniting Lighter"?
The Shermans indeed became the " World's Greatest Lighters ".