Cooper

No, not that Cooper.  The other Cooper.  Belton.

Tam mentioned him after sorta reviewing the Brad Pitt move Fury, about a fictional tank battle in WWII.  She said "It is apparent that Belton Cooper's work is now the accepted pop history narrative." and that made me want to get Mr. Cooper's book to see what he was on about.

Cooper was a JO in the ETO, and was charged with the support of the armored forced of the 3rd.  In this role he saw how tanks from both sides fared in battle.

And man did he dislike Patton.  He attribute to Patton the prioritizing of the M4 Sherman over a the M26 Pershing that was being developed late in the war.  To sum up both sides, Patton wanted quantity right away not a promise of quality next month.  Cooper wanted the best tool possible for the Armored Warfare job, even if it meant delays, as the Sherman was inadequate for the task.  It seems to me that that was what Cooper was getting at.

I guess he was getting on about "oh woe is the poor armored soldiers in crappy equipment."  And that is the narrative.  Cooper thought everything else was top notch.  Vehicles, artillery, aircraft, supply system, our Ma Deuce...  Just the tanks and tank guns were the problem.

Here is another online review.

And of course, there is heated debate on which version of history is the 'truth'.

But I read it because of the Tam reference and I didn't want to remain culturally ignorant on what seemed, and is, a major bit of contention in WWII history buff circles.  Which I try to be.  But I am of the 3rd camp.  The point of victory wasn't from Shermans or Pershings tanks.  Not metal tracks, but the long logistical tail on rubber tires and steel ships and aluminum aircraft overhead.  Plus similar aircraft doing a lot of the heavy lifting in the anti-armor department.  But that's me.