Reading about the development of the US army’s tanks in WWII, one thing I’ve not been able to find out is how popular the choice of names were - particularly, did it rankle with southerners - particularly Georgians - to have a tank named after the hated general who steamrolled the south in the March to the Sea, or with northerners to use a tank named after one of the most successful generals of the Confederacy?
I’ve never heard of anything like that. It’s not like line soldiers use the official name much anyway. Plus the M3 was known as both the “Lee” and the “Grant” depending on turret configuration. And the “Sherman” was named by the British, not the US Army.
As Selenius said, those names were British and rarely used in the US Army. ‘Grant’ and ‘Sherman’ were the M3 Medium Tank and the M4 Medium Tank, with common abbreviation to just the first or first two words of the name. Same with the US light tank series named ‘Stuart’ officially by the British (and Honey unofficially), the names were rarely used in the US Army. Later in WWII the US Army itself adopted the convention of naming tanks* though it was still much more likely for crews to use the M series designations, as continued postwar where most US tanks had names but were still more often referred to by M series designation.
*M24 Chaffee, prototype T26 Pershings used right at the end of the war, M36 Jackson tank destroyer, whereas the previous M4 based M10 tank destroyer had no name even in British service, the name Achilles only referred to up gunned British M10’s.
Ah, that explains it. Thanks, I’d thought the American tradition of naming tanks after generals had originated in the states.
There was a comic book where the ghost of Robert E. Lee would appear to a tank crew.
The British also called the M4 the “Ronson”, which was the name of a cigarette lighter whose advertising slogan at the time was “lights the first time, every time”. In case you don’t get the reference, they were making a bit of gallows humor at the Sherman’s tendency to catch fire when hit, caused by inadequate armor relative to the German tank guns and the fact that the early Shermans used gasoline instead of diesel fuel.
For similar reasons, the Germans nicknamed the M4 the “Tommy cooker”, which was a play on both the German nickname for British troops and the “Tommy cooker” portable stove which had been in use by troops since WWI.
early Shermans? When did they switch to a diesel? 
And of course here’s the thing; the USA built about 50000 Shermans, the Germans could build no more than 8000 Panzer IVs.
As Will Self noted, quantity has a quality all its own.
The M4A2 was diesel.
Poking around online to verify that my memory was correct, I find that they continued to produce gasoline Shermans after the M4A2 went into production in 1942. M4A3’s and M4A4’s were gasoline (which I didn’t remember) and M4A6’s were diesel.
Ok, digging around I confirmed this, but those were almost all sent out as Lend-lease. The WWII US Army ran mostly on gasoline.
Actually the Ronson nickname was due to the ammo going off, not so much the gasoline.
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/09/05/common-myths-about-wwii/
“Myth: Shermans were prone to fires due to the gasoline engines, and were nicknamed “Ronson” by their crews.
Fact: Shermans were not especially fire-prone (consider German tanks that also used gasoline engines, but avoid this reputation). Fires were caused by improper storage of ammunition, when it was literally stuffed everywhere inside the tank it could fit. The end of this practice drastically reduced the number of Sherman fires. The Ronson nickname is attributed to the slogan “lights every time”. The slogan was launched post-war, and thus could not influence the nickname.”
M4’s had several different power plants as a way of getting enough power plants. The US Army viewed the M4A3’s Ford GAA gasoline engine as ideal, and only A3’s saw significant postwar service. It was also used in the M26. M4A4’s used a Rube Goldberg arrangement of 5 automobile engines, which worked fine, but 96% of them were given to the British, along with around half of M4A2’s, and another 43% of A2’s went to the Soviets. The US Army basically* did not use M4A2’s. The only significant US use was by the USMC, in part because they burned the same fuel as landing craft, but again also just because the Army didn’t want them, and the Marines also used gasoline M4’s, again exclusively so postwar.
As mentioned gasoline v diesel fuel was not a major factor in tank vulnerability. The big danger to crews was and remains ammo fires, hydraulic fires in some cases, whereas either gasoline or diesel fuel (along with lube oil and rubber components of the suspension if any) would go up eventually anyway in an ammo fire/explosion. See pictures and film of ‘brewed up’ (diesel) T-34’s in Korea.
Moreover, the WWII US Army didn’t want to set up a separate logistical train for diesel fuel. It’s the same reason everything now has to be able to run on distillate (diesel or jet fuel), why you see diesel fueled military motorcycles and small drones. It’s not because distillate burning engines are so advantageous in those applications, but to not have to have any supply line for gasoline.
*some A2’s destined for the French were used to replace heavy losses in US armored units in Tunisia, but it’s not clear they were ever used in combat before more gasoline tanks turned up in the normal supply line.
The M10 was officially named Achilles in British service. The 3" gun version was the Achilles Mk.I or Mk.II, while the upgunned 17-pounder gun version was the Mk.Ic/Mk.IIc. Generally, however, they appeared in British wartime documentation as “M.10 SP” with 3" or 17pdr added if there were multiple versions referenced. The Achilles name was rarely used. The use of “Achilles” exclusively for the upgunned version seems to have only become common sometime in the 1970s, well after they were all out of service.
Some references began to use the name “Wolverine” for the original 3" gun version (again sometime in the 1970s), but this name was never used during the war, by either the US or the British. It can probably be traced to an early proposal to manufacture a Canadian version of the M10 (similar to the “Grizzly” name given to Sherman tanks built in Canada), but the Canadian M10 didn’t proceed past a preliminary discussion, and no name was ever actually assigned.
People weren’t such overly sensitive crybabies back then.
No.
Not Lee.
Jeb Stuart.
DC comic’s The Haunted Tank, which as gone through several incarnations.
Thanks, Bosda.
Having been in the Army, I can tell you that it’s unlikely 1 in 10 recruits could tell you who “Lee” and “Sherman” were, especially without context.
Also, from having been in the Army, I can tell you it is unlikely that 1 in 100 civilians have any idea of what is going on vis a vis the naming of equipment. They call M16A2s “guns,” and it gets worse from there.
Newbie Southerner soldier: “Isn’t ‘Lee’ the car on Dukes of Hazzard?”
d&r … 
Sherman is of course Mr. Peabody’s buddy.
(OK, so *some *of the recruits from Georgia may know who’s W. T. Sherman. Dude knew how to make a lasting impression, heh, heh, heh…)
Source that Achilles was war time official name? This stuff is tricky, as suggested by the subject of the thread. The impression of any widespread use of the terms Grant/Lee and Sherman for US medium tanks in US service seems to be a product of postwar book also.
Anyway it seems I was wrong about Achilles only applying to 17pdr vehicles.
However looking into that further in library, Zaloga (generally a pretty careful researcher) says Achilles for any version of the M10 is a postwar name. He also says btw that Jackson was not official for the M36. I didn’t mention Wolverine for the M10 because I think it well known that was neither an official name nor widely use by crews. Zaloga says it was a war time advertising name by Chrysler. But again IME reading original combat docs/reports of the US Army it’s rare for armored vehicles to be referred to by anything other than their M series designations, with qualifiers as necessary to disambiguate among them (medium v light tank and so forth).
Apropos of not much, I remember reading that Georgia soldiers arriving in Britain were ‘treated’ to the song Marching through Georgia by the locals