# Worst possible combat role in WWII? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 30, 2015, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887 "2015-04-30T13:32:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Laggard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Laggard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laggard)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/61 "2015-05-04T16:24:53Z")
Wasn’t the career length of a WWI fighter pilot measured in minutes? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/62 "2015-05-04T18:25:38Z")
Not quite. Fighter pilots averaged 40-60 hours of combat time (or a few weeks of “real time”.) It varied by aircraft type, though. ---
**Author:** ![stillownedbysetters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/41988e/32.png) [@stillownedbysetters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stillownedbysetters)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/63 "2015-05-04T18:39:49Z")
My dad joined up in 1944 as a newly-graduated pre-med student. He was advised that it would be good “experience” for him before he started medical school. He was told they valued young medical personnel and that he wouldn’t be sent to the front. They were right. He wasn’t. But what they did send him to do was serve in the first group that was sent into liberated concentration camps. While there were still a few people remaining for whom medical treatment was possible, the bulk of what dad’s group found was beyond help and the conditions were unspeakable. Literally. My dad was unable to talk about what he’d seen and heard for the remainder of his life. Not to his parents, his brothers, my mother or to me. Granted, his life was never in jeopardy, but that has to have been a terrible gig. I do know that he never continued to medical school when he returned from the war. He got a PhD in chemistry and became a college professor. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/64 "2015-05-04T19:01:15Z")
> [@bump](#): > > On the Allied side, I’d imagine that combat engineers didn’t have it very good. If the regular soldiers got bogged down due to pillboxes or other obstacles, guess whose job it was to go take the obstacle out under fire and get the rest of the guys moving again? My grandfather served in an engineering unit in the First World War. He let it slip, just once, that his unit arrived at the site of the Second Battle of the Marne just in time to be assigned to burial duty, and that some of his friends took artillery fire even though they were unarmed. For more than 80 years afterward, he never again spoke or wrote of anything that happened between his arrival in France and the Armistice, even when asked. Maybe living with the memories of some things is even worse than simply getting killed. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/65 "2015-05-05T04:00:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Tell that to [this guy](http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/feature.pages/death.traps.htm). They called them Ronsons for a reason. [He’s not exactly reputable.](http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/09/05/common-myths-about-wwii/) > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![movingfinger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@movingfinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/movingfinger)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/66 "2015-05-05T06:38:27Z")
Bill Mauldin’s cartoons…yeah…I recall the medic standing up and lighting his cigarette and replying to infantrymen behind him with, “It’s okay, Joe. I’m a non-combatant.” May I suggest unexploded ordnance engineer? Does anyone recall the Masterpiece Theatre production from a few years back called “Danger! UXB!”? ---
**Author:** ![filmstar-en](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/50afbb/32.png) [@filmstar-en](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmstar-en)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/67 "2015-05-05T13:12:54Z")
[QUOTE=] 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. [/QUOTE] From Wikipedia: …in 1927 Ronson began marketed it as the Ronson De-Light Lighter with the slogan “A flip - and it’s lit! Release - and it’s out!” The Germans also called Sherman tanks ‘Tommy Cookers’. Tommy being a the nickname for British soldiers manning Sherman tanks. The vivid accounts of the tank crews paint a picture of great cameraderie and espirt de corp. While its armour was no match for 88mm or 75 field guns or tanks, it was effective in a great number of other scenarios. Many crew members survived their tank being hit. There are probably worse combat roles. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/68 "2015-05-05T13:27:19Z")
> [@dr\_zippermeyer](#): > > I vote for flame thrower operator. . Yep. 92% fatalities among them. here’s an account , he was only on flame thrower once. [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/vhp-stories/loc.natlib.afc2001001.20719/transcript?ID=sr0001](http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/vhp-stories/loc.natlib.afc2001001.20719/transcript?ID=sr0001) He mentioned splash back. If you were forced to move, or someone or something came close to you, there could be splash back, its rather more severe than shooting yourself in the foot. ---
**Author:** ![dr\_zippermeyer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c0e974/32.png) [@dr\_zippermeyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dr_zippermeyer)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/69 "2015-05-05T15:50:33Z")
> [@movingfinger](#): > > May I suggest unexploded ordnance engineer? Does anyone recall the Masterpiece Theatre production from a few years back called “Danger! UXB!”? Yes! It was awesome! You are the only person I know on this damn planet who has watched it besides me. Such a pity. Really well made and realistic, unlike Hurt Locker for example. And yes, their job sucked. If I remember right at some point newcomer could expect to live 2 weeks. ---
**Author:** ![dr\_zippermeyer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c0e974/32.png) [@dr\_zippermeyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dr_zippermeyer)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/70 "2015-05-05T16:22:35Z")
> [@Isilder](#): > > Yep. 92% fatalities among them. > > … > > He mentioned splash back. If you were forced to move, or someone or something came close to you, there could be splash back, its rather more severe than shooting yourself in the foot. Thanks. Luckily he had to use it only in one occasion, I mean fire it in anger. And sure, that splash back wasn’t nice. You just can’t stick nozzle to any hole and shoot because if the is something stopping the stream all the napalm will fly back at you. Where did you get casualty rate? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/71 "2015-05-05T16:47:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > At the Battle of Stalingrad several western sources suggest that Soviet troops were being sent to the front in pairs, with one gun per pair (you might remember seeing it in the film _Enemy at the Gates_ and in the first _Call of Duty_ game.) The historicity of this is questionable but it seems like a pretty awful way to be sent into the field. > > Losses per sortie were much higher for RAF bomber crews than for the USAAF. I don’t really understand why since the RAF was flying at night and the Lancasters were a bit safer than B-17s. 1. Most RAF bombers weren’t Lancasters. 2. Most RAF missions weren’t flown at night, and of course, when they were, night flying has its own hazards. 3. The RAF was proportionately more active early in the war, when the Luftwaffe was stronger. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/72 "2015-05-05T16:58:49Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 1. Most RAF bombers weren’t Lancasters. > > 2. Most RAF missions weren’t flown at night, and of course, when they were, night flying has its own hazards. > > 3. The RAF was proportionately more active early in the war, when the Luftwaffe was stronger. Was there a most flown RAF bomber? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/73 "2015-05-05T16:59:49Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I was under the impression that they were “dangerous” in the sense that against German Tiger tanks, they were under armored and the main gun was ineffective until they upgraded it. This is undoubtedly true, but is not far removed, logically speaking, from saying that a Lexus sedan isn’t a very good car because if you’re ever asked to race it in the Daytona 500 you’ll probably lose. Tiger tanks were awesome when they worked. They rarely worked; they were incredibly terrible, in fact, in terms of reliability. At any given time most Tigers were broken. The Panther was a much better tank and was still glitchy as well; for quite some time after its introduction its engine would sometimes burst into flames and force the crew to run away. Most armored enemies faced by Sherman crews would have been inferior Panzers, such as the IV and perhaps even III, and tank destroyers. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/74 "2015-05-05T17:03:14Z")
> [@dr\_zippermeyer](#): > > What do you think was the worst possible “job” a fighting soldier could get in WWII? > > I vote for flame thrower operator. Every time you appeared on the battlefield, you became the number one target for all the enemies nearby. If they hit your fuel tanks you most likely burned to death. If they captured you they probably murdered you for killing so brutally their comrades. Even if you survived, you had to see every day the results of your work. Screaming, charred soldiers, slowly dying for their burns. I have never seen memoirs by a flame thrower operator: I wonder if any of them wanted to write down their experiences. Geez, this is a great thread, asked and answered by the Op in the first post.😛 My Dad served in the pacific for the whole war, and he said the flamethrower has a detail every tried to avoid. Not to mention, it was super heavy and you had to stand up out of cover to use it. Good thread. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/75 "2015-05-06T19:55:57Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Yeah, that’s the history channel version of history, but it’s wrong. Tank vs tank combat was relatively rare on the western from in WW2. Most of a tanker’s combat duty was facing against infantry and hardened positions, and scattered resistance during a pursuit. There’s drama, almost like a boss fight in video games, when a rare German tank shows up to the battle and everyone diverts its attention to taking it down, but it was relatively infrequent. The Sherman was well suited for most of the duties it faced. Beyond that, it was a doctrinal decision, not merely a case of having shitty equipment. The idea was that Shermans weren’t supposed to even get into tank v. tank fights; the US Army had tank destroyer units whose job it was to engage enemy tanks. Shermans were supposed to do exactly what SenorBeef mentions. This wasn’t proven to be effective in practice, but by that point, the development of the T-26 Pershing had been delayed enough that it wasn’t going to be available in any kind of reasonable numbers, so the Army doubled-down on the Sherman and made the best of a bad situation. Plus, infantry AT weapons like the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck, as well as all the various German AT guns and minefields took out a whole lot of tanks (potentially more than other tanks did) as well, and Shermans were not particularly more vulnerable to them than T-34s or IS-2s. The final thing to keep in mind is that the German Army wasn’t exclusively outfitted with Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers. The vast majority of their tanks were the various PzKfwIV models, and various sorts of assault guns(Sturmgeschutz III)/tank destroyers(Marder, Hetzer,etc…). None of them particularly outclassed the 76mm Shermans at all. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/76 "2015-05-06T20:02:01Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Beyond that, it was a doctrinal decision, not merely a case of having shitty equipment. The idea was that Shermans weren’t supposed to even get into tank v. tank fights; the US Army had tank destroyer units whose job it was to engage enemy tanks. Shermans were supposed to do exactly what SenorBeef mentions. > > This wasn’t proven to be effective in practice, but by that point, the development of the T-26 Pershing had been delayed enough that it wasn’t going to be available in any kind of reasonable numbers, so the Army doubled-down on the Sherman and made the best of a bad situation. > > Plus, infantry AT weapons like the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck, as well as all the various German AT guns and minefields took out a whole lot of tanks (potentially more than other tanks did) as well, and Shermans were not particularly more vulnerable to them than T-34s or IS-2s. > > The final thing to keep in mind is that the German Army wasn’t exclusively outfitted with Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers. The vast majority of their tanks were the various PzKfwIV models, and various sorts of assault guns(Sturmgeschutz III)/tank destroyers(Marder, Hetzer,etc…). None of them particularly outclassed the 76mm Shermans at all. I assume you are referring to these: > **[Sherman Firefly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly)** > > The Sherman Firefly was a medium tank used by the United Kingdom and some armoured formations of other Allies in the Second World War. It was based on the US M4 Sherman but was fitted with the more powerful British 76.2 mm (3.00 in) calibre 17-pounder anti-tank gun as its main weapon. Conceived as a stopgap until future British tank designs came into service, the Sherman Firefly became the most common vehicle mounting the 17-pounder in the war. > The British Army made extensive use of Sherman t... ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/77 "2015-05-06T20:08:51Z")
> [@Isilder](#): > > Yep. 92% fatalities among them. That settles it AFAICT. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/78 "2015-05-06T20:48:57Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I do not recall the author of a poem, “The Ball Turret Gunner”, but the last line is, “and they wash me out with a hose.” The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner Randall Jarrell, 1914 - 1965 From my mother’s sleep I fell into the State, And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze. Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life, I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters. When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/79 "2015-05-07T13:50:31Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I assume you are referring to these: > > [Sherman Firefly - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly) I was actually talking about the M4A3E8 “Easy Eight” Shermans with the HVSS suspension and [76mm high velocity gun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1) (same as used in the M18 Hellcat tank destroyers). By the end of the war, something like half the Shermans out there were armed with the 76mm gun. making them a match for anything but Panthers or Tigers’ frontal armor at long range. From the side or rear, even the old 75mm gun was effective against them. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887/80 "2015-05-07T13:58:02Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I was actually talking about the M4A3E8 “Easy Eight” Shermans with the HVSS suspension and [76mm high velocity gun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1) (same as used in the M18 Hellcat tank destroyers). By the end of the war, something like half the Shermans out there were armed with the 76mm gun. making them a match for anything but Panthers or Tigers’ frontal armor at long range. From the side or rear, even the old 75mm gun was effective against them. Interestingly, they were apparently roughly comparable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-possible-combat-role-in-wwii/718887.md?page=5)