Interview with Steven Zaloga

Walter_Sobchak · Jan 12, 2015

This past October I was able to do a phone interview with noted tank expert and writer Steven Zaloga. Topics addressed include his take on the film "Fury", myths about the M4 Sherman, the state of tank preservation in the US, and his opinion of the book "Death Traps." Obviously I am biased, but I think it's a very interesting read for anyone who cares about WW2 tanks and armor. I'll post the first few paragraphs, if people want to read more they can find the rest at my blog. I hope people enjoy it.

[SIZE=small]Steven Zaloga is an author and defense analyst known worldwide for his articles and publications on military technology. He has written over a hundred books on military technology and military history, including "Armored Thunderbolt: The US Army Sherman in World War II", one of the most highly regarded histories of the Sherman Tank. His books have been translated into Japanese, German, Polish, Czech, Romanian, and Russian. He was a special correspondent for Jane's Intelligence Review and is on the executive board of the Journal of Slavic Military Studies and the New York Military Affairs Symposium. From 1987 through 1992, he was the writer/producer for Video Ordnance Inc., preparing their TV series Firepower. He holds a BA in history from Union College and an MA in history from Columbia University.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]What did you think about the film "Fury" in terms of historical accuracy? Did it capture the look and feel of World War II tank combat?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]I thought it was a very good film within the limits of what you can do in Hollywood. Some people get all spun up in claiming this bit is inaccurate or whatever, nitpicking some of the small details. My outlook is more from the broad picture, looking at it from the standpoint of a general audience, not a bunch of tank specialists. I thought it was very well done, I thought it was very authentic. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]Explain what you mean by "within the limits of Hollywood."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]It had the usual Hollywood issues, some things had to be compressed. For example a lot of the engagements occurred at shorter ranges so that they could get everything within an image. I've actually done TV writing, I know the problems of trying to compress dates and compress imagery so that it fits on the screen. There was also the need to kind of jazz up some of the encounters. So for example the last scene where the tank is isolated and fighting against the German unit, from a purely historical standpoint I would have some questions about it. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]But from a dramatic standpoint, from the standpoint of a movie maker I understand why they depicted it the way they did. But overall my impression was really favorable, I thought they really made a serious effort to get the feel of the time. I was very impressed with the depiction of the US units moving into the German town. I mean that stuff looks straight out of the pages of black and white photos of the fighting of April 1945. They really went out of their way to create that feel. Overall I was really impressed with the film. Like I say, you can nitpick a lot of little stuff, but who cares. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]One thing I was wondering about while watching the film was the idea of a typist being assigned to a tank. I know that sort of thing happened in the Normandy campaign (Summer 1944). Was that common by the period of the film, April 1945?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]It was actually a more common occurrence later in the war especially after the Bulge, the Ardennes fighting. In Normandy there were heavy losses but the US Army units usually were over strength, they usually had about 20 percent over strength. They could actually replace the crews more readily with trained tank crews. By the late summer after all the casualties they had suffered it started to become a problem so in unit records you start seeing complaints about the quality of the personnel that are being sent forward to act as tank crew. By the time of the Ardennes (December 1944) it becomes a more serious problem, they were starting to replace tank crews with essentially untrained crew. The way they depicted it in the film was actually quite accurate. The two positions that most commonly got filled by untrained replacements would be the loader and the bow gunner. The character Norman was the bow gunner, that was one of the positions that would be filled by a replacement and the other replacement would generally be the loader because they didn't require the type of technical skill that the driver , the gunner or the commander required. Those three other positions tended to be filled by someone with experience, even if they had to go outside the crew for one of those slots. [/SIZE]
Click to expand...

For the rest of the interview, click here.

LRusso216 · Jan 12, 2015

Great interview, Walter. Thanks for posting it.

Martin Bull · Jan 13, 2015

Very interesting and worthwhile indeed. Many thanks for sharing it with us !

CAC · Jan 13, 2015

Thank you! If the film is good enough for him, then who are we to argue?

MLW · Jan 16, 2015

Here is an interesting article scanned from the records at NARA. It was written by a US tank battalion commander in 1944. His main points dovetail nicely with what Steve Zaloga has to say.

http://854534263155010103.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/4/1/25411694/article_by_us_army_tank_battalion_commander_-_tank_versus_tank_1946.pdf

Regards,
Marc
www.digitalhistoryarchive.com

gtblackwell · Jan 17, 2015

Good thread. The Sherman vs just about anything has gone on for decades but continuous to produce near information. My movie views tend to reflect Steve Zagola's. I thought SPR did a good job in general on equipment, the two scopes on the same gun I thought a funny mistake. I had not realized their were two 03A3 sniper versions until someone took them to task for using the wrong one..

Marc, I enjoyed reading both your links. Maybe the Colonel's should be required reading before entering a Sherman vs discussion ! I imagine any tanker lived with a certain amount of anxiety in combat given the visibility but if I were in a Sherman and if only a few Mark V's and VI's were about I would have imaged a 75HV or 88 hitting my machine....but anxiety must be part of a;ll combat.

harolds · Jan 17, 2015

IMHO, Lt. Colonel Irzyk's article seemed to be written shortly after the war and was, in part, a defense or our armored doctrine during the war. To put it mildly, that doctrine is not above criticism.

MLW · Jan 18, 2015

I checked my notes and realize now that the article was written in either late 1945 or in 1946. I am sure it was written with an agenda in mind. We just need to stay aware of that when we read it.

Regards, Marc

Highway70 · Jan 19, 2015

Albin F. Irzyk author of article linked by MLW http://en.ww2awards.com/person/34634/ commanded a Battalion of the Fourth Armored Division - the spearhead of Patton's Third Army across much of Europe. He served in the Army for 31 years, retiring in 1971.

More info on him http://www.freedomhistory.com/patton.php

Books written by him:

Tanks And Armored Vehicles 1900-1945

A Warriors Quilt of Personal Military History

He Rode Upfront with Patton

Gasoline To Patton, A Different War

Unsung Heroes, Saving Saigon

Log in or Sign up

Interview with Steven Zaloga

Walter_Sobchak Member

LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

CAC Ace of Spades

MLW recruit

gtblackwell Member Emeritus

harolds Member

MLW recruit

Highway70 Member

Share This Page

About US

Useful Links