Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II

You often read books about the front line troops and the war through their eyes. This is the only ww2 book I have found so far that details the actions of some of the thousands of men who worked to keep the machines of war in operation. One of my Grandfather's was a Bomber mechanic on Tinian Island during the war and the other fought in Europe and was part of a maintenance battalion such as this. I enjoyed the read. It put some of that in perspective for me.

Deathtraps is an engrossing personal account of a of the American Tanker's experience in World War II from a unique insider's perspective, the man in charge of recovering and fixing destroyed tanks. It is a deeply personal and moving account of a man coming to grips with the horrors of war while at the same time rejoicing at the traces of humanity that remained even in the worst situations. Despite some inaccuracies and repetition it once again reinforces the fact that the M4 Sherman tank was totally outclassed for most of World War II by its German opponents. While the GI grapevine isn't 100% accurate it captures the feelings and beliefs of the armored infantry and tankers who fought and died in the Sherman. It is this insight that makes this book so valuable. Belton Cooper speaks for those who didn't make it back. The author writes with an earnestness that gives voice to those who went into battle knowing that the odds were against them. Logistics efficiency was purchased at the expense of battle losses. Whether or not that was the right choice will be debated forever but the author has earned the right to present his argument from firsthand personal experience.Unfortunately, the lead reviewer who gave this book one star used two outrageously misleading points (among several others) to disparage this book, and rather unwittingly, the tens of thousands of American tankers who fought and died in the Sherman. He misses the point of this book by playing the part of a not-so-accurate-self-proclaimed-fact-checker and misses the story of the bravery of the crews who knowingly went into battle with an inferior weapon. Whether or not the Sherman was or was not inferior is not the point. The point is that these men believed that they faced certain death and still did their duty each day until the end of the war. (See notes below).Additional Notes for Armor Nerds:Armor nerds will point out that limited supplies of special HVAP ammunition and add-on armor brought some Shermans up to a survivable level at the very end of the war. The inescapable fact is that without overwhelming air superiority and artillery support, an unsupported Sherman pitted against a Panther or a Tiger without overwhelming numerical superiority was doomed. Fortunately, towards the end of the war, that became an exceedingly rare occurrence. Official Army guidelines stated that 5 Shermans were needed to knockout a Panther and thanks to the maintenance crews of the U.S. Army; there were always plenty of Shermans. The Sherman was an excellent anti-infantry weapon. It was a terrible anti-tank weapon.Lead Reviewer's misleading "fact" checking points:ONE: Claiming that German tank kills by U.S. armored divisions refuted the assertion that the Sherman was at a disadvantage to German tanks: Ridiculously misleading. The overwhelming bulk of German tank losses were caused by combined air and artillery support. In the case of Normandy (and Anzio), even the U.S. Navy intervened to stop German tanks near the beaches and saved the day.TWO: Implying that since Shermans were used in the Korean War of 1950 and the Arab-Israeli conflicts of 1967 and 1973 they were battle worthy to modern standards.ISRAEL: The Shermans were radically upgraded ("Super-Shermans") to be unrecognizable as an M4. The Shermans were mechanically reliable and lasted a long time. However, despite being given new guns and additional armor, they were still terribly vulnerable leading to incidents of mutiny when Israeli's manning Super Shermans refused to directly engage superior tanks alone without overwhelming combined arms support. That the Sherman was used this late was the result of necessity (arms embargos) and mechanical reliability (the undisputed strongpoint of the Sherman). The Arab armies also still used limited numbers of T34's and German Mark IV's due to arms shortages.KOREA: The army was critically short of tanks and anti-tank weapons in Korea. The first U.S. units engaged in Korea had no tanks and inadequate anti-tank weapons which led to many losses including the capture of a U.S. General. They actually had to salvage tanks from the old pacific battlegrounds to initially obtain tanks for Korea. When newer Shermans arrived in quantity, they had adequate HVAP ammunition not readily available in WWII and were facing a limited number of poorly trained North Korean tanks that did well against troops without anti-tank weapons but were quickly neutralized by overwhelming air and artillery support (sound familiar?). The M26 and M46 Pershings were also on hand later on in the war so the Shermans were once again used mainly as artillery support and anti-infantry weapons.Perhaps the only two minor disappointments I have with Cooper's account are:ONE: His missed opportunity to build upon his disclosure of the critical tank crew shortages and identify it as the leading cause of Patton's (a Southern general descended from a Confederate Officer) decision to accept African-American tank troops in his army. Given the state of race relations at that time, Patton's reversal on segregation and the integration of his army with African-American tank units underscored the failure of the Sherman and the tank crew shortage/crisis, which faced the U.S. Army.TWO: Failure to mention that the British up gunned the Sherman with a 17-pounder gun (Firefly) that could destroy Panthers and Tigers and deployed them in a ratio of one Firefly for every four Shermans. The U.S. declined Britain's offer of the 17-pounder, again for LOGISTICAL reasons. While the British still suffered terrible Sherman losses, they at least had a fighting chance.

This is a memoir, not a work of research. I found it interesting since there is not much written on this element of WW2. The writing style is a bit over-the-top patriotic and classist (enlisted men come across as simpletons compared to the officers)

There are so many accounts of how the Allied armies "swept" through France and into Germany following Normandy that one may not realize the costly "nuts-and-bolts" angle of how victory over Germany was achieved. Thankfully, Belton Y. Cooper decided to write about his experiences as an Ordnance Liaison Officer with the 3rd Armored Division. DEATH TRAPS fills a large void in explaining how smaller units of brave, dedicated, resilient and innovative young men performed extraordinarily under extreme and deadly conditions.What I found enjoyable about Cooper's book was that as an officer, he effectively conveys the realistic plight of the average soldier that fought a bruised, but still deadly Wehrmacht for every inch of ground. DEATH TRAPS is not a chest-thumping tale of bravado or an account of an officer executing his sharp leadership skills, but more of a reality check as to how daunting the task was for American tankers who relied on inferior vehicles (generating the book's title) that were clearly no match for the German Panther and Tiger tanks.Cooper's account is straight-forward, detailed and interesting as his tour of duty in Western Europe saw his division engaged in most every major battle (Normandy, Falaise, across the Siegfried Line, Battle of the Bulge and crossing the Rhine). Each and every chapter is full of interesting stories that provide insight as to how haphazard and imperfect many battles were fought (poor leadership, poor decision-making and poor equipment). Cooper openly expresses his frustrations with the main US battle tank, the M4 Sherman, and all its deficiencies, which included an underpowered gun, thin armor and narrow tracks which inhibited its main advantage (other than numerical superiority) of being fast/nimble. He glorifies the young men (boys) that fought in them ... knowing how low their odds were in surviving an engagement with superior German armor. This is a running theme through the book as his unit was responsible for recovering and refitting disabled but salvageable tanks for reuse. There is more than one instance in the book that Cooper describes the necessity of removing the gory remains of a knocked-out tank's crew and applying several coats of paint inside to remove the smell of death for the tank's new occupants. The need to do this and convincingly patch-up any visible shell-holes was more to prevent the refitted tank's new crew from being demoralized by knowing the previous crew's fate. By the war's end, Cooper's division accounted for a 500% loss rate when replacement casualties are factored-in.I particularly enjoyed Cooper's detailed reporting of his experiences and the fact he saw so much. He recalls the division finally receiving a tank (Pershing tank) that could match the German Panther and even accounts for testing one of the two Super Pershing tanks made available (a vehicle he claimed to be the most powerful tank of the war). Cooper's educational background allows him to convey in layman's terms the differences between American and German tanks and how/why they excelled/failed. Other involvements include seeing/hearing V1 and V2 rockets, watching Allied air-ground attacks, Allied planes short-bombing their target (hitting allied soldiers) and an aerial duel between an American fighter and an ME-262 jet fighter.While the author comes across as a rather straight-laced officer, he doesn't shy away from describing the ineptitude of some of his fellow officers, including an example of one insubordinate officer using a gun to back-up his refusing an inept order that would have assured his death. Throughout the book, Cooper accounts for the ability of the US Army to adapt, adjust and improvise when facing challenges as a big reason for its success in Europe. Voices in the field were often heard and action was taken (attaching cutters to Sherman tank was and enlisted man's idea). On the contrary, Cooper acknowledges the German's rigid rank standard didn't allow much, if any flexibility and this proved to be detrimental to their success.One of the biggest attributes of this book was that it illustrated how imperfection and inferiority did not hinder the resolve of the American soldier but frequently served to spur innovation. For those looking for a different perspective as to how the war in Western Europe was fought and won, I would highly recommend DEATH TRAPS.

The experience as lived by the author. Doesn't glorify war - but shares the momentous events through realistic eyes.

Das Buch ist schon interessant. Leider werden einige Fakten unrichtig dargestellt wenn der Autor Behauptungen der amerikanischen Propaganda ungefragt uebernimmt so zum Beispiel den angeblichen Panzerkampf beim Dom und seinewahren Hintergründe ( Panther konnte Turm nicht drehen wegen Ziegelsteinen weshalb er aufgegeben werden musste). Auch die Behauptung der Pershing sei der beste Panzer im 2. WK gewesen duerfte zweifelhaft sein. Aber immerhin gibt er zu das der Sherman Panzer ein "Ami Kocher'( Landserjargon) war und hat damit Recht.Alles in allem ein trotzdem lesenswertes Buch.Wer gerade zum angeblichen Panzerduell in Koeln mehr tatsächliche Fakten erfahren will der kaufe die DVDs 1945 Koelner Filmschaetze hier ebenfalls bei Amazon erhältlich !!! Erstaunliches Filmmaterial.

In dem Buch death traps wird gut erklärt warum die amerikanischen Truppen mit dem völlig unbrauchbaren Sherman gegen die deutschen modernen Panther und Tiger kämpfen mussten. Nach Aussage von Belton Y. Cooper wurden von amerikanischer Seite nur die deutschen Kampfpanzer 3 und die Kampfpanzer 4 mit kurzer Kanone bewertet. Der Tiger und auch die sowjetischen T34 wurden überhaupt nicht ins Kalkül gezogen. Ferner wurde vorgesehen, dass die amerikanischen Sherman nicht gegen deutsche Panzer kämpfen sollen. Dies sollten die PAK-Einheiten übernehmen. Als Resultat dieser gravierenden Fehleinschätzungen wurde die Entwicklung, und vor allem die Herstellung des modernen M 26 Kampfpanzers endlos verzögert. Belton Y. Cooper vertritt die Meinung, dass hier General Patton eine große Mitschuld trug. Als "Der Panzerspezialist" war er anscheinend unangreifbar, seine Ansicht war entscheidend. In dem Buch Death Traps werden die Folgen dieser Fehleinschätzung drastisch geschildert. Hunderte Sherman Panzer fielen den deutschen Kampfpanzer zum Opfer. Belton Y. Cooper war Angehöriger einer Instandsetzungseinheit. Diese Einheiten mussten nach den Kämpfen die Toten aus den Panzern entfernen, die Panzer wieder reinigen und neu streichen. Der Autor vertritt sogar die Meinung, dass der Krieg um Monate früher hätte beendet werden, wenn die amerikanischen Truppen den M 26 frühzeitig zur Verfügung gehapt hätten.Nicht umsonst gab er dem Buch den Namen death traps ( Todesfallen).Ergebnis : Für jeden der sich für die Panzerwaffe interessiert ist das Buch ein Muß !

Sehr unterhaltsam geschrieben. Sehr erleuchtend. Beim lesen wird einiges deutlich warum deutsche Panzerkommandanten so viele amerikanische Panzer abschießen konnten. Es brauchte Mut um als angeschossene amerikanische Panzersoldat wieder in einen M4 Sherman Panzer hineinzuklettern und deutsche Panzer aufs neue zu bekämpfen. Respekt.Genau das gleiche muss den deutschen Panzersoldat einige Jahre davor gefüllt haben wenn er zum ersten mal gegenüber den russischen Panzer T34 stand. Auch mutige Männer, leider falscher Krieg.

Wer ein historisches Werk über den 2. Weltkrieg oder eine neutrale Betrachtung der US-Panzertruppe sucht wird enttäuscht werden. Dies Autor ist voreingenommen, patriotisch, sieht die Sache aus seiner begrenzten Weltsicht und mit seiner begrenzten Faktenlage. Kurz: Er ist ein Mensch der SEINE Erlebnisse niedergeschrieben hatDer Autor war Wartungsoffizier in einer US-Panzereinheit im ETO und beschreibt den Krieg aus seiner Sicht. Das ganze hat stark den Charakter eines Tagebuchs und macht nicht den Versuch eine wissenschaftliche oder neutrale Beschreibung der Kämpfe zu liefern. Es ist einfach "Der Krieg von 1st Leutenant Cooper" mit jeder Menge Anekdoten, einem guten Schuss "WIR Amerikaner" und "die bösen Deutschen" und ohne jeden Versuch etwas zu beschönigen. Wer einmal eine Sicht auf den 2. Weltkrieg jehnseits von "History Channel" und "Geissel-Guido" braucht, wer wissen will was Soldaten so "zwischen den Schlachten" machen dem sei das Buch empfohlen. Wer einen Einblick in die Arbeiten der REMF, der wenig beachteten Wartungs- und Versorgungssoldaten braucht - hier ist er.Sehr Interessant: Die Einheit des Autors war am "Panzergefecht vom Kölner Dom" beteiligt und er hat einige interessante Details die man aus anderen Quellen nicht bekommt.