Fury, the Movie

[Rrash]

Wouldn't mind seeing a modern movie about Sgt York.

Now we're talking.

What's wrong with the original?

Nothing. When are we watching it?

[VMI77]

Video on the last operational Tiger tank referenced above. According to the video 3rd Armor lost 90% of its tanks.

It was worse, much worse.
From "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper, a study of armored warfare in WW2:

The 3rd Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the Division had some 648 Sherman tanks completely destroyed in combat and had another 700 knocked out, repaired and put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580 percent. The 3rd spent 231 days in combat and suffered the following casualties: 2,540 killed, 7,331 wounded, 95 missing, and 139 captured. Total battle and non-battle casualties came to 16,122.

Actually, no. You can't really calculate the loss rate with the data given since we don't know how many of the original 232 tanks are part of the 648 destroyed or 700 knocked out and repaired. The 580% number comes from adding the number destroyed to the number knocked out and repaired and dividing by the original number of tanks. We can argue about what constitutes a "loss" but I wouldn't count knocked out and returned to operation as a loss. Still, we also don't know how many of those that were knocked out and returned to operation were subsequently destroyed. The 580% number assumes that all of them were, but if all of them remained operational the loss rate would be less than 50%. The 90% can't be determined from these figures since we don't know how many of the original 232 tanks survived, but the math suggests that less than 232 of the original tanks survived and that at least 1348 were ultimately destroyed. Anyway, mathematically you can't have a loss rate greater than 100%. For example, if you started out with 1,000 troops and added another 9,000 over time as reinforcements, and all were killed, the loss rate would still be 100%, not 900%.

[Abraham]

I just re-read my post in this thread and realized how inarticulate it was.

I said: "C'mon, our junior grade officers face the life threatening dangers/hardships of our EM's, without as many gut wrenching decisions. At least, most of the time..."

I don't know if I can clear this up, but I'll try.

I meant the EM, in battle, don't have as many gut wrenching decisions as the Jr. grade officers...

Ah, my proof reading skills are dreadful...